Communicating Probability Information in Hurricane Forecasts: Assessing Statements that Forecasters Use on Social Media and Implications for Public Assessments of Reliability

IF 0.8 Q4 METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES Journal of Operational Meteorology Pub Date : 2021-11-10 DOI:10.15191/nwajom.2021.0907
Zoey Rosen, Makenzie J. Krocak, J. Ripberger, Rachael N. Cross, Emily D. Lenhardt, Carol L. Silva, H. Jenkins‐Smith
{"title":"Communicating Probability Information in Hurricane Forecasts: Assessing Statements that Forecasters Use on Social Media and Implications for Public Assessments of Reliability","authors":"Zoey Rosen, Makenzie J. Krocak, J. Ripberger, Rachael N. Cross, Emily D. Lenhardt, Carol L. Silva, H. Jenkins‐Smith","doi":"10.15191/nwajom.2021.0907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Forecasters are responsible for predicting the weather and communicating risk with stakeholders and members of the public. This study investigates the statements that forecasters use to communicate probability information in hurricane forecasts and the impact these statements may have on how members of the public evaluate forecast reliability. We use messages on Twitter to descriptively analyze probability statements in forecasts leading up to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Florence from forecasters in three different groups: the National Hurricane Center, local Weather Forecast Offices, and in the television broadcast community. We then use data from a representative survey of United States adults to assess how members of the public wish to receive probability information and the impact of information format on assessments of forecast reliability. Results from the descriptive analysis indicate forecasters overwhelmingly use words and phrases in place of numbers to communicate probability information. In addition, the words and phrases forecasters use are generally vague in nature -- they seldom include rank adjectives (e.g., “low” or “high”) to qualify blanket expressions of uncertainty (e.g., “there is a chance of flooding”). Results from the survey show members of the public generally prefer both words/phrases and numbers when receiving forecast information. They also show information format affects public judgments of forecast reliability; on average, people believe forecasts are more reliable when they include numeric probability information.","PeriodicalId":44039,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operational Meteorology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Operational Meteorology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15191/nwajom.2021.0907","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Forecasters are responsible for predicting the weather and communicating risk with stakeholders and members of the public. This study investigates the statements that forecasters use to communicate probability information in hurricane forecasts and the impact these statements may have on how members of the public evaluate forecast reliability. We use messages on Twitter to descriptively analyze probability statements in forecasts leading up to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Florence from forecasters in three different groups: the National Hurricane Center, local Weather Forecast Offices, and in the television broadcast community. We then use data from a representative survey of United States adults to assess how members of the public wish to receive probability information and the impact of information format on assessments of forecast reliability. Results from the descriptive analysis indicate forecasters overwhelmingly use words and phrases in place of numbers to communicate probability information. In addition, the words and phrases forecasters use are generally vague in nature -- they seldom include rank adjectives (e.g., “low” or “high”) to qualify blanket expressions of uncertainty (e.g., “there is a chance of flooding”). Results from the survey show members of the public generally prefer both words/phrases and numbers when receiving forecast information. They also show information format affects public judgments of forecast reliability; on average, people believe forecasts are more reliable when they include numeric probability information.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
飓风预报中的概率信息交流:预报员在社交媒体上使用的评估声明及其对公众可靠性评估的影响
天气预报员负责预测天气,并与利益相关者和公众沟通风险。这项研究调查了预报员在飓风预报中用来传达概率信息的声明,以及这些声明可能对公众如何评估预报可靠性产生的影响。我们使用推特上的消息来描述性地分析三个不同小组的预报员对飓风哈维、伊尔玛、玛丽亚和佛罗伦萨的预测中的概率陈述:国家飓风中心、当地天气预报办公室和电视广播社区。然后,我们使用美国成年人代表性调查的数据来评估公众希望如何获得概率信息,以及信息格式对预测可靠性评估的影响。描述性分析的结果表明,预测者绝大多数使用单词和短语来代替数字来传达概率信息。此外,预报员使用的单词和短语通常性质模糊——它们很少包括等级形容词(例如“低”或“高”)来限定不确定性的笼统表达(例如“有可能发生洪水”)。调查结果显示,公众在接收预测信息时通常更喜欢单词/短语和数字。它们还表明,信息格式会影响公众对预测可靠性的判断;平均而言,人们认为,当预测包含数字概率信息时,预测更可靠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Operational Meteorology
Journal of Operational Meteorology METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊最新文献
A Tale of Two Hazards: Studying Broadcast Meteorologist Communication of Simultaneous Tornado and Flash Flood (TORFF) Events A Change in the Weather: Understanding Public Usage of Weather Apps Convection Initiation Forecasting Using Synthetic Satellite Imagery from the Warn-on-Forecast System Interpreting Warn-on-Forecast System Guidance, Part I: Review of Probabilistic Guidance Concepts, Product Design, and Best Practices End-User Threat Perception: Building Confidence to Make Decisions Ahead of Severe Weather
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1