ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
Adapting Scenario Planning to Create an Expectation for Surprises: Going Beyond Probability and Plausibility in Risk Assessment.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential Surprise Theory as a Practical and Theoretical Cornerstone of the Uncertainty-Based Perspective on Risk.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026Article
- Adapting Scenario Planning to Create an Expectation for Surprises: Going Beyond Probability and Plausibility in Risk Assessment.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The need for risk assessments to take full account of uncertainty by going beyond probability and creating an expectation for surprises has recently been highlighted in this journal. This paper sets out an adaptation to the Intuitive Logics (IL) scenario-planning method that assists risk assessors to achieve this aim. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this adaptation through a controlled experiment. The controlled experiment took the form of a simulated IL scenario-planning exercise in which individuals assigned values representative of extreme outcomes to sets of simple and more complex clusters of driving forces under three experimental conditions representing alternative uncertainty expressions ("probable," "plausible," and "surprising"). The values assigned in the "probable" and "plausible" conditions were not significantly different from each other. However, the "surprising" condition resulted in the assignment of more extreme values than either of the other two conditions. The complexity of a set of clustered driving forces had no effect. A follow-up analysis showed that participants interpreted the words "probable" and "plausible" similarly. This is problematic for scenario methods like IL, which are claimed to stretch consideration of the future's potential extremity beyond what it would be using probability by instead employing plausibility. If participants interpret "probable" and "plausible" similarly, then using plausibility instead of probability will not stretch their thinking as desired. By adapting IL in the simple way this paper outlines, scenario planning can assist risk assessors to go beyond both probability and plausibility, thereby taking fuller account of uncertainty and improving anticipation of surprises.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.