Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and GM food safety

Abstract

Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, a sizable minority of people doubt that human activity is causing climate change. Communicating the existence of a scientific consensus has been suggested as a way to correct individuals’ misperceptions about human-caused climate change and other scientific issues, though empirical support is mixed. We report an experiment in which psychology students were presented with consensus information about two issues, and subsequently reported their perception of the level of consensus and extent of their endorsement of those issues. We find that messages about scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the safety of genetically modified food shift perceptions of scientific consensus. Using mediation models we also show that, for both these issues, high consensus messages also increase reported personal agreement with the scientific consensus, mediated by changes in perceptions of a scientific consensus. This confirms the role of perceived consensus in informing personal beliefs about climate change, though results indicate the impact of single, one-off messages may be limited.

The role of anchoring in judgments about expert consensus

“…Consistent with other recent work (e.g., Bolsen & Druckman, 2018;Kerr & Wilson, 2018;Kobayashi, 2018a), these findings support the GBM (van der Linden, and should encourage further research on the benefits of communicating scientific consensus about controversial science topics.…”

“…It is reassuring that people do not appear to rely on irrelevant anchoring cues (e.g., the number 97, whether alone or embedded in an unrelated statement about expert agreement among dentists), while they do update their beliefs when given domain‐specific information about the scientific consensus about human‐caused climate change. Consistent with other recent work (e.g., Bolsen & Druckman, ; Kerr & Wilson, ; Kobayashi, ), findings support the GBM (van der Linden, Leiserowitz et al, ) and should encourage further research on the benefits of communicating scientific consensus about controversial science topics.…”

“…Indeed, research on the GBM finds that communicating the scientific consensus on climate change shifts people’s perception of the consensus (see Bolsen & Druckman, ; Brewer & McKnight, ; Chinn, Lane, & Hart, ; Cook & Lewandowsky, ; Cook, Lewandowsky, & Ecker, ; Deryugina & Shurchkov, ; Dixon, ; Harris, Sildmäe, Speekenbrink, & Hahn, ; Kerr & Wilson, ; Kobayashi, ; Lewandowsky et al, ; Myers et al, ; van der Linden, Leiserowitz et al, ; van der Linden, Leiserowitz, Rosenthal, & Maibach, ; van der Linden et al, ). Interestingly, although some interventions have generated “boomerang” effects (Hart & Nisbet, ), consensus messaging reduces motivated cognition by converging partisan perceptions toward the scientific norm (Cook et al, ; Lewandowsky et al, ; van der Linden, Leiserowitz et al, ; van der Linden et al, ; Zhang et al, ).…”

“…Indeed, research on the GBM finds that communicating the scientific consensus on climate change shifts people's perception of the consensus (see Bolsen & Druckman, 2018;Brewer & McKnight, 2017;Chinn, Lane, & Hart, 2018;Cook & Lewandowsky, 2016;Cook, Lewandowsky, & Ecker, 2017;Deryugina & Shurchkov, 2016;Dixon, 2016;Harris, Sildmäe, Speekenbrink, & Hahn, 2018;Kerr & Wilson, 2018;Kobayashi, 2018a;Lewandowsky et al, 2013;Myers et al, 2015;van der Linden, Leiserowitz et al, 2015;van der Linden, Leiserowitz, Rosenthal, & Maibach, 2017;van der Linden et al, 2018).…”

Perceptions of powerlessness are negatively associated with taking action on climate change: A preregistered replication

“…That said, this inference comes with important caveats. First, while it is plausibly the case that communication with the public can increase belief in the reality and risks of climate change (e.g., Kerr & Wilson, 2018), it is less obviously the case that beliefs about climate change necessarily translate into action, or useful action (see Whitmarsh, 2009).…”