The influence of scientific consensus on public diffusion of environmental initiatives has received little attention. This study tested whether enhancing perceived scientific consensus could promote public diffusion of the “Bamboo for Plastic” initiative in China and examined the underlying mechanism. A pilot survey indicated that public awareness of the initiative was relatively low. Across three experiments (N = 679), increasing perceived scientific consensus significantly boosted public diffusion behaviors related to the initiative, with diffusion behavior response efficacy mediating this effect. These findings suggest that emphasizing scientific consensus in environmental policy communication can effectively facilitate the interpersonal transmission of pro-environmental messages.
AbrahamseW.StegL. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1773–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029
BerlR. E. W.SekarS.MarkevichA.CamaraC.NiemiecR. M. (2022). Assessing the impacts of normative and efficacy-based messaging on the social diffusion of conservation science. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12647
4.
BogertJ. M.BucznyJ.HarveyJ. A.EllersJ. (2023). The effect of trust in science and media use on public belief in anthropogenic climate change: A meta-analysis. Environmental Communication, 18(4), 484–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2280749
5.
CampbellE.KotcherJ. E.MyersT.MunsonS.BorthA. C.RosenthalS. A.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2023). The potential role of descriptive and dynamic norms in promoting climate change advocacy. Oxford Open Climate Change, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad001
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
8.
ChaikenS.MaheswaranD. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
9.
ChampineV. M.JonesM. S.LischkaS.VaskeJ. J.NiemiecR. M. (2022). Understanding individual and diffusion behaviors related to native plant gardening. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101798
10.
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
11.
ClarkeC. E.DixonG. N.HoltonA.McKeeverB. W. (2015). Including “evidentiary balance” in news media coverage of vaccine risk. Health Communication, 30(5), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.867006
12.
CookJ.JacobsP. (2014). Scientists are from Mars, laypeople are from Venus: An evidence-based rationale for communicating the consensus on climate. Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 34. https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.1534562
13.
DekoninckH.SchmuckD. (2022). The mobilizing power of influencers for pro-environmental behavior intentions and political participation. Environmental Communication, 16(4), 458–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2027801
14.
GardikiotisA.MartinR.HewstoneM. (2005). Group consensus in social influence: Type of consensus information as a moderator of majority and minority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(9), 1163–1174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205277807
15.
GeigerN.SwimJ. K. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.002
16.
GeigerN.SwimJ. K.FraserJ. (2017). Creating a climate for change: Interventions, efficacy and public discussion about climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.010
17.
GiffordR.KormosC.McIntyreA. (2011). Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change, 2(6), 801–827. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.143
18.
GoldbergM. H.GustafsonA.van der LindenS.RosenthalS. A.LeiserowitzA. (2022). Communicating the scientific consensus on climate change: Diverse audiences and effects over time. Environment and Behavior, 54(7–8), 1133–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165221129539
19.
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
20.
GoldbergM. H.van der LindenS.BallewM. T.RosenthalS. A.LeiserowitzA. (2019). The role of anchoring in judgments about expert consensus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(3), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12576
21.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
22.
HeidbrederL. M.LangeM.ReeseG. (2021). PlasticFreeJuly–Analyzing a worldwide campaign to reduce single-use plastic consumption with Twitter. Environmental Communication, 15(7), 937–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1920447
23.
JeongM.TanA.BrennanE.GibsonL.HornikR. C. (2015). Talking about quitting: Interpersonal communication as a mediator of campaign effects on smokers’ quit behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 20(10), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1012243
24.
JohnsonB. B. (2018). “Counting votes” in public responses to scientific disputes. Public Understanding of Science, 27(5), 594–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517706451
25.
JonesM. S.NiemiecR. M. (2020). Social-psychological correlates of personal-sphere and diffusion behavior for wildscape gardening. Journal of Environmental Management, 276, 111271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111271
26.
JonesM. S.NiemiecR. M. (2023). Motivating relational organizing behavior for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Science and Practice, 5(2), e12880. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12880
27.
JuI.OhsJ.ParkT.HinsleyA. (2023). Interpersonal communication influence on health-protective behaviors amid the COVID-19 crisis. Health Communication, 38(3), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1956038
28.
KerrJ. R.van der LindenS. (2022). Communicating expert consensus increases personal support for COVID-19 mitigation policies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12827
29.
KerrJ. R.WilsonM. S. (2018). Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and GM food safety. PLOS ONE, 13(7), e0200295. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200295
30.
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
31.
KollmussA.AgyemanJ. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
32.
KümpelA. S.KarnowskiV.KeylingT. (2015). News sharing in social media: A review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115610141
33.
LeombruniL. V. (2015). How you talk about climate change matters: A communication network perspective on epistemic skepticism and belief strength. Global Environmental Change, 35, 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.006
34.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.VaughanS. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720
35.
LongJ.HarréN.AtkinsonQ. D. (2015). Social clustering in high school transport choices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.01.001
36.
LuH. (2023). Comparing the effectiveness of different consensus messages in communicating global environmental issues: The role of referent groups, emotions, and message evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 88, 102025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102025
37.
MorrisonK. R.MatthesJ. (2011). Socially motivated projection: Need to belong increases perceived opinion consensus on important issues. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(6), 707–719. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.797
38.
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), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120985
NiemiecR. M.ArdoinN. M.WhartonC. B.AsnerG. P. (2016). Motivating residents to combat invasive species on private lands: Social norms and community reciprocity. Ecology and Society, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08362-210230
41.
NiemiecR. M.JonesM. S.LischkaS.ChampineV. (2021). Efficacy-based and normative interventions for facilitating the diffusion of conservation behavior through social networks. Conservation Biology, 35(4), 1073–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13717
42.
NiemiecR. M.WillerR.ArdoinN. M.BrewerF. K. (2019). Motivating landowners to recruit neighbors for private land conservation. Conservation Biology, 33(4), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13294
43.
PaluckE. L.ShepherdH.AronowP. M. (2016). Changing climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 566–571. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514483113
44.
QinX. (2024). Sample size and power calculations for causal mediation analysis: A tutorial and shiny App. Behavior Research Methods, 56(3), 1738–1769. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02118-0
45.
SchultzP. W. (2014). Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: Lots of tools but few instructions. European Psychologist, 19(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000163
46.
SiegristM.EarleT. C.GutscherH. (2003). Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00349
47.
SouthwellB. G.YzerM. C. (2007). The roles of interpersonal communication in mass media campaigns. Annals of the International Communication Association, 31(1), 420–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2007.11679072
48.
TianJ.SunM.GongY.ChenX.SunY. (2022). Chinese residents’ attitudes toward consumption-side climate policy: The role of climate change perception and environmental topic involvement. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 182, 106294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106294
49.
TrabergC. S.HarjaniT.RoozenbeekJ.van der LindenS. (2024). The persuasive effects of social cues and source effects on misinformation susceptibility. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 4205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54030-y
50.
Tran-NamQ.TietT. (2022). The role of peer influence and norms in organic farming adoption: Accounting for farmers’ heterogeneity. Journal of Environmental Management, 320, 115909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115909
van den PutteB.YzerM.SouthwellB. G.de BruijnG. J.WillemsenM. C. (2011). Interpersonal communication as an indirect pathway for the effect of antismoking media content on smoking cessation. Journal of Health Communication, 16(5), 470–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.546487
54.
van der LindenS. (2021). The Gateway Belief Model (GBM): A review and research agenda for communicating the scientific consensus on climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.01.005
55.
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
56.
van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA. A.FeinbergG. D.MaibachE. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLOS ONE, 10(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
57.
VerplankenB. (1991). Persuasive communication of risk information: A test of cue versus message processing effects in a field experiment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2), 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616729101700211
58.
VlasceanuM.DoellK. C.BakJ. B.TodorovaB.BerkebileM. M.GraysonS. J.PatelY.GoldwertD.PeiY.ChakroffA.ProniziusE.ConstantinoS.MoraisM. J.SchumannP.RathjeS.FangK.AgliotiS. M.AlfanoM.AlvaradoA. J.PearsonA. R. (2024). Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Science Advances, 10(6), eadj5778. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adj5778
59.
WalkerT. R.FequetL. (2023). Current trends of unsustainable plastic production and micro(nano)plastic pollution. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 160, 116984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2023.116984
60.
WoodR. M.JuanchichM.RamirezM.ZhangS. (2023). Promoting COVID-19 vaccine confidence through public responses to misinformation: The joint influence of message source and message content. Social Science & Medicine, 324, 115863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115863
61.
YoungW.RussellS. V.RobinsonC. A.BarkemeyerR. (2017). Can social media be a tool for reducing consumers’ food waste? A behaviour change experiment by a UK retailer. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 117, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.016
62.
ZhangY.DongY.ZhangY.WangR.JiangJ. (2023). Can organizations shape eco-friendly employees? Organizational support improves pro-environmental behaviors at work. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 93, 102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102200
