Does consensus messaging about contested science issues influence perceptions of consensus and/or personal beliefs? This question remains open, particularly for topics other than climate change and samples outside the United States. In a Spanish national sample (N = 5087), we use preregistered survey experiments to examine differential efficacy of variations in consensus messaging for vaccines and genetically modified organisms. We find that no variation of consensus messaging influences vaccine beliefs. For genetically modified organisms, about which misperceptions are particularly prevalent in our sample, we find that scientific consensus messaging increases perception of consensus and personal belief that genetically modified organisms are safe, and decreases support for a ban. Increasing degree of consensus did not have consistent effects. Although individual differences (e.g. a conspiratorial worldview) predict these genetically modified organism beliefs, they do not undercut consensus message effects. While we observe relatively modest effect sizes, consensus messaging may be able to improve the accuracy of beliefs about some contentious topics.
AndrighettoGVriensE (2022) A research agenda for the study of social norm change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A380(2227): 20200411.
2.
AngristJDPischkeJ-S (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
AttwellKSmithDT (2017) Parenting as politics: Social identity theory and vaccine hesitant communities. International Journal of Health Governance22(3): 183–198.
4.
BayesRBolsenTDruckmanJN (2023) A research agenda for climate change communication and public opinion: The role of scientific consensus messaging and beyond. Environmental Communication17: 16–34.
5.
BenegalSDScruggsLA (2018) Correcting misinformation about climate change: The impact of partisanship in an experimental setting. Climatic Change148(1–2): 61–80.
6.
CareyJMGuessAMLoewenPJMerkleyENyhanBPhillipsJB, et al. (2022) The ephemeral effects of fact-checks on Covid-19 misperceptions in the United States, Great Britain and Canada. Nature Human Behaviour6(2): 236–243.
7.
CeccoliSHixonW (2012) Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. International Political Science Review33(3): 301–319.
ChinnSHartPS (2021b) Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: Inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest. Climatic Change167(3–4): 47.
10.
ChinnSLaneDSHartPS (2018) In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 807–823.
11.
ClarkeCEWeberling McKeeverBHoltonADixonGN (2015) The influence of weight-of-evidence messages on (vaccine) attitudes: A sequential mediation model. Journal of Health Communication20(11): 1302–1309.
12.
CookJLewandowskyS (2016) Rational irrationality: Modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks. Topics in Cognitive Science8(1): 160–179.
13.
CookJOreskesNDoranPTAndereggWRVerheggenBMaibachEW, et al. (2016) Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters11(4): 048002.
DeryuginaTShurchkovO (2016) The effect of information provision on public consensus about climate change. PLoS One11(4): e0151469.
16.
DeStefanoFShimabukuroTT (2019) The MMR vaccine and autism. Annual Review of Virology29: 585–600.
17.
DixonGN (2016) Applying the gateway belief model to genetically modified food perceptions: New insights and additional questions. Journal of Communication66(6): 888–908.
18.
DixonGNMcKeeverBWHoltonAEClarkeCEoscoG (2015) The power of a picture: Overcoming scientific misinformation by communicating weight-of-evidence information with visual exemplars. Journal of Communication65(4): 639–659.
19.
EganPJMullinM (2017) Climate change: Us public opinion. Annual Review of Political Science20: 209–227.
20.
FlynnDNyhanBReiflerJ (2017) The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology38(S1): 127–150.
21.
FrancoAMalhotraNSimonovitsGZigerellL (2017) Developing standards for post-hoc weighting in population-based survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science4(2): 161–172.
22.
FunkCRainieLPageD (2015) Americans, politics and science issues. Pew Research Center, 1July, p. 175.
23.
GoldbergMHvan der LindenSBallewMTRosenthalSALeiserowitzA (2019) Convenient but biased? The reliability of convenience samples in research about attitudes toward climate change. Preprints. DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/2h7as.
24.
GoldbergMHvan der LindenSBallewMTRosenthalSAGustafsonALeiserowitzA (2019) The experience of consensus: Video as an effective medium to communicate scientific agreement on climate change. Science Communication41(5): 659–673.
25.
GustDWeberDWeintraubEKennedyASoudFBurnsA (2008) Physicians who do and do not recommend children get all vaccinations. Journal of Health Communication13(6): 573–582.
26.
HasellAStroudNJ (2020) The differential effects of knowledge on perceptions of genetically modified food safety. International Journal of Public Opinion Research32(1): 111–131.
27.
JachimowiczJMHauserOPOâBrienJDShermanEGalinskyAD (2018) The critical role of second-order normative beliefs in predicting energy conservation. Nature Human Behaviour2(10): 757–764.
28.
KerrJRWilsonMS (2018a) Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and gm food safety. PLoS One13(7): e0200295.
29.
KerrJRWilsonMS (2018b) Perceptions of scientific consensus do not predict later beliefs about the reality of climate change: A test of the gateway belief model using cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology59: 107–110.
30.
KhannaKSoodG (2018) Motivated responding in studies of factual learning. Political Behavior40: 79–101.
31.
KobayashiK (2018) The impact of perceived scientific and social consensus on scientific beliefs. Science Communication40(1): 63–88.
32.
KobayashiK (2019) Communicating highly divergent levels of scientific and social consensus: Its effects on people’s scientific beliefs. Social Influence14(3–4): 65–76.
33.
KuklinskiJHQuirkPJJeritJSchwiederDRichRF (2000) Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics62(3): 790–816.
34.
LandrumARSlaterMH (2020) Open questions in scientific consensus messaging research. Environmental Communication14: 1033–1046.
35.
LandrumARHallmanWKJamiesonKH (2019) Examining the impact of expert voices: Communicating the scientific consensus on genetically-modified organisms. Environmental Communication13(1): 51–70.
36.
LapinskiMKRimalRN (2005) An explication of social norms. Communication Theory15(2): 127–147.
37.
LiJWagnerMW (2020) The value of not knowing: Partisan cue-taking and belief updating of the uninformed, the ambiguous, and the misinformed. Journal of Communication70(5): 646–669.
38.
LyonsBAMerolaVReiflerJ (2019) Not just asking questions: Effects of implicit and explicit conspiracy information about vaccines and genetic modification. Health Communication34(14): 1741–1750.
39.
LyonsBAMerolaVReiflerJ (2020) Shifting medical guidelines: Compliance and spillover effects for revised antibiotic recommendations. Social Science & Medicine255: 112943.
40.
MaYDixonGHmielowskiJD (2019) Psychological reactance from reading basic facts on climate change: The role of prior views and political identification. Environmental Communication13(1): 71–86.
41.
McGrathMC (2021) Experiments on problems of climate change. In: DruckmanJGreenD (eds) Advances in Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 592–615.
42.
MildenbergerMTingleyD (2017) Beliefs about climate beliefs: The importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. British Journal of Political Science49(4): 1279–1307.
43.
MottaMCallaghanTSylvesterS (2018) Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes. Social Science & Medicine211: 274–281.
44.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
45.
PasekJ (2018) It’s not my consensus: Motivated reasoning and the sources of scientific illiteracy. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 787–806.
46.
RodeJBDentALBenedictCNBrosnahanDBMartinezRLDittoPH (2021) Influencing climate change attitudes in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology76: 101623.
47.
RohrerJMHunermundPArslanRCElsonM (2021) That’s a lot to process! Pitfalls of popular path models. PsyArxiv. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/paeb7.
48.
RutjensBTSuttonRMvan der LeeR (2018) Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin44(3): 384–405.
49.
SpältiAKLyonsBAStoeckelFStöckliSSzewachPMérolaV, et al. (2023) Partisanship and anti-elite worldviews as correlates of science and health beliefs in the multiparty system of Spain. Public Understanding of Science32(6): 761–780. DOI: 10.1177/09636625231154131.
50.
van der LindenSL (2016) Why doctors should convey the medical consensus on vaccine safety. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine21(3): 119.
51.
van der LindenSLClarkeCEMaibachEW (2015) Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: Evidence from a randomized experiment. BMC Public Health15(1): 1–5.
52.
van der LindenSLLeiserowitzAAFeinbergGDMaibachEW (2014) How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: Plain facts, pie charts or metaphors?Climatic Change126(1–2): 255–262.
53.
van der LindenSLLeiserowitzAAFeinbergGDMaibachEW (2015) The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS One10(2): e0118489.
54.
van der LindenSLLeiserowitzAAMaibachEW (2019) The gateway belief model: A large-scale replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology62: 49–58.
55.
WunderlichSGattoKA (2015) Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Advances in Nutrition6(6): 842–851.
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.
