Open Questions in Scientific Consensus Messaging Research

Landrum, Asheley R.; Slater, Matthew H.

doi:10.1080/17524032.2020.1776746

Cited by 17 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 63 publications

(104 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerns exist among some, however, regarding the applicability of these results outside of climate change. First, not all consensus messages can be accurately summarized as a proportion of scientists who agree (and arguably, consensus about climate change should not be interpreted that way either [ 8 ]). To this end, this study uses and compares two consensus messaging strategies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although this “evidence message” design may be a closer description to what philosophers of science would label scientific consensus, and it may be more in line with how consensus is established [ 8 ], there is evidence that it may be a less effective communication strategy than the descriptive norm/authority appeal. For example, Myers et al [ 3 ] found that when agreement among scientists was described but a numerical estimate was not used (e.g., “an overwhelming majority of scientists have concluded…” vs “97% of scientists have concluded”), participants’ estimates of scientific consensus and other variables of interest did not significantly differ from the control condition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influences of study design on the effectiveness of consensus messaging: The case of medicinal cannabis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines to what extent study design decisions influence the perceived efficacy of consensus messaging, using medicinal cannabis as the context. We find that researchers’ decisions about study design matter. A modified Solomon Group Design was used in which participants were either assigned to a group that had a pretest (within-subjects design) or a posttest only group (between-subjects design). Furthermore, participants were exposed to one of three messages—one of two consensus messages or a control message—attributed to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. A consensus message describing a percent (97%) of agreeing scientists was more effective at shifting public attitudes than a consensus message citing substantial evidence, but this was only true in the between-subject comparisons. Participants tested before and after exposure to a message demonstrated pre-sensitization effects that undermined the goals of the messages. Our results identify these nuances to the effectiveness of scientific consensus messaging, while serving to reinforce the importance of study design.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influences of study design on the effectiveness of consensus messaging: The case of medicinal cannabis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effects reported in the current study also result from just a single exposure. Implemented at scale small messaging effects can have a discernible impact on public opinion (see discussion in: Landrum & Slater, 2020 ; Rode et al., 2021 ; van der Linden et al., 2019 ). More engaging and repeated consensus messaging campaigns incorporating visual elements or humor may prove more effective in shifting beliefs for those wanting to do so (Brewer & McKnight, 2017 ; Clarke et al., 2020 ; Goldberg, van der Linden et al, 2020 ; Harris et al., 2019 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating expert consensus increases personal support for COVID‐19 mitigation policies

Kerr

Linden

2021

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Gateway Belief Model (GBM) places perception of a scientific consensus as a key “gateway cognition” with cascading effects on personal beliefs, concern, and ultimately support for public policies. However, few studies seeking to evaluate and extend the model have followed the specification and design of the GBM as originally outlined. We present a more complete test of the theoretical model in a novel domain: the COVID‐19 pandemic. In a large multi‐country correlational study ( N = 7,206) we report that, as hypothesized by the model, perceptions of scientific consensus regarding the threat of COVID‐19 predict personal attitudes toward threat and worry over the virus, which are in turn positively associated with support for mitigation policies. We also find causal support for the model in a large pre‐registered survey experiment ( N = 1,856): experimentally induced increases in perceived consensus have an indirect effect on changes in policy support mediated via changes in personal agreement with the consensus. Implications for the role of expert consensus in science communication are discussed.

show abstract

“…Yet, this approach focuses too much on the need to fill the knowledge gap between scientists and the public, and it overlooks the influence that ideological predispositions and values have on the public's interpretation of information (Besley, Dudo, Yuan, & Ghannam, 2016). Arguably, consensus reports such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and campaigns communicating scientific consensus have done little to sway the public's attitudes as public opinion hardly shifts surrounding their release (e.g., Landrum, Hallman, & Jamieson, 2019; Landrum & Slater, 2020). As stated earlier, the strongest predictor of global climate change attitudes is not knowledge, but political ideology (e.g., Dunlap & McCright, 2008).…”

Section: Communicating About Global Climate Change From the Pulpitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polarized U.S. publics, Pope Francis, and climate change: Reviewing the studies and data collected around the 2015 Papal Encyclical

Landrum

Vasquez

2020

WIREs Climate Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As soon as it was clear that Pope Francis's 2015 Encyclical, Laudato Si': On Care for Our Common Home, would discuss, among other issues, the moral imperative to address global climate change, U.S. scholars and research institutions rushed to collect data surrounding its release. These groups aimed to determine whether there would be a "Francis Effect," in which U.S. Conservatives (and Conservative Catholics in particular) would show greater concern about the negative effects of global climate change. Here, we first provide context by discussing the history of political polarization in the U.S. over global climate change. Then, we review the published literature and publicly available data that aimed to examine potential influences of Laudato Si' on people's climate change attitudes. Taken together, the available scholarship provides strong evidence that U.S. publics were differentially responsive to the Pope's messaging (with political Conservatives expressing less climate change concern and viewing Pope Francis as less credible), but there is correlational evidence of an overall "Francis Effect." U.S. population data collected following the encyclical's release show small, potentially temporary, increases in perceptions of papal credibility, climate change concern, and the perspective that global climate change is a moral issue.

show abstract

Open Questions in Scientific Consensus Messaging Research

Cited by 17 publications

References 63 publications

Influences of study design on the effectiveness of consensus messaging: The case of medicinal cannabis

Influences of study design on the effectiveness of consensus messaging: The case of medicinal cannabis

Communicating expert consensus increases personal support for COVID‐19 mitigation policies

Polarized U.S. publics, Pope Francis, and climate change: Reviewing the studies and data collected around the 2015 Papal Encyclical

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About