Citation

Joslyn SL, Leclerc JE. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2012; 18(1): 126-140.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/a0025185

PMID

21875244

Abstract

Although uncertainty is inherent in weather forecasts, explicit numeric uncertainty estimates are rarely included in public forecasts for fear that they will be misunderstood. Of particular concern are situations in which precautionary action is required at low probabilities, often the case with severe events. At present, a categorical weather warning system is used. The work reported here tested the relative benefits of several forecast formats, comparing decisions made with and without uncertainty forecasts. In three experiments, participants assumed the role of a manager of a road maintenance company in charge of deciding whether to pay to salt the roads and avoid a potential penalty associated with icy conditions. Participants used overnight low temperature forecasts accompanied in some conditions by uncertainty estimates and in others by decision advice comparable to categorical warnings. Results suggested that uncertainty information improved decision quality overall and increased trust in the forecast. Participants with uncertainty forecasts took appropriate precautionary action and withheld unnecessary action more often than did participants using deterministic forecasts. When error in the forecast increased, participants with conventional forecasts were reluctant to act. However, this effect was attenuated by uncertainty forecasts. Providing categorical decision advice alone did not improve decisions. However, combining decision advice with uncertainty estimates resulted in the best performance overall. The results reported here have important implications for the development of forecast formats to increase compliance with severe weather warnings as well as other domains in which one must act in the face of uncertainty. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).

Language: en