Publicized disputes between groups of scientists may force lay choices about groups’ credibility. One possible, little studied, credibility cue is vote-counting (proportions of scientists on either side): for example, “97%” of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. An online sample of 2600 Americans read a mock article about a scientific dispute, in a 13 (proportions: 100%–0%, 99%–1%, … 50%–50%, … 1%–99%, 0%–100% for Positions A and B, respectively) × 8 (scenarios: for example, dietary salt, dark matter) between-person experiment. Respondents reported reactions to the dispute, attitudes toward the topic, and views on science. Proportional information indirectly affected judged agreement but less so topic or science responses, controlling for scenarios and moderators, whether by actual proportions or differing contrasts of “consensus” versus “near-consensus.” Given little empirical research with conflicting findings, even these low effect sizes warrant further research on how vote-counting might help laypeople deal with scientific disputes.
AklinMUrpelainenJ (2014) Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy38: 173–177.
2.
AllumNSturgisPTabouraziDBrunton-SmithI (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science17: 35–54.
3.
BoneCAltaweelM (2014) Modeling micro-scale ecological processes and emergent patterns of mountain pine beetle epidemics. Ecological Modeling289: 45–58.
4.
BreakwellGMBeardsellS (1992) Gender, parental and peer influences upon science attitudes and activities. Public Understanding of Science1: 183–197.
5.
BubelaTNisbetMCBorcheltRBrungerFCritchleyCEinsiedelE. (2009) Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology27: 514–518.
6.
CameronTA (2005) Updating subjective risks in the presence of conflicting information: An application to climate change. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty30: 63–97.
7.
CampbellB (1985) Uncertainty as symbolic action in disputes among experts. Social Studies of Science15: 429–453.
8.
CollingridgeDReeveC (1986) Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy-Making. London: Frances Pinter.
9.
CollinsHEvansR (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.
CorbettJBDurfeeJL (2004) Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication26: 129–151.
11.
DeanMShepherdR (2007) Effects of information from sources in conflict and in consensus on perceptions of genetically modified food. Food Quality and Preference18: 460–469.
12.
DieckmannNFJohnsonBGregoryRMayorgaMHanPKJSlovicP (2016) Public perceptions of expert disagreement: Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?Public Understanding of Science26(3): 352–338.
13.
DoranPTZimmermanMK (2009) Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union90: 22–23.
14.
FaulFErdfelderELangA-GBuchnerA (2007) G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods39: 175–191.
15.
GlickmanMERaoSRSchultzMR (2014) False discovery rate control is a recommended alternative to Bonferroni-type adjustments in health studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology67: 850–857.
16.
GonzalezRWuG (1999) On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology38: 129–166.
17.
GuttelingJHanssenLvan der VeerNSeydelE (2006) Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science15: 103–112.
18.
HayesAFCaiL (2007) Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods39: 709–722.
19.
HollandKBloodRWImisonMChapmanSFogartyA (2012) Risk, expert uncertainty, and Australian news media: Public and private faces of expert opinion during the 2009 swine flu pandemic. Journal of Risk Research15: 657–671.
20.
IrwinAWynneB (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
JasanoffSWynneB (1998) Science and decision-making. In: RaynerSMaloneE (eds) Human Choice and Climate Change (Volume 1: The Societal Framework). Columbus, OH: Battelle Press, pp. 1–88.
22.
JohnsDMBayerRGaleaS (2013) Controversial salt report peppered with uncertainty. Science341: 1063–1064.
23.
JohnsonBB (2017) Experiments in lay cues to the credibility of competing scientists in scientific disputes. Manuscript in preparation.
24.
KahanDMJenkins-SmithHBramanD (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research14: 147–174.
25.
KaiserJ (2014) Antioxidants could spur tumors by acting on cancer gene. Science343: 477.
26.
KupferschmidtK (2013) Report reignites battle over low-salt diets. Science341: 908.
27.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems50: 348–373.
28.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly52: 155–194.
29.
MilesSFrewerLJ (2003) Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards. Journal of Risk Research6: 267–283.
MoscoviciS (1980) Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 13. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 209–239.
32.
MoscoviciS (1985) Innovation and minority influence. In: MoscoviciSMugnyGVan AvermaetE (eds) Perspectives on Minority Influence. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–52.
33.
MoyerMW (2014) Vitamins on trial. Nature510: 462–464.
34.
National Science Board (NSB) (2014) Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 (NSB 14–01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
35.
NisbetMC (2009) Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In: KahlorLStoutPA (eds) Understanding Science: New Agendas in Science Communication. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 40–67.
36.
O’ConnorBP (2000) SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers32: 396–402.
37.
RosenbergLJ (2015) Dark-matter QCD-axion searches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112: 12278–12281.
38.
RugglesSGenadekKGoekenRGroverJSobekM (2015) Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
39.
RyderJ (2001) Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education36: 1–44.
40.
SalomoneMF (2014) Judicial consensus and public opinion: Conditional response to Supreme Court majority size. Political Research Quarterly67: 320–334.
41.
SteelBSLachDSatyalVA (2006) Ideology and scientific credibility: Environmental policy in the American Pacific Northwest. Public Understanding of Science15: 481–495.
42.
SternPC (1991) Learning through conflict: A realistic strategy for risk communication. Policy Sciences24: 99–119.
43.
StilgoeJ (2007) The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks. Public Understanding of Science16: 45–61.
44.
TheilM (2002) The role of translations of verbal into numerical probability expressions in risk management: A meta-analysis. Journal of Risk Research5: 177–186.
45.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representations of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty5: 297–323.
Van der LindenSLClarkeCEMaibachEW (2015a) Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: Evidence from a randomized experiment. BMC Public Health15: 1207.
48.
Van der LindenSLLeiserowitzAAFeinbergGDMaibachEW (2014) How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: Plain facts, pie charts, or metaphors?Climatic Change Letters126: 255–262.
49.
Van der LindenSLLeiserowitzAAFeinbergGDMaibachEW (2015b) The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE10: e0118489.
50.
VogelG (2015) Embryo engineering alarm: Researchers call for restraint in genome editing. Science347: 1302–1303.
51.
WoodWLundgrenSOuelletteJABuscemeSBlackstoneT (1994) Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin115: 323–345.
52.
ZehrS (2000) Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science9: 85–103.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
