Perception Of Consensus Research Articles

Troubling dualisms: Understanding the creation and implementation of protective policies in elite women's sport

In today's political environment, questions of “fairness,” “protection,” and “woman” remain contentious topics, particularly in sport, and draw from different types of knowledges to support corresponding regulatory documents. Considering the heterogeneity of knowledge informing protection for (women) athletes, there remain questions around how to create (policy) guidelines, which ostensibly convey consensus on complex topics (e.g. female eligibility, trans eligibility, and athlete health). In this article, we draw from Anne Fausto-Sterling's “dueling dualisms” and Michel Foucault's theory of governmentality to examine what, how, and why specific ways of knowing make their way into written policies whereas others are left out or re-interpreted. To do so, we examine three International Olympic Committee (IOC) and World Athletics (WA) policy texts (i.e. the IOC's consensus statement on relative energy deficiency in sport [REDs] and WA's female and transgender eligibility policies) and interviews with IOC and WA experts. We find disconnects between expert knowledge, written texts, and anticipated policy implementations, despite the perception of consensus in written documents. These discrepancies especially manifest in the ideas of policies as both a scientific process and a felt experience, and controlled unfairness.

Strong correlational but no causal evidence on the link between the perception of scientific consensus and support for vaccination.

We examine the relationships between the perception of the scientific consensus regarding vaccines, and vaccine attitudes and intentions (N total = 2,362) in the context of COVID-19 disease. Based on the correlational evidence found (Study 1), perceived scientific consensus and vaccine attitudes are closely related. This association was stronger among people who trust (vs. distrust) scientists; however, political ideology did not moderate these effects. The experimental evidence (Studies 2-3) indicates that consensus messaging influences the perception of consensus; nonetheless, the effects on vaccine attitudes or intentions were non-significant. Furthermore, message aiming at reducing psychological reactance was similarly ineffective in changing attitudes as traditional consensus message.

When experts matter: Variations in consensus messaging for vaccine and genetically modified organism safety.

Does consensus messaging about contested science issues influence perceptions of consensus and/or personal beliefs? This question remains open, particularly for topics other than climate change and samples outside the United States. In a Spanish national sample (N = 5087), we use preregistered survey experiments to examine differential efficacy of variations in consensus messaging for vaccines and genetically modified organisms. We find that no variation of consensus messaging influences vaccine beliefs. For genetically modified organisms, about which misperceptions are particularly prevalent in our sample, we find that scientific consensus messaging increases perception of consensus and personal belief that genetically modified organisms are safe, and decreases support for a ban. Increasing degree of consensus did not have consistent effects. Although individual differences (e.g. a conspiratorial worldview) predict these genetically modified organism beliefs, they do not undercut consensus message effects. While we observe relatively modest effect sizes, consensus messaging may be able to improve the accuracy of beliefs about some contentious topics.

Healthcare professionals’ editorial opinions on communicating with the public: shifting social media hesitancies

The increasing infodemic, changes in the media landscape, and the COVID-19 pandemic have rendered healthcare professionals’ involvement in social media (SoMe) of urgent need. However, research efforts to understand the opinions, needs, and concerns of healthcare professionals (HCP) tackling this new responsibility have been limited, despite being necessary for designing efficient support for them. In this article we look at varying opinions and attitudes published by HCPs towards the use of SoMe as a tool to communicate health-related information to the public: How did their attitudes develop since the decade preceding the COVID-19 outbreak and what were their main expressed concerns over the years. We conducted a qualitative review of editorials published on this topic in academic journals since 2010 by searching five databases up to December 2022. Thirty-eight (38) articles met the selection criteria. Nineteen (19) expressed a positive attitude, and Nineteen (19) expressed a negative or cautious attitude. Based on the results, the research period (2010–2022) was divided into three stages: 2010–2015, 2016–2018, and 2019–2022. Attitudes in the first stage were positive, the middle was at almost a tie, and the last retreated to negative. The most common concerns cited regarding SoMe use by HCPs are negative effects on physician–patient relationships, HCPs’ professional image, patient privacy, the quality of the information provided, conflict of interest declarations, ethical and legal risks, the perception of medical consensus, limited resources, and competing with entertainment. The editorial opinions of HCPs towards professional SoMe use express shifting hesitancies. The earlier optimism succeeded in an era (pre-2010) of cautioning against engaging with SoMe. Concerns in the first stage were mainly related to HCP´s behavior and use of SoMe. The last phase’s concerns were more oriented toward SoMe platforms, their design, dynamics, and effect on public discourse, with the escalating infodemic and COVID-19 pandemic.

Does victims' forgiveness help offenders to forgive themselves? The role of meta-perceptions of value consensus

Interpersonal transgressions are disruptive to relationships as they violate values presumed to be shared and threaten the integrity of victim and offender, and their shared identity. Forgiveness and self-forgiveness are understood to be important elements of the moral repair process, however commonly they are studied as intrapsychic phenomena without considering the dynamics between them. Here, we investigate whether victims' expression of forgiveness can facilitate offenders' genuine self-forgiveness – the restoration of the offender's moral self by taking responsibility and working through their guilt. We argue that forgiveness can do so when it leads offenders to perceive that the victim believes the offender shares in a consensus about the violated values (meta-perceived value consensus) and, in turn, leads offenders to affirm their perception of value consensus. Three experimental studies (N = 807, 606, and 752) provided evidence for the hypothesized sequential mediation, with forgiveness having an indirect positive effect on genuine self-forgiveness via meta-perception of value consensus and offender's affirmation of value consensus. Study 2 furthermore manipulated the victim's belief in the offender sharing in the value consensus and provided causal evidence for its role in the process. The findings highlight the importance of a restored value consensus for the offender's repair of integrity through genuine self-forgiveness, which depends on the offender knowing, and knowing that the victim knows, that they share those values. The research advances our understanding of moral repair as a dyadic negotiated process.

Research on the Influence Mechanism of Platform Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Extra-Role Behavior

Platform enterprises, which are growing in both quantity and scale, have been inseparable from modern life. In China, the laws specific to platform enterprises fall behind their ever-changing business model. Hence, it is an urgent requirement that platform enterprises undertake their social responsibilities, which will influence consumer extra-role behaviors besides bringing reputation advantages to the enterprises. Based on the motivation theory and social exchange theory, this paper divides corporate social responsibility (CSR) into business ethical responsibility and public welfare responsibility using the CSR division method proposed by McWilliams and Siegel, puts forward self-moral restraint as the proxy variable for business ethical responsibility and explains the relationship between CSR and customer extra-role behavior. It is found that customer extra-role behavior is positively influenced by platform enterprises’ social responsibility. The perception of interest consensus exerts a positive influence on extra-role behavior, so does the perception of service identity. The public welfare responsibility is positively influenced by business ethical responsibility.

Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as ‘expert’ or ‘non-expert’, we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity.

Explaining how long CO₂ stays in the atmosphere: Does it change attitudes toward climate change?

Despite overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change, the majority of Americans are not very worried about it. This may be due in part to insufficient understanding of the urgency and seriousness, which may be related among some, to distrust of the scientific community. We test these hypotheses in an experimental study using a broadly nationally representative sample. An explanation of the delay between the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and cessation of global warming was compared to two control groups, one with basic climate change information and another with no information. Participants also received climate predictions that either included or excluded uncertainty estimates for a 3 × 2 complete factorial design. Results suggest that the delay explanation increased participants understanding of this issue and reduced their agreement with a wait-and-see strategy, especially among conservatives. Moreover, uncertainty estimates increased trust in climate predictions and ratings of climate scientists' expertise and understanding. Uncertainty estimates also increased concern about climate change and the perception of scientific consensus. Although in some cases small, these positive effects were seen across political ideology groups. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Health professional's willingness to advocate for strengthening global commitments to the Paris climate agreement: Findings from a multi-nation survey.

Health professionals have the potential to address the health threats posed by climate change in many ways. This study sought to understand the factors that influence health professionals' willingness to engage in climate advocacy. We hypothesized and tested a model with six antecedent factors predicting willingness to engage in advocacy for strengthening global commitments to the Paris Agreement. Using survey data from members of health professional associations in 12 nations (n=3,977), we tested the hypothesized relationships with structural equation modeling. All of the hypothesized relationships were confirmed. Specifically, higher rates of perceived expert consensus about human-caused climate change predicted greater climate change belief certainty and belief in human causation. In turn, all three of these factors, including higher levels of perceived health harms from climate change, positively predicted affective involvement with the issue. Affective involvement positively predicted the feeling that health professionals have a responsibility to deal with climate change. Lastly, this sense that climate advocacy is a responsibility of health professionals strongly predicted willingness to advocate. As a unique study of predictors of health professionals' willingness to advocate for climate change, our findings provide unique insight into how an influential set of trusted voices might be activated to address what is arguably the world's most pressing public health threat. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are presented, and implications for message development are discussed.

Dynamics of Moral Repair: Forgiveness, Self-Forgiveness, and the Restoration of Value Consensus as Interdependent Processes.

Most psychological research has investigated victims' forgiveness and offenders' self-forgiveness separately, ignoring interactive and dynamic processes between them. We suggest that both parties are interdependent in their attempts to revalidate the values violated by the wrongdoing. In the present study, both partners of close relationships dyads (including 164 complete couples) were surveyed over three time-points following the report of a wrongdoing by one of the partners. Latent growth modeling showed that victims' forgiveness was associated with growth in their perception of a value consensus with the offender. Victims' value consensus perception was associated with growth in offenders' perception of value consensus and engagement in genuine self-forgiveness (working through). However, directly, forgiveness was associated with decline in offenders' genuine self-forgiveness, while offenders' self-punitiveness was associated with decline in victims' forgiveness. The findings highlight the regulatory function of victim forgiveness and the pivotal role of restoring value consensus in interactive moral repair.

The politics of scientific consensus? Political divergence and partisanship in unconventional energy development in the United States

Risk communication scholars have examined public perception of scientific consensus on a variety of politically controversial risk topics; social-psychological factors that shape such views (i.e., political ideology); and effects on issue attitudes. Few studies, however, have combined these antecedents and outcomes within a single framework – one that describes how politically polarized attitudes emerge via ideologically-divergent perceptions of scientific agreement. We address this shortcoming in the context of an emerging risk topic – unconventional oil and natural gas development (UOGD) in the United States – that is politically controversial and where scientific agreement on specific impacts along with value-laden assessments of benefit and risk are subjects of scholarly and public debate. Using a quota survey of United States adults (n = 700), we find that political conservatism heightened support indirectly via: (1) perceived scientific consensus that benefits outweigh the risks and, in turn, the belief that UOGD’s health, economic, and environmental impacts in the United States have been positive and (2) lower perception of scientific consensus that risks outweigh benefits, which likewise heightened beliefs that aforementioned impacts have been positive. We discuss implications for risk communication research related to energy development.

El cuerpo del rey: poder y legitimación en la monarquía hispánica

Este es un artículo de revisión historiográfica que aborda la construcción del cuerpo del rey y de su imagen pública, para comprender luego la relación entre poder y legitimidad en la monarquía hispánica entre los siglos XVI y XVII. El artículo presenta los principales referentes historiográficos sobre el tema y hace especial énfasis en los más recientes estudios de ceremoniales y etiquetas cortesanas. Siguiendo esta línea de investigación, la hipótesis de partida es que el sostenimiento de la monarquía hispánica no solo dependió de estrategias coercitivas, sino que estuvo determinado por la construcción de herramientas persuasivas (soft power), entre las que se encuentra la puesta en escena del rey, donde se creó en buena medida la percepción de consenso cultural dentro un vasto imperio transatlántico.

Can journalistic “false balance” distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion?

Media critics have expressed concern that journalistic "false balance" can distort the public's perceptions of what ought to be noncontroversial subjects (e.g., climate change). I report several experiments testing the influence of presenting conflicting comments from 2 experts who disagree on an issue (balance condition) in addition to a complete count of the number of experts on a panel who favor either side. Compared with a control condition, who received only the complete count, participants in the balance condition gave ratings of the perceived agreement among the experts that did not discriminate as clearly between issues with and without strong expert consensus. Participants in the balance condition also perceived less agreement among the experts in general, and were less likely to think that there was enough agreement among experts on the high-consensus issues to guide government policy. Evidently, "false balance" can distort perceptions of expert opinion even when participants would seem to have all the information needed to correct for its influence.

How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques.

Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or determining priorities. While consensus methods are commonly used in health services literature, few studies in pharmacy practice use these methods. This paper provides an overview of the NGT and Delphi technique, including the steps involved and the types of research questions best suited to each method, with examples from the pharmacy literature. Methodology The NGT entails face-to-face discussion in small groups, and provides a prompt result for researchers. The classic NGT involves four key stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting (ranking). Variations have occurred in relation to generating ideas, and how ‘consensus’ is obtained from participants. The Delphi technique uses a multistage self-completed questionnaire with individual feedback, to determine consensus from a larger group of ‘experts.’ Questionnaires have been mailed, or more recently, e-mailed to participants. When to use The NGT has been used to explore consumer and stakeholder views, while the Delphi technique is commonly used to develop guidelines with health professionals. Method choice is influenced by various factors, including the research question, the perception of consensus required, and associated practicalities such as time and geography. Limitations The NGT requires participants to personally attend a meeting. This may prove difficult to organise and geography may limit attendance. The Delphi technique can take weeks or months to conclude, especially if multiple rounds are required, and may be complex for lay people to complete.

School Environment Factors as Predictors for Teachers' Teaching Efficacy, Teacher Stress and Job Satisfaction

The purpose of this study is identify how teachers’ perceptions of school environment factors, and the extent to which these predict outcome variables - teaching efficacy, job satisfaction and teacher stress. It also investigates if teaching efficacy affects job satisfaction, and teacher stress impacts teaching efficacy and job satisfaction. The sample included 387 Vietnamese junior high school teachers. Participants completed one questionnaire for four sections about school environment, teaching efficacy, teacher stress, and job satisfaction. The results obtained from statistical analyses show that teachers had highly favourable and positive perceptions of school environment, teaching efficacy, job satisfaction, and highly negative stress. The results obtained from multiple regression analyses also indicated that the factors of school environment as the predictors for teachers’ teaching efficacy, teacher stress and job satisfaction. Of the seven school environment factors investigated, teachers’ perception of principal leadership, mission consensus, professional interest, affiliation and student support had the most powerful effect on outcome variables. Among the outcome variables, sense of teaching efficacy positively related to job satisfaction, while both types of teacher stress negatively related to job satisfaction and teaching efficacy. The findings of the present study have educational implications.

A Self-Categorization Explanation for Opinion Consensus Perceptions

The public expression of opinions (and related communicative activities) hinges upon the perception of opinion consensus. Current explanations for opinion consensus perceptions typically focus on egocentric and other biases, rather than functional cognitions. Using self-categorization theory we showed that opinion consensus perceptions flow from cognitions regarding the fit between issues and group prototypes. Strong normative fit enhanced perceptions of ingroup opinion consensus (Experiments 1 and 2), and consensus perceptions varied as a function of comparison outgroups (Experiment 3), ingroup prototype salience (Experiment 4), and levels of identity threat (Experiment 5). Self-categorization theory has the potential to integrate a variety of cognitive and motivational processes to provide a comprehensive explanation for opinion consensus perceptions.

The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science

Public concern about anthropogenic global warming has been declining despite the scientific consensus on the issue. It is still unknown whether experts’ consensus determines people’s beliefs, and it is not clear if public perception of consensus overrides worldviews known to foster rejection of anthropogenic climate change. New research shows that information about scientific consensus increases acceptance of anthropogenic global warming and neutralizes the effect of worldviews.

The dual value of honesty among Russians in selected former Soviet countries

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to analyse the factors associated with the perception of the value honesty among Russian organisational members from selected former Soviet countries: Russia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.Design/methodology/approachUsing the Rokeach Value Survey, the respondents were asked to rank their own values and to speculate on how their co‐workers would rank the same values. The following analysis focused on the importance of honesty, its concurrence with speculations about co‐workers, the impact of other personal values and socio‐demographic characteristics.FindingsOne of the most important findings of this study is that value honesty is amongst the most important values for Russians, while the importance of this value was not similar for Russians living in Russia and the Baltic States. Value consensus tells us the most about how important honesty is for the focal person. Results also reveal that other personal values, namely, family security, comfortable life, imaginative, capable and broad minded help to predict the assessment of honesty.Research limitations/implicationsThe results of the study imply that societal influence prevails over cultural influence when the importance honesty is assessed among Russians. Also, we show that individually, value honesty is socially construed and can therefore be manipulated via changing his/her perception of social consensus rather than directly.Originality/valueThe originality of the paper lies in the focusing on the Russians living in different countries of former Soviet Union by analysing the importance of value honesty which plays a role in business and societal culture.

Social validation of collective annotations: Definition and experiment

AbstractPeople taking part in argumentative debates through collective annotations face a highly cognitive task when trying to estimate the group's global opinion. In order to reduce this effort, we propose in this paper to model such debates prior to evaluating their “social validation.” Computing the degree of global confirmation (or refutation) enables the identification of consensual (or controversial) debates. Readers as well as prominent information systems may thus benefit from this information. The accuracy of the social validation measure was tested through an online study conducted with 121 participants. We compared their human perception of consensus in argumentative debates with the results of the three proposed social validation algorithms. Their efficiency in synthesizing opinions was demonstrated by the fact that they achieved an accuracy of up to 84%.

Attitudes toward Out‐groups and the perception of consensus: All feet do not wear one shoe

AbstractAlthough social perception research has been carried out across a number of diverse domains, to the best of our knowledge, studies have not directly assessed the relationship between attitudes toward the out‐group and perceptions of community support for those attitudes. In the present research, we report the findings of a study conducted in Western Australia using data collected from 653 participants from three different locations. The main thrust of our study was the accuracy of beliefs about consensus as it related to attitudes toward two marginalized groups: Indigenous Australians and asylum seekers. With respect to their attitudes toward these two groups, our respondents were placed in seven categories corresponding to their responses to our seven point attitude scales. Three main findings emerged. First, respondents at all seven levels overestimated community support for their views with respect to both Indigenous Australians and asylum seekers. Second, as respondents in both groups became more rejecting, their estimates of community support progressively increased in a linear fashion. Third, respondents in the more negative categories were significantly less accurate in their estimates than those in the more positive categories. How these findings might contribute to programmes designed to reduce prejudice is discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.