Communicating the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: Diverse Audiences and Effects Over Time

Goldberg, Matthew H.; Gustafson, Abel; Linden, Sander van der; Rosenthal, Seth A.; Leiserowitz, Anthony

doi:10.1177/00139165221129539

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, for our purposes, this was useful and efficient given there was clearly an objectively right answer to this question (i.e., experts do agree). However, on other views, this kind of question might perhaps be better characterized as perceived expert consensus , since one’s response may also involve attitudinal elements (e.g., Goldberg et al, 2022; Lewandowsky et al, 2013). Accordingly, it may be prudent for future research to select multiple measures for key variables, preferably including psychometrically validated scales and instruments if available.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numeracy does not polarize climate change judgments: Numerate people are more knowledgeable and knowledge is power.

Cho,

Cokely,

Ramasubramanian

et al. 2024

Decision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statistical numeracy skills have been found to be among the most robust general predictors of risk understanding and decision-making quality. However, some research suggests that when numerate people hold extreme worldviews they could use their skills to engage in motivated (biased) reasoning about controversial topics like climate change, further polarizing their judgments and beliefs. While suggestive, previous numeracy studies on this topic have neglected the highly influential role of knowledge in skilled judgment and decision making (see Skilled Decision Theory; Cokely et al., 2018). To address this limit, we conducted two studies with diverse (n = 537) and probabilistically representative samples (n = 305) of U.S. residents, testing the first integrated cognitive model of the relations between numeracy, worldviews, knowledge, beliefs, and risk perceptions. Structural modeling revealed that regardless of people’s worldviews, numeracy was not associated with polarization or enhanced bias. However, numeracy was consistently related to more accurate climate change knowledge, which was by far the strongest predictor of accurate beliefs (e.g., 6–10 times stronger than people’s worldviews), largely mediating the associations between worldviews and risk perceptions (e.g., individualists were less informed and less concerned about climate change). Consistent with the risk literacy Knowledge is Power account, results suggest that when accurate risk knowledge is available numeracy skills may generally promote more informed and therefore less biased judgment and decision making, even when people are confronted with controversies and conflicts of interest.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numeracy does not polarize climate change judgments: Numerate people are more knowledgeable and knowledge is power.

Cho,

Cokely,

Ramasubramanian

et al. 2024

Decision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the case of climate change, evolution, or the origin of the universe, the answer is an unequivocal "yes." Moreover, Goldberg et al (2022) have shown acknowledge of what the scientific consensus on climate change is has a significant effect on individuals' beliefs, particularly among the doubtful or dismissive. In addition, this effect is shown to be enduring.…”

Section: Scientific Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second is an understanding of the social practices used by science to protect against error and produce reliable, trustworthy knowledge. As one example, studies demonstrate that teaching people about the scientific consensus on climate change can lead them to update their beliefs accordingly (e.g., Goldberg et al, 2022).…”

Section: What Can Be Done By Scientists and Science Educators To Deve...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Citizens are often confronted by the need for information for decision‐making and action, where the science may be uncertain (e.g., whether a new virus variant is a larger threat than the previous variants). In such contexts, the essential question is, “is there a consensus or emergent consensus on this issue?” In the case of climate change, evolution, or the origin of the universe, the answer is an unequivocal “yes.” Moreover, Goldberg et al (2022) have shown acknowledge of what the scientific consensus on climate change is has a significant effect on individuals’ beliefs, particularly among the doubtful or dismissive. In addition, this effect is shown to be enduring.…”

Section: What Can Be Done By Scientists and Science Educators To Deve...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Science education in an age of misinformation

Osborne

Pimentel

2023

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we argue that the current science curricula are failing to educate students to be competent outsiders to science. Historically, science education has rested on two premises. The first is that it is possible for students to acquire sufficient scientific knowledge from K‐12 education to become intellectually independent. That is that science education can produce individuals capable of evaluating scientific evidence and arguments critically for themselves. This belief is what underlies many of the conceptions of scientific literacy and is the basis of the rationale that is used to sustain and justify what is offered in nearly all countries across the globe. The second is the belief that the science that students will encounter will have been filtered such that it can be trusted. Nothing today could be further from the truth. Today, misinformation abounds and much of it purports to be scientific. Very few conceptions of scientific literacy have considered how students can be prepared to evaluate the claims that abound on social media. Current conceptions of “scientific literacy,” we argue, are failing to articulate the competencies and knowledge required in today's changed context. In what follows, we lay out our arguments for why it is time to rethink the conception of scientific literacy by considering what it requires to be a competent outsider to science. Then drawing on our recent report, we lay out what might be done within science education to address the specific phenomenon of misinformation.

show abstract

“…Most empirical research on the impact of strategic messaging only measures effects immediately after the message (therefore not considering durability), artificially forces 100% reach in the audience of study participants (therefore not considering reach), and most does not consider the many restraining forces that exist in noisy, complex, and competitive real-world environments. Although there are notable exceptions to this paradigm (e.g., Allcott, 2011;Broockman & Kalla, 2016;Chong & Druckman, 2013;Gerber & Green, 2012;Goldberg et al, 2021;Goldberg et al, 2022;Gustafson et al, 2022;Kalla & Broockman, 2020;Maertens et al, 2020;Mousa, 2020;Paluck, 2009), they are relatively uncommon. The present framework highlights the importance of explicitly considering these elements in research and practice by explaining how the reach, durability, and restraining forces are just as essential as the campaign's "effect" in determining the true impact of a strategic communication campaign.…”

Section: Disclosure Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Understanding the Effects of Strategic Communication Campaigns

Goldberg

Gustafson

2022

International Journal of Strategic Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decades of research on strategic communication campaigns has generated myriad insights. However, this valuable knowledge is often fragmented across many fields and topic areas, making it difficult for researchers and practitioners to distill this knowledge and map the key strategic considerations. In this article, we present an overarching framework for understanding the effects of strategic communication campaigns. We define the driving force as all the efforts, contexts, and systems that advance the campaign's goals, and the restraining force as those that restrict the campaign's goals. The total impact of any driving or restraining force can be understood as the product of its reach, effect, and durability. Reach refers to the proportion of people in the target population that are exposed to the corresponding driving or restraining force. Effect refers to the size of the impact of that force, among those who are exposed. Durability refers to the extent to which the effect of that force lasts over time and/or resists opposing forces. We highlight how this framework can be used to distill, connect, and interpret large amounts of extant research and theory, and how it can be used by researchers to design research programs and identify persisting knowledge gaps.

show abstract

Communicating the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: Diverse Audiences and Effects Over Time

Cited by 15 publications

References 92 publications

Numeracy does not polarize climate change judgments: Numerate people are more knowledgeable and knowledge is power.

Numeracy does not polarize climate change judgments: Numerate people are more knowledgeable and knowledge is power.

Science education in an age of misinformation

A Framework for Understanding the Effects of Strategic Communication Campaigns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About