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.
BayesR.BolsenT.DruckmanJ. 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
2.
BisgaardM. (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
3.
BoasT. C.ChristensonD. P.GlickD. 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
4.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. 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
5.
BolsenT.LeeperT. J.ShapiroM. 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
BrewerP. R.McKnightJ. (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
8.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. 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
9.
ChinnS.LaneD. S.HartP. 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.
CliffordS.JewellR. M.WaggonerP. 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.
CookJ.LewandowskyS. (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.
CookJ.LewandowskyS.EckerU. 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.
CoppockA.LeeperT. J.MullinixK. 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.
CrumpM. J. C.McDonnellJ. V.GureckisT. 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.
DeryuginaT.ShurchkovO. (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.
DingD.MaibachE. W.ZhaoX.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (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.
DittoP. H.BoardmanA. 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.
DittoP. H.LiuB. S.ClarkC. J.WojcikS. P.ChenE. E.GradyR. H.CelnikerJ. B.ZingerJ. 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.
DittoP. H.LopezD. 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.
DixonG. (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.
DixonG.HmielowskiJ.MaY. (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.
DixonG.HmielowskiJ.MaY. (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.
DixonG.HubnerA. (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.
DruckmanJ. N.KamC. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the “narrow data base.” In DruckmanJ. N.GreenD. P.KuklinskiJ. H.LupiaA. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41-57). Cambridge University Press.
25.
DruckmanJ. N.McGrathM. 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.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (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.
GarrettR. 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.
GehlbachH.RobinsonC. D.VriesemaC. 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.
GoldbergM. H.van der LindenS.BallewM. T.RosenthalS. A.GustafsonA.LeiserowitzA. (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.
GuadagnoR. E.RhoadsK. v. L.SagarinB. 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.
GustafsonA.RiceR. 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.
HarrisA. J. L.SildmäeO.SpeekenbrinkM.HahnU. (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.
HennesE. P.KimT.RemacheL. 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
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.FieldingK. 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.
KahanD. (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.
KellstedtP. M.ZahranS.VedlitzA. (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.
KerrJ. R.WilsonM. 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.
KobayashiK. (2018). The impact of perceived scientific and social consensus on scientific beliefs. Science Communication, 40(1), 63-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017748948
LandrumA. R.SlaterM. H. (2020). Open questions in scientific consensus messaging research. Environmental Communication, 14(8), 1033-1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1776746
42.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.VaughanS. (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.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. 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.
MaY.DixonG.HmielowskiJ. 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.
MaertensR.AnseelF.van der LindenS. (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.
MullinixK. J.LeeperT. J.DruckmanJ. N.FreeseJ. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109-138. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.19
47.
MyersT. A.MaibachE.PetersE.LeiserowitzA. (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.
NisbettR.RossL. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice Hall.
49.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
SmithS. M.ShafferD. 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
van der LindenS. L.LeiserowitzA. A.FeinbergG. D.MaibachE. 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 LindenS. L.LeiserowitzA. A.FeinbergG. D.MaibachE. 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 LindenS.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2017). Gateway illusion or cultural cognition confusion?Journal of Science Communication, 16(5), A04. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16050204
57.
van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (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 LindenS.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (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 LindenS.MaibachE.LeiserowitzA. (2019). Exposure to scientific consensus does not cause psychological reactance. Environmental Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1617763
60.
WilkinsE. J.MillerH. M.TilakE.SchusterR. 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.
WilliamsM. N.BondC. 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.
XieW.XiongW.PanJ.AliT.CuiQ.GuanD.MengJ.MuellerN. D.LinE.DavisS. 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.
