@article{BubeckBotzenLaudanetal.2018,
  author    = {Bubeck, Philip and Botzen, W. J. Wouter and Laudan, Jonas and Aerts, Jeroen C. J. H. and Thieken, Annegret},
  title     = {Insights into flood-coping appraisals of protection motivation theory},
  series = {Risk analysis},
  volume    = {38},
  journal   = {Risk analysis},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0272-4332},
  doi       = {10.1111/risa.12938},
  pages     = {1239 -- 1257},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Protection motivation theory (PMT) has become a popular theory to explain the risk-reducing behavior of residents against natural hazards. PMT captures the two main cognitive processes that individuals undergo when faced with a threat, namely, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. The latter describes the evaluation of possible response measures that may reduce or avert the perceived threat. Although the coping appraisal component of PMT was found to be a better predictor of protective intentions and behavior, little is known about the factors that influence individuals' coping appraisals of natural hazards. More insight into flood-coping appraisals of PMT, therefore, are needed to better understand the decision-making process of individuals and to develop effective risk communication strategies. This study presents the results of two surveys among more than 1,600 flood-prone households in Germany and France. Five hypotheses were tested using multivariate statistics regarding factors related to flood-coping appraisals, which were derived from the PMT framework, related literature, and the literature on social vulnerability. We found that socioeconomic characteristics alone are not sufficient to explain flood-coping appraisals. Particularly, observational learning from the social environment, such as friends and neighbors, is positively related to flood-coping appraisals. This suggests that social norms and networks play an important role in flood-preparedness decisions. Providing risk and coping information can also have a positive effect. Given the strong positive influence of the social environment on flood-coping appraisals, future research should investigate how risk communication can be enhanced by making use of the observed social norms and network effects.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{McDowellKause2021,
  author    = {McDowell, Michelle and Kause, Astrid},
  title     = {Communicating uncertainties about the effects of medical interventions using different display formats},
  series = {Risk analysis : an international journal},
  volume    = {41},
  journal   = {Risk analysis : an international journal},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0272-4332},
  doi       = {10.1111/risa.13739},
  pages     = {2220 -- 2239},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Communicating uncertainties in scientific evidence is important to accurately reflect scientific knowledge , increase public understanding of uncertainty, and to signal transparency and honesty in reporting. While techniques have been developed to facilitate the communication of uncertainty, many have not been empirically tested, compared for communicating different types of uncertainty, or their effects on different cognitive, trust, and behavioral outcomes have not been evaluated. The present study examined how a point estimate, imprecise estimate, conflicting estimates, or a statement about the lack of evidence about treatment effects, influenced participant's responses to communications about medical evidence. For each type of uncertainty, we adapted three display formats to communicate the information: tables, bar graphs, and icon arrays. We compared participant's best estimates of treatment effects, as well as effects on recall, subjective evaluations (understandability and usefuleness), certainty perceptions, perceptions of trustworthiness of the information, and behavioral intentions. We did not find any detrimental effects from communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to a point estimate across any outcome. Furthermore, there were more favorable responses to communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to lack of evidence, where participants estimated the treatment would improve outcomes by 30-50\% relative to a placebo. There were no differences across display formats, suggesting that, if well-designed, it may not matter which format is used. Future research on specific display formats or uncertainty types and with larger sample sizes would be needed to detect small effects. Implications for the communication of uncertainty are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}