The “modest majority and big minority” of climate change: Believers and nonbelievers are inaccurate about the extent that others agree

Abstract

AbstractEstablished social psychology literature shows that people demonstrate a systematic bias when estimating the proportion of others who hold their viewpoint on a range of issues; the majority regularly underestimates agreement, and the minority shows even greater error in overestimating agreement with their viewpoint. Applying this to climate change may help us better understand the determinants of public opinion on that issue. Across four studies, we found that people who believe climate change is happening (the majority) underestimate the percentage of other people who hold their view, whereas those who do not believe climate change is happening (the minority) greatly overestimate agreement with their view. We consistently found this pattern for other contemporary issues where there was a clear majority/minority distinction. Furthermore, greater certainty of one's position on climate change was related to greater and more accurate estimates of agreement among the majority, whereas low certainty was associated with estimates closer to 50%. Consistent with cognitive availability as a mechanism for these findings, exploratory analyses suggest that greater certainty of climate change happening is associated with a greater subjective knowledge and frequency of thinking and hearing about climate change, and talking about it with others. Finding the majority/minority pattern of consensus bias for climate change and other issues suggests that general approaches, such as providing accurate normative data and targeting efforts according to a population's belief certainty, may impact public sentiment and engagement on climate change.