Perceptions Of Scientific Consensus Research Articles

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.

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.

Perceptions of scientific consensus do not predict later beliefs about the reality of climate change: A test of the gateway belief model using cross-lagged panel analysis

The gateway belief model posits that perceptions of scientific agreement play a causal role in shaping beliefs about the existence of anthropogenic climate change. However, experimental support for the model is mixed. The current study takes a longitudinal approach, examining the causal relationships between perceived consensus and beliefs. Perceptions of scientific consensus and personal beliefs about climate change were collected over a five-month period in a student sample (N = 356). Cross-lagged panel analysis revealed that perceived scientific consensus did not prospectively predict personal agreement with the reality of climate change, thus the current study did not find support for the gateway belief model. However, the inverse pathway was significant for those with liberal voting intentions: personal beliefs about the reality of anthropogenic climate change prospectively predicted subsequent estimates of consensus. The results suggest that individuals’ perceptions of a consensus among scientists do not have a strong influence on their personal beliefs about climate change.