Citation

LeClerc J, Joslyn S. Risk Anal. 2015; 35(3): 385-395.

Affiliation

University of Washington, Dept. of Psychology, Box 351525, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. jleclerc@uw.edu.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Society for Risk Analysis, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/risa.12336

PMID

25627345

Abstract

Despite improvements in forecasting extreme weather events, noncompliance with weather warnings among the public remains a problem. Although there are likely many reasons for noncompliance with weather warnings, one important factor might be people's past experiences with false alarms. The research presented here explores the role of false alarms in weather-related decision making. Over a series of trials, participants used an overnight low temperature forecast and advice from a decision aid to decide whether to apply salt treatment to a town's roads to prevent icy conditions or take the risk of withholding treatment, which resulted in a large penalty when freezing temperatures occurred. The decision aid gave treatment recommendations, some of which were false alarms, i.e., treatment was recommended but observed temperatures were above freezing. The rate at which the advice resulted in false alarms was manipulated between groups.

RESULTS suggest that very high and very low false alarm rates led to inferior decision making, but that lowering the false alarm rate slightly did not significantly affect compliance or decision quality. However, adding a probabilistic uncertainty estimate in the forecasts improved both compliance and decision quality. These findings carry implications about how weather warnings should be communicated to the public.

Language: en