The Role of Type and Source of Uncertainty on the Processing of Climate Models Projections.
The Role of Type and Source of Uncertainty on the Processing of Climate Models Projections.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00403
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Budescu DV
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Benjamin DM;Budescu DV
科学家们一致认为，气候变化是由于人类活动造成的，但对于具体的后果及其时间表，分歧较小。气候预测之间的分歧是由于气候模型的复杂性，这些模型在结构、参数、初始条件等方面存在差异。我们通过向参与者提供来自多个专家的预测，研究不同的不确定性来源如何影响人们对气候变化信息的解释和反应。参与者观察了三种类型的海平面上升预测：(1)精确，但相互冲突；(2)不准确，但一致；(3)混合，既相互矛盾，又不精确。他们估计了最有可能的海平面上升，提供了一系列可能的值，并根据几个特征对集合进行了评级--模糊性、可信度、完整性等。在研究1中，每个人都看到了相同的混合集合。我们发现，参与者对来源之间的不确定性很敏感，但对使用哪种模型的不确定性不敏感。对于评估任务，冲突和不精确的影响被结合在一起，而对于特征评级则是折衷的。估计更接近专家最初的预测，在不精确的情况下，布景的评级更有利。在混合状态下，估计与专家的一致性最差(比专家的范围更窄)，但参与者对冲突集的评价最差。在研究2中，我们通过创建几个结合了冲突和不精确度的不同区间集来更详细地研究混合情况。有两个因素驱动感知差异：重叠--预测集合的结构(无论是相交的、嵌套的、相切的还是不相交的)--和不对称--集合的平衡。估计主要是由不对称驱动的，偏好主要是由重叠驱动的。不对称集合与专家的一致性最差：估计范围较窄，对最有可能值的估计进一步低于集合平均值。相交和嵌套集的评级类似于不精确，而不相交和相切集的评级类似于冲突。我们的目标是确定信息集合中的哪些潜在因素以一致的、可预测的方式驱动对不确定性的感知。这两项研究使我们得出结论，对一致的看法需要交叉和平衡，而过于精确的预测会导致更大的不同看法，并更有可能使公众怀疑和曲解信息。
Scientists agree that the climate is changing due to human activities, but there is less agreement about the specific consequences and their timeline. Disagreement among climate projections is attributable to the complexity of climate models that differ in their structure, parameters, initial conditions, etc. We examine how different sources of uncertainty affect people’s interpretation of, and reaction to, information about climate change by presenting participants forecasts from multiple experts. Participants viewed three types of sets of sea-level rise projections: (1) precise, but conflicting; (2) imprecise, but agreeing, and (3) hybrid that were both conflicting and imprecise. They estimated the most likely sea-level rise, provided a range of possible values and rated the sets on several features – ambiguity, credibility, completeness, etc. In Study 1, everyone saw the same hybrid set. We found that participants were sensitive to uncertainty between sources, but not to uncertainty about which model was used. The impacts of conflict and imprecision were combined for estimation tasks and compromised for feature ratings. Estimates were closer to the experts’ original projections, and sets were rated more favorably under imprecision. Estimates were least consistent with (narrower than) the experts in the hybrid condition, but participants rated the conflicting set least favorably. In Study 2, we investigated the hybrid case in more detail by creating several distinct interval sets that combine conflict and imprecision. Two factors drive perceptual differences: overlap – the structure of the forecast set (whether intersecting, nested, tangent, or disjoint) – and asymmetry – the balance of the set. Estimates were primarily driven by asymmetry, and preferences were primarily driven by overlap. Asymmetric sets were least consistent with the experts: estimated ranges were narrower, and estimates of the most likely value were shifted further below the set mean. Intersecting and nested sets were rated similarly to imprecision, and ratings of disjoint and tangent sets were rated like conflict. Our goal was to determine which underlying factors of information sets drive perceptions of uncertainty in consistent, predictable ways. The two studies lead us to conclude that perceptions of agreement require intersection and balance, and overly precise forecasts lead to greater perceptions of disagreement and a greater likelihood of the public discrediting and misinterpreting information.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
8.4
作者：
Frederick, S
通讯作者：
Frederick, S
DOI：
10.1002/bs.3830090304
发表时间：
1964-01-01
期刊：
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE
影响因子：
--
作者：
BECKER, GM;DEGROOT, MH;MARSCHAK, J
通讯作者：
MARSCHAK, J
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.1317504111
发表时间：
2014-09-16
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
Fischhoff, Baruch;Davis, Alex L.
通讯作者：
Davis, Alex L.
DOI：
10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.005
发表时间：
2011-03-01
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Du, Ning;Budescu, David V.;Omer, Thomas C.
通讯作者：
Omer, Thomas C.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Fischer, GW;Carmon, Z;Zauberman, G
通讯作者：
Zauberman, G