Despite much disagreement regarding how probabilistic information is best communicated, virtually no research has been done to determine what communication modes people prefer or what factors affect their communication preferences. To address these issues, we did a survey of 442 graduate and undergraduate students in several specialties and universities. Some group differences emerged, but overall, 34% expressed preference for both conveying and receiving information about uncertainty in numerical rather than verbal form , 30% expressed the opposite preferences, and 35% indicated that they preferred to receive such information numerically but to convey it verbally. Generally, respondents who endorsed the use of verbal information said that it is easier to use , as well as more natural and personal. Those preferring numerical information said that it is more precise. Virtually all respondents, however, evidenced a willingness to use the opposite of their initially preferred mode if the situation should warrant it. The willingness to switch from one mode to another was said to depend on the level of precision implied by the data and the importance of the issue, as was suggested by Budescu and Wallsten (1987). These results may be helpful in structuring risk communication strategies.The importance of risk communication has increased dramatically in recent years as the public has become more aware of and interested in environmental and medical issues that affect individuals and society. Although much has been written about the best modes for communicating with individuals about uncertainty, little research has been aimed at determining what modes people prefer or what factors affect their preferences. We present survey results relevant to these questions.To set the stage , we will review the issues very briefly. Although decision and risk analysis are frequently done in terms of estimated or judged probabilities (Morgan & Henrion, 1990;von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1986), the risk communication literature is virtually unanimous in stating that the presentation of statistical information alone is insufficient for communicating with the public (Fisher, 1991; Linnerooth-Bayer & Wahlstroorn, 1991;National This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grants BNS8608692 and BNS8908554 . We thankAnn Fisher and Baruch Fischhoff for comments on an earlier draft . R.Z . is in the Department of Marketing at Penn sylvania State . Correspondence should be addressed to T . S. Wallsten , Department of Psychology, Univer sity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill , NC 27599 -3270.Research Council, 1981;Slovic, 1986) or even for experts' communications to decision makers (Ruckelshaus, 1984). For example, The National Research Council (1981) wrote that It is usually dangerous for messages to characterize the overall level of uncertainty quantitatively, as might be done by describing statistical confidence intervals. In most situations expert assessments have multiple sources of uncertainty , and statistical measures do not adequat...