Survey of 2,100 Translators Finds Persistent Misrendering of English Probability Terms in Emergency Communications

27 October 2026

Verbal probability terms like "possible" or "likely" are consistently misunderstood in emergency risk communication, finds a new review of 43 studies. The reasons have to do with how we process words and numbers. And the consequences could affect lives in real-time crisis situations.

Studies across multiple fields show that when people hear a vague probability--"possible"--they do not give it the same numeric meaning. One 2022 review in Trends in Cognitive Science identified uncertainty in decoded meaning as a core misunderstanding in risk communication. At the severe end, it found, unclear probabilities can leave the receiver "manifestly less well-informed, and potentially actively misled." A 2023 study of non-native speakers interpreting these terms found "extremely variable" numeric interpretations of common terminology.

How big is the gap in probability meaning? In one experimental study, the term "possible", meant to imply a 40% chance, was interpreted as anything from 5% to 95%. Another study called verbal probabilities an "inherently imprecise" measure. "Sender and receiver often do not share the same understanding" of the terminology, its authors wrote in Scientific Reports.

Why, then, does the subject persist in official warnings? Risk communicators say they rely on verbal terms to make the message more accessible. "Often, [probability] is conveyed in terms of 'chance' for a lay audience," a FEMA manual from 2022 notes. But if we know that "possible" runs from 5% to 95%, how helpful is it for audiences to base decisions on vague terms alone?

Vulnerable populations at risk

Non-native speakers may be especially affected. Verbal probability misunderstandings are "particularly problematic" when translations rely on subjective terms rather than facts, a NOAA researcher observed. That's because "there is a serious lack of cross-linguistic agreement on the mapping of verbal terms to numeric values." Disaster responders should prioritize clarity in all communications.

Writing warnings "in simple terms" helps, FEMA advised last year. But exact numeric ranges for even common terms—such as establishing a 20% to 30% likelihood where appropriate—should "appear directly alongside the verbal phrase," recommended 2023 research on public communication.

Another starting point is risk assessment: in hazardous scenarios, underestimating risk proves more dangerous than overestimating it, warned researchers in the Journal of Disaster Prevention. In practice, this means emergency communications should account for the full realistic range of potential outcomes.

Probability phrases alone cannot ensure accurate public response. So what should emergency managers do? For one, "probability terms should include corresponding numeric ranges whenever used," a 2024 review of emergency protocols recommended. Beyond just attaching numbers, public warnings should present them as X-in-100 frequency statements, the same review advised. Operationally, these prove more intuitive than percentage terms, another study found. Even simplified fractions like 1-in-5 are effective.

New guidelines have followed, from updated NOAA manuals to revised FEMA warning templates. Yet implementation remains inconsistent. In a recent survey, 75% of 2,100 emergency translators reported probability term discrepancies in their work across 20 languages.

For example, English "possible" might translate unpredictably across languages, sometimes conveying unintended certainty or doubt. Adding explicit numeric probabilities alongside verbal terms could improve understanding—and save lives.