IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v8y2024i10d10.1038_s41562-024-01928-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change

Author

Listed:
  • Bojana Većkalov

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Sandra J. Geiger

    (University of Vienna)

  • František Bartoš

    (University of Amsterdam
    Institute of Computer Science of the Czech Academy of Sciences)

  • Mathew P. White

    (University of Vienna)

  • Bastiaan T. Rutjens

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Frenk Harreveld

    (University of Amsterdam
    National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM))

  • Federica Stablum

    (Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science)

  • Berkan Akın

    (University of Amsterdam
    School of Social Sciences)

  • Alaa Aldoh

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Jinhao Bai

    (Tel Aviv University)

  • Frida Berglund

    (Uppsala University
    Uppsala University)

  • Aleša Bratina Zimic

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Margaret Broyles

    (Columbia University)

  • Andrea Catania

    (University of Malta)

  • Airu Chen

    (Columbia University)

  • Magdalena Chorzępa

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

  • Eman Farahat

    (University of Warwick)

  • Jakob Götz

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
    University of Vienna)

  • Bat Hoter-Ishay

    (Columbia University)

  • Gesine Jordan

    (University of Luxembourg)

  • Siri Joustra

    (Radboud University)

  • Jonas Klingebiel

    (Columbia University)

  • Živa Krajnc

    (University of Ljubljana
    University of Maribor)

  • Antonia Krug

    (University of Innsbruck)

  • Thomas Lind Andersen

    (Copenhagen University Hospital—Mental Health Services CPH)

  • Johanna Löloff

    (Heidelberg University)

  • Divya Natarajan

    (Columbia University)

  • Sasha Newman-Oktan

    (Columbia University)

  • Elena Niehoff

    (Wageningen University & Research)

  • Celeste Paerels

    (Columbia University)

  • Rachel Papirmeister

    (Columbia University)

  • Steven Peregrina

    (Columbia University)

  • Felicia Pohl

    (University of Warsaw)

  • Amanda Remsö

    (Kristianstad University)

  • Abigail Roh

    (Columbia University)

  • Binahayati Rusyidi

    (Universitas Padjadjaran)

  • Justus Schmidt

    (School of Social Sciences)

  • Mariam Shavgulidze

    (Eötvös Loránd University)

  • Valentina Vellinho Nardin

    (University of Porto)

  • Ruixiang Wang

    (Columbia University)

  • Kelly Warner

    (Columbia University)

  • Miranda Wattier

    (Columbia University)

  • Chloe Y. Wong

    (Columbia University)

  • Mariem Younssi

    (Université Côte d’Azur)

  • Kai Ruggeri

    (Columbia University
    University of Cambridge)

  • Sander Linden

    (University of Cambridge)

Abstract

Communicating the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is real increases climate change beliefs, worry and support for public action in the United States. In this preregistered experiment, we tested two scientific consensus messages, a classic message on the reality of human-caused climate change and an updated message additionally emphasizing scientific agreement that climate change is a crisis. Across online convenience samples from 27 countries (n = 10,527), the classic message substantially reduces misperceptions (d = 0.47, 95% CI (0.41, 0.52)) and slightly increases climate change beliefs (from d = 0.06, 95% CI (0.01, 0.11) to d = 0.10, 95% CI (0.04, 0.15)) and worry (d = 0.05, 95% CI (−0.01, 0.10)) but not support for public action directly. The updated message is equally effective but provides no added value. Both messages are more effective for audiences with lower message familiarity and higher misperceptions, including those with lower trust in climate scientists and right-leaning ideologies. Overall, scientific consensus messaging is an effective, non-polarizing tool for changing misperceptions, beliefs and worry across different audiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Bojana Većkalov & Sandra J. Geiger & František Bartoš & Mathew P. White & Bastiaan T. Rutjens & Frenk Harreveld & Federica Stablum & Berkan Akın & Alaa Aldoh & Jinhao Bai & Frida Berglund & Aleša Brat, 2024. "A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(10), pages 1892-1905, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1038_s41562-024-01928-2
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01928-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kai Ruggeri & Amma Panin & Milica Vdovic & Bojana Većkalov & Nazeer Abdul-Salaam & Jascha Achterberg & Carla Akil & Jolly Amatya & Kanchan Amatya & Thomas Lind Andersen & Sibele D. Aquino & Arjoon Aru, 2022. "The globalizability of temporal discounting," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 1386-1397, October.
      • Kai Ruggeri & Amma Panin & Milica Vdovic & Bojana Većkalov & Nazeer Abdul-Salaam & Jascha Achterberg & Carla Akil & Jolly Amatya & Kanchan Amatya & Thomas Lind Andersen & Sibele D Aquino & Arjoon Arun, 2022. "The globalizability of temporal discounting," Post-Print halshs-03903193, HAL.
    2. Mullinix, Kevin J. & Leeper, Thomas J. & Druckman, James N. & Freese, Jeremy, 2015. "The Generalizability of Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 109-138, January.
    3. Carpenter, Bob & Gelman, Andrew & Hoffman, Matthew D. & Lee, Daniel & Goodrich, Ben & Betancourt, Michael & Brubaker, Marcus & Guo, Jiqiang & Li, Peter & Riddell, Allen, 2017. "Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 76(i01).
    4. Tatyana Deryugina & Olga Shurchkov, 2016. "The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Jeff Tollefson, 2021. "Top climate scientists are sceptical that nations will rein in global warming," Nature, Nature, vol. 599(7883), pages 22-24, November.
    6. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    7. Jung, Jae Min & Kellaris, James J., 2006. "Responsiveness to authority appeals among young French and American consumers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(6), pages 735-744, June.
    8. Sander L van der Linden & Anthony A Leiserowitz & Geoffrey D Feinberg & Edward W Maibach, 2015. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
    9. Aaron McCright & Riley Dunlap & Chenyang Xiao, 2013. "Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 511-518, July.
    10. Kai Ruggeri & Amma Panin & Milica Vdovic & Bojana Većkalov & Nazeer Abdul-Salaam & Jascha Achterberg & Carla Akil & Jolly Amatya & Kanchan Amatya & Thomas Lind Andersen & Sibele D. Aquino & Arjoon Aru, 2022. "The globalizability of temporal discounting," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 1386-1397, October.
    11. Matthew J. Hornsey & Emily A. Harris & Paul G. Bain & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 622-626, June.
    12. Baobao Zhang & Sander van der Linden & Matto Mildenberger & Jennifer R. Marlon & Peter D. Howe & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2018. "Experimental effects of climate messages vary geographically," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(5), pages 370-374, May.
    13. Coppock, Alexander, 2019. "Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 613-628, July.
    14. Anne M. van Valkengoed & Linda Steg, 2019. "Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 158-163, February.
    15. Kai Ruggeri & Bojana Većkalov & Lana Bojanić & Thomas L. Andersen & Sarah Ashcroft-Jones & Nélida Ayacaxli & Paula Barea-Arroyo & Mari Louise Berge & Ludvig D. Bjørndal & Aslı Bursalıoğlu & Vanessa Bü, 2021. "The general fault in our fault lines," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(10), pages 1369-1380, October.
    16. Jeffrey N. Rouder & Richard D. Morey, 2019. "Teaching Bayes’ Theorem: Strength of Evidence as Predictive Accuracy," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(2), pages 186-190, April.
    17. Matthew J. Hornsey & Stephan Lewandowsky, 2022. "A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(11), pages 1454-1464, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matias Spektor & Guilherme N. Fasolin & Juliana Camargo, 2023. "Climate change beliefs and their correlates in Latin America," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Sedona Chinn & P. Sol Hart, 2021. "Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    4. Jessica E. Hughes & James D. Sauer & Aaron Drummond & Laura E. Brumby & Matthew A. Palmer, 2023. "Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Salil D. Benegal & Lyle A. Scruggs, 2018. "Correcting misinformation about climate change: the impact of partisanship in an experimental setting," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 61-80, May.
    6. Karine Lacroix & Robert Gifford & Jonathan Rush, 2020. "Climate change beliefs shape the interpretation of forest fire events," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 103-120, March.
    7. Kaitlin T Raimi & Paul C Stern & Alexander Maki, 2017. "The Promise and Limitations of Using Analogies to Improve Decision-Relevant Understanding of Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    8. Bago, Bence & Rand, David & Pennycook, Gordon, 2021. "Reasoning about climate change," IAST Working Papers 21-126, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    9. Odou, Philippe & Schill, Marie, 2020. "How anticipated emotions shape behavioral intentions to fight climate change," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 243-253.
    10. Rosalind Pidcock & Kate Heath & Lydia Messling & Susie Wang & Anna Pirani & Sarah Connors & Adam Corner & Christopher Shaw & Melissa Gomis, 2021. "Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-22, October.
    11. D. Liliana González-Hernández & Raúl A. Aguirre-Gamboa & Erik W. Meijles, 2023. "The role of climate change perceptions and sociodemographics on reported mitigation efforts and performance among households in northeastern Mexico," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1853-1875, February.
    12. Chamila R. Perera & Hassan Kalantari & Lester W. Johnson, 2022. "Climate Change Beliefs, Personal Environmental Norms and Environmentally Conscious Behaviour Intention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-15, February.
    13. Gerrath, Maximilian H.E.E. & Olya, Hossein & Shah, Zahra & Li, Huaiyu, 2024. "Virtual influencers and pro-environmental causes: The roles of message warmth and trust in experts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    14. Carisa Bergner & Bruce A. Desmarais & John Hird, 2019. "Speaking truth in power: Scientific evidence as motivation for policy activism," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    15. Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    16. Grant R. McDermott, 2021. "Skeptic priors and climate consensus," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-23, May.
    17. Philippe Odou & Marie Schill, 2020. "How anticipated emotions shape behavioral intentions to fight climate change," Post-Print hal-02929920, HAL.
    18. Michael Berkebile-Weinberg & Danielle Goldwert & Kimberly C. Doell & Jay J. Bavel & Madalina Vlasceanu, 2024. "The differential impact of climate interventions along the political divide in 60 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    19. Tatyana Deryugina & Olga Shurchkov, 2016. "The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    20. Ting Liu & Nick Shryane & Mark Elliot, 2022. "Attitudes to climate change risk: classification of and transitions in the UK population between 2012 and 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1038_s41562-024-01928-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.