Given their definition of subjective norms, rational-choice theories must

Of this article's seven experiments, the first five demonstrate that virtually no Americans know the basic global warming mechanism. Fortunately, Experiments 2-5 found that 2-45 min of physicalchemical climate instruction durably increased such understandings. This mechanistic learning, or merely receiving seven highly germane statistical facts (Experiment 6), also increased climate-change acceptance-across the liberal-conservative spectrum. However, Experiment 7's misleading statistics decreased such acceptance (and dramatically, knowledge-confidence). These readily available attitudinal and conceptual changes through scientific information disconfirm what we term "stasis theory"-which some researchers and many laypeople varyingly maintain. Stasis theory subsumes the claim that informing people (particularly Americans) about climate science may be largely futile or even counterproductive-a view that appears historically na€ ıve, suffers from range restrictions (e.g., near-zero mechanistic knowledge), and/or misinterprets some polarization and (noncausal) correlational data. Our studies evidenced no polarizations. Finally, we introduce HowGlobalWarmingWorks.org-a website designed to directly enhance public "climate-change cognition." This article contains information that appears here alone, but Experiments 1-7 are described elsewhere, often with more available descriptive space. Therefore, for additional (usually more) explicit information about motivations, methods, and findings, please note that Experiment 1 appears in Ranney et al. (2012a, Study 1) and in considerable detail in Cohen (2012); Experiment 2 appears in Ranney et al. (2012a, Study 2) and also in Clark (2013, Study 6.1); Experiments 3, 5, and 7 appear in Clark et al. (2013, Studies 1, 4, and 2, respectively); Experiments 3 and 7 also appear with considerable detail in Clark (2013, Studies 6.2 and 4.2); Experiment 5 also appears with considerable detail in Felipe (2012); Experiments 4 and 6 appear with considerable detail in Clark (2013, Studies 6.3 and 5.2). Given present allotted space, we have generally compacted the studies here, but we have more richly explicated a minority of the studies.

Evolutionary science has consequences for individuals and society, ranging from the way we interpret human behavior to our notions of spirituality and the purpose of our existence. Popular portrayals of evolution depict a paradoxical theory, a source of knowledge and human connections, but also a threat to our humanity and freedom. Using quantitative and qualitative methodology, we examined how college‐educated adults (n = 135) from diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds perceive the impact of evolutionary theory on individuals and society. We identified a continuum of perspectives, ranging from strong creationist to strong evolutionist. Using the model of “knowledge as an ecology” (Demastes, Good, & Peebles, Science Education, 79, 637–666, 1995; Nardi & O'Day, Information ecologies: Using technology with heart, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999), we examined the relationships among participants' beliefs, their perceptions regarding the social and personal impact of evolutionary theory, their prior exposure to and knowledge of evolutionary theory, and their opinions regarding the teaching of evolution. Evolutionists and creationists differed in their prior exposure to evolutionary theory, and their opinions about some aspects of teaching, but showed striking similarities regarding perceived impact. All groups viewed the consequences of accepting evolutionary principles in a way that might be considered undesirable: increased selfishness and racism, decreased spirituality, and a decreased sense of purpose and self‐determination. From a science education perspective, this one‐sided interpretation is troublesome because it runs counter to the available evidence and theories in evolutionary science, and we consider ways of fostering more balanced presentation and appraisal of evolutionary theory. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 87:181–206, 2003; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/sce.10045

No abstract

No abstract