Using a News Article to Convey Climate Science Consensus Information

Abstract

The current study investigates how people respond to a climate science consensus statement embedded within a news article. Participants (N = 1,048) were randomly assigned to read a news article about climate change, read the same article with a scientific consensus message included, read a simple consensus statement, or a control condition. Participants in consensus conditions had increased perceptions of scientific agreement compared with those who did not receive consensus information. Moreover, the article was similarly effective as an overt consensus statement. However, neither consensus statement affected other climate change attitudes, suggesting the effect may be limited to consensus perceptions.

Keywords

consensus messaging climate change gateway belief model news articles

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bayes

Bolsen

Druckman

J. N.

(2020). A research agenda for climate change communication and public opinion: The role of scientific consensus messaging and beyond. Environmental Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1805343

Bisgaard

(2019). How getting the facts right can fuel partisan-motivated reasoning. American Journal of Political Science, 63(4), 824-839. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12432

Boas

T. C.

Christenson

D. P.

Glick

D. M.

(2020). Recruiting large online samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(2), 232-250. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.28

Bolsen

Druckman

J. N.

(2018). Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(3), 389-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217737855

Bolsen

Leeper

T. J.

Shapiro

M. A.

(2014). Doing what others do: Norms, science, and collective action on global warming. American Politics Research, 42(1), 65-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X13484173

Borenstein

(2018, October 15). Global warming to leave us crying in our costlier beer. AP News. https://apnews.com/3f7f6cab367a489fb41d728f8a69f63b

Brewer

P. R.

McKnight

(2017). “A statistically representative climate change debate”: Satirical television news, scientific consensus, and public perceptions of global warming. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 25(3), 166-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2017.1324453

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Chinn

Lane

D. S.

Hart

P. S.

(2018). In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 807-823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518791094

10.

Clifford

Jewell

R. M.

Waggoner

P. D.

(2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2(4), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072

11.

Cook

Lewandowsky

(2016). Rational irrationality: Modeling climate change belief polarization using bayesian networks. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 160-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12186

12.

Cook

Lewandowsky

Ecker

U. K. H.

(2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS ONE, 12(5), Article e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799

13.

Coppock

Leeper

T. J.

Mullinix

K. J.

(2018). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 115(49), 12441-12446. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808083115

14.

Crump

M. J. C.

McDonnell

J. V.

Gureckis

T. M.

(2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS ONE, 8(3), Article e57410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057410

15.

Deryugina

Shurchkov

(2016). The effect of information provision on public consensus about climate change. PLoS ONE, 11(4), Article e0151469. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151469

16.

Ding

Maibach

E. W.

Zhao

Roser-Renouf

Leiserowitz

(2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1, 462-466. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1295

17.

Ditto

P. H.

Boardman

A. F.

(1995). Perceived accuracy of favorable and unfavorable psychological feedback. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16(1-2), 137-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.1995.9646106

18.

Ditto

P. H.

Liu

B. S.

Clark

C. J.

Wojcik

S. P.

Chen

E. E.

Grady

R. H.

Celniker

J. B.

Zinger

J. F.

(2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746796

19.

Ditto

P. H.

Lopez

D. F.

(1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568-584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568

20.

Dixon

(2016). Applying the gateway belief model to genetically modified food perceptions: New insights and additional questions. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 888-908. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12260

21.

Dixon

Hmielowski

(2017). Improving climate change acceptance among U.S. conservatives through value-based message targeting. Science Communication, 39(4), 520-534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017715473

22.

Dixon

Hmielowski

(2019). More evidence of psychological reactance to consensus messaging: A response to van der Linden, Maibach, and Leiserowitz (2019). Environmental Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1671472

23.

Dixon

Hubner

(2018). Neutralizing the effect of political worldviews by communicating scientific agreement: A thought-listing study. Science Communication, 40(3), 393-415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018769907

24.

Druckman

J. N.

Kam

C. D.

(2011). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the “narrow data base.” In Druckman

J. N.

Green

D. P.

Kuklinski

J. H.

Lupia

(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41-57). Cambridge University Press.

25.

Druckman

J. N.

McGrath

M. C.

(2019). The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change, 9, 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1

26.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

27.

Garrett

R. K.

(2009). Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x

28.

Gehlbach

Robinson

C. D.

Vriesema

C. C.

(2019). Leveraging cognitive consistency to nudge conservative climate change beliefs. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 134-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.004

29.

Goldberg

M. H.

van der Linden

Ballew

M. T.

Rosenthal

S. A.

Gustafson

Leiserowitz

(2019). The experience of consensus: Video as an effective medium to communicate scientific agreement on climate change. Science Communication, 41(5), 659-673. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019874361

30.

Guadagno

R. E.

Rhoads

K. v. L.

Sagarin

B. J.

(2011). Figural vividness and persuasion: Capturing the “elusive” vividness effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(5), 626-638. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211399585

31.

Gustafson

Rice

R. E.

(2019). The effects of uncertainty frames in three science communication topics. Science Communication, 41(6), 679-706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019870811

32.

Harris

A. J. L.

Sildmäe

Speekenbrink

Hahn

(2019). The potential power of experience in communications of expert consensus levels. Journal of Risk Research, 22(5), 593-609. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1440416

33.

Hennes

E. P.

Kim

Remache

L. J.

(2020). A Goldilocks critique of the hot cognition perspective on climate change skepticism. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 142-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.009

34.

Hertwig

Erev

(2009). The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(12), 517-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.004

35.

Hornsey

M. J.

Harris

E. A.

Fielding

K. S.

(2018). Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nature Climate Change, 8, 614-620. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2

36.

Kahan

(2017). The “Gateway Belief” illusion: Reanalyzing the results of a scientific-consensus messaging study. Journal of Science Communication, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16050203

37.

Kellstedt

P. M.

Zahran

Vedlitz

(2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28(1), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x

38.

Kerr

J. R.

Wilson

M. S.

(2018). 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 Psychology, 59, 107-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.08.012

39.

Kobayashi

(2018). The impact of perceived scientific and social consensus on scientific beliefs. Science Communication, 40(1), 63-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017748948

40.

Kunda

(1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

41.

Landrum

A. R.

Slater

M. H.

(2020). Open questions in scientific consensus messaging research. Environmental Communication, 14(8), 1033-1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1776746

42.

Lewandowsky

Gignac

G. E.

Vaughan

(2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3, 399-404. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720

43.

Lord

C. G.

Ross

Lepper

M. R.

(1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098

44.

Dixon

Hmielowski

J. D.

(2019). Psychological reactance from reading basic facts on climate change: The role of prior views and political identification. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1548369

45.

Maertens

Anseel

van der Linden

(2020). Combatting climate change misinformation: Evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, Article 101455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101455

46.

Mullinix

K. J.

Leeper

T. J.

Druckman

J. N.

Freese

(2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109-138. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.19

47.

Myers

T. A.

Maibach

Peters

Leiserowitz

(2015). Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: The results of two experiments. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120985. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120985

48.

Nisbett

Ross

(1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice Hall.

49.

Nyhan

Reifler

(2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

50.

Pew Research Center. (2020, February 13). As economic concerns recede, environmental protection rises on the public’s policy agenda. https://www.people-press.org/2020/02/13/as-economic-concerns-recede-environmental-protection-rises-on-the-publics-policy-agenda/

51.

Smith

S. M.

Shaffer

D. R.

(2000). Vividness can undermine or enhance message processing: The moderating role of vividness congruency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(7), 769-779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200269003

52.

Sopory

Dillard

J. P.

(2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382-419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00813.x

53.

Taber

C. S.

Lodge

(2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x

54.

van der Linden

S. L.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

Feinberg

G. D.

Maibach

E. W

. (2014). How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: Plain facts, pie charts or metaphors? Climatic Change, 126, 255-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1190-4

55.

van der Linden

S. L.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

Feinberg

G. D.

Maibach

E. W

. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489

56.

van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Maibach

. (2017). Gateway illusion or cultural cognition confusion? Journal of Science Communication, 16(5), A04. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16050204

57.

van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Maibach

. (2018). Perceptions of scientific consensus predict later beliefs about the reality of climate change using cross-lagged panel analysis: A response to Kerr and Wilson (2018). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 60, 110-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.10.002

58.

van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Maibach

. (2019). The gateway belief model: A large-scale replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009

59.

van der Linden

Maibach

Leiserowitz

. (2019). Exposure to scientific consensus does not cause psychological reactance. Environmental Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1617763

60.

Wilkins

E. J.

Miller

H. M.

Tilak

Schuster

R. M.

(2018). Communicating information on nature-related topics: Preferred information channels and trust in sources. PLoS ONE, 13(12), e0209013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209013

61.

Williams

M. N.

Bond

C. M. C.

(2020). A preregistered replication of “Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101456

62.

Xie

Xiong

Pan

Ali

Cui

Guan

Meng

Mueller

N. D.

Lin

Davis

S. J.

(2018). Decreases in global beer supply due to extreme drought and heat. Nature Plants, 4, 964-973. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0263-1

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.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB