Communicating Conservation Status: How Different Statistical Assessment Criteria Affect Perceptions of Extinction Risk.

Although alternative forms of statistical and verbal information are routinely used to convey species' extinction risk to policymakers and the public, little is known about their effects on audience information processing and risk perceptions. To address this gap in literature, we report on an experiment that was designed to explore how perceptions of extinction risk differ as a function of five different assessment benchmarks (Criteria A-E) used by scientists to classify species within IUCN Red List risk levels (e.g., Critically Endangered, Vulnerable), as well as the role of key individual differences in these effects (e.g., rational and experiential thinking styles, environmental concern). Despite their normative equivalence within the IUCN classification system, results revealed divergent effects of specific assessment criteria: on average, describing extinction risk in terms of proportional population decline over time (Criterion A) and number of remaining individuals (Criterion D) evoked the highest level of perceived risk, whereas the single-event probability of a species becoming extinct (Criterion E) engendered the least perceived risk. Furthermore, participants scoring high in rationality (analytic thinking) were less prone to exhibit these biases compared to those low in rationality. Our findings suggest that despite their equivalence in the eyes of scientific experts, IUCN criteria are indeed capable of engendering different levels of risk perception among lay audiences, effects that carry direct and important implications for those tasked with communicating about conservation status to diverse publics.