Scholars have recently suggested that communicating levels of scientific consensus (e.g. the percentage of scientists who agree about human-caused climate change) can shift public opinion toward the dominant scientific opinion. Initial research suggested that consensus communication effectively reduces public skepticism. However, other research failed to find a persuasive effect for those with conflicting prior beliefs. This study enters this contested space by experimentally testing how different levels of consensus shape perceptions of scientific certainty. We further examine how perceptions of certainty influence personal agreement and policy support. Findings indicate that communicating higher levels of consensus increases perceptions of scientific certainty, which is associated with greater personal agreement and policy support for non-political issues. We find some suggestive evidence that this mediated effect is moderated by participants’ overall trust in science, such that those with low trust in science fail to perceive higher agreement as indicative of greater scientific certainty.
AchterbergPde KosterWvan der WaalJ (2017) A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Understanding of Science26: 704–720.
3.
AklinMUrpelainenJ (2014) Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy38: 173–177.
4.
AndersonAAScheufeleDABrossardDCorleyEA (2012) The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research24: 225–237.
5.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social the moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51: 1173–1182.
BrewerPRLeyBL (2013) Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication35: 115–137.
8.
CookJNuccitelliDGreenSARichardsonMWinklerBPaintingRet al. (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters8: 1–7.
9.
CummingsL (2014) The “trust” heuristic: Arguments from authority in public health. Health Communication29: 1043–1056.
10.
DieckmannNFJohnsonBBGregoryRMaygoraMHanPKJSlovikPet al. (2015a) Public perceptions of expert disagreement: Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?Public Understanding of Science26: 325–338.
11.
DieckmannNFPetersEGregoryR (2015b) At home on the range? Lay interpretations of numerical uncertainty ranges. Risk Analysis35: 1281–1295.
12.
DingDMaibachEWZhaoXRoser-RenoufCLeiserowitzA (2011) Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change1: 462–466.
13.
DixonG (2016) Applying the gateway belief model to genetically modified food perceptions: New insights and additional questions. Journal of Communication66: 888–908.
14.
DruckmanJNBolsenT (2011) Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication61: 659–688.
15.
DunlapREMcCrightAM (2008) A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development50: 26–35.
16.
FeldmanLMaibachERoser-RenoufCLeiserowitzA (2012) Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics17: 3–31.
17.
FrederickS (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives19(4): 25–42.
18.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77: 167–187.
19.
HartPS (2013) The role of numeracy in moderating the influence of statistics in climate change messages. Public Understanding of Science22: 785–798.
20.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
HmielowskiJDFeldmanLMyersTALeiserowitzAMaibachEHmielowskiJDet al. (2014) An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science23: 866–883.
22.
JohnsonBB (2003) Further notes on public response to uncertainty in risks and science. Risk Analysis23: 781–789.
23.
JohnsonBB (2017) “Counting votes” in public responses to scientific disputes. Public Understanding of Science1–17. DOI: 10.1177/0963662517706451.
24.
JohnsonBBSlovicP (1998) Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research1: 261–279.
25.
KahanDMJenkinsSmith-HBramanD (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research14: 147–174.
26.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47: 263–292.
27.
LeeC-J (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication27: 240–267.
28.
LewandowskySGignacGEVaughanS (2012) The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change3: 399–404.
29.
LipkusIMSamsaGRimerBK (2001) General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making21: 37–44.
30.
LiuHPriestS (2009) Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science18: 704–718.
31.
LupiaA (2017) Now is the time : How to increase the value of social science. Social Research: An International Quarterly84: 669–694.
32.
MaddoxJ (1995) The prevalent distrust of science. Nature378: 435–437.
33.
MilesJ (2005) Tolerance and variance inflation factor. In: EverittBSHowellD (eds) Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, vol. 4. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 2055–2056.
PaolacciGChandlerJ (2014) Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science23: 184–188.
36.
PetersEVästfjällDSlovicPMertzCKMazzoccoKDickertS (2013) Numeracy and decision making numeracy. Psychological Science17: 407–413.
37.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1984) The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology46: 69–81.
PopperK (2005) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London; New York, NY: Routledge.
40.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers36: 717–731.
41.
SiegristM (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risk and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis20: 195–203.
42.
SiegristMCousinMEKastenholzHWiekA (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite49: 459–466.
van der LindenSLClarkeCEMaibachEW (2015a) Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: Evidence from a randomized experiment. BMC Public Health15: 1207.
46.
van der LindenSLLeiserowitzAAMaibachEW (2016) Communicating the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is an effective and depolarizing public engagement strategy: Experimental evidence from a large national replication study. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733956
47.
van der LindenSLLeiserowitzAAFeinbergGDMaibachEW (2015b) The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE. Epub ahead of print 25February. 10(2): e0118489.
