Lost in translation? Interpretations of the probability phrases used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in China and the UK

Tackling climate change is a global challenge and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the organisation charged with communicating the risks, dangers and mechanisms underlying climate change to both policy makers and the general public. The IPCC has traditionally used words (e.g., ‘likely’) in place of numbers (‘70% chance’) to communicate risk and uncertainty information. The IPCC assessment reports have been published in six languages, but the consistency of the interpretation of these words crossculturally has yet to be investigated. In two studies, we find considerable variation in the interpretation of the IPCC’s probability expressions between the Chinese and British public. Whilst British interpretations differ somewhat from the IPCC’s prescriptions, Chinese interpretations differ to a much greater degree and show more variation. These results add weight to continuing calls for the IPCC to make greater use of numbers in its forecasts. LOST IN TRANSLATION? 3 Lost in translation? Cross-cultural interpretations of the probability phrases used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013/2014 sees the release of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC assessment reports have played a central role in bringing climate change science to the attention of policy makers, global media and the general public. Through the publication of probabilistic statements about climate risks and impacts, the IPCC has had a powerful influence on the concept of climate change in public and media discourses (Hulme, 2010). It is essential, therefore, to understand how the information that the IPCC conveys is understood by members of the public. The IPCC has previously prescribed that risk and uncertainty information should be communicated with words (e.g., ‘it is unlikely that...’) rather than numbers (‘there is a 2030% chance that...’), with the intended numerical ranges of these words outlined at the start of the reports (see Table 1; IPCC, 2007). Research has shown that there is a high degree of variability in how these verbal probability expressions (VPEs) are interpreted (Beyth-Marom, 1982; Brun & Teigen, 1988; Budescu, Broomell, & Por, 2009; Budescu, Por, & Broomell, 2012; Budescu & Wallsten, 1985; Wallsten, Budescu, & Zwick, 1993). Furthermore, the interpretations of these expressions have been shown to be affected by characteristics of the events described, such as the event’s base rate (how likely it is to occur in general Fischer & Jungermann, 1996; Wallsten et al., 1993; Weber & Hilton, 1990) and its severity. Expressions referring to very negative outcomes, for example, are interpreted as denoting a higher probability than expressions referring to more neutral outcomes (Harris & Corner, 2011; Weber & Hilton, 1990). It has, furthermore, been shown that English speaking LOST IN TRANSLATION? 4 participants’ interpretations of these verbal probability expressions are often not in line with the IPCC’s intended probabilities (Budescu et al., 2009, 2012). Tackling climate change is, however, a global problem. Consequently, the IPCC reports have been published in six languages. This results in an additional difficulty for the communication of risk and uncertainty information with VPEs, suggesting yet another source of variance and thus inconsistency in the understanding of risks described with VPEs. The VPEs outlined in Table 1 must be translated such that the same meaning is conveyed across languages and cultures. Little research has been undertaken on the cross-cultural interpretation and, indeed, translation of VPEs. Evidence from accounting suggests that differences will arise for both translational and cultural reasons (Davidson & Chrisman, 1993, 1994; Doupnik & Richter, 2003, 2004). As the world’s key emerging economic and political power, and given the potential for human behavior to mitigate climate change risks, what Chinese citizens think about climate change is of considerable importance (Geall, 2011). Moreover, previous research has shown Chinese participants to have a less consistent, and less precise lexicon for describing numeric probabilities (Lau & Ranyard, 1999). We therefore focussed our cross-cultural investigation of the interpretations of the VPEs used by the IPCC on China. The IPCC provides guidance as to the numerical ranges implied by its VPEs at the outset of its reports. Budescu et al. (2009, 2012) have shown that the typical guidance – provided in isolation from the use of the VPEs – does not result in high levels of consistency between participants’ interpretations and the IPCC’s prescriptions. IPCC reports are many pages long and it is a strain on participants’ cognitive resources to have to keep track of the numerical equivalents of the VPEs used if they do not fit with participants’ natural interpretations. The closer the IPCC usage can be to the natural interpretations of participants, the more natural and effective the communication will be. LOST IN TRANSLATION? 5 Study 1 Study 1 investigated the interpretations of the VPEs used by the IPCC across the UK and China in a homogenous sample of first-year undergraduate psychology students.