Using a News Article to Convey Climate Science Consensus Information

Abstract

The current study investigates how people respond to a climate science consensus statement embedded within a news article. Participants ( N = 1,048) were randomly assigned to read a news article about climate change, read the same article with a scientific consensus message included, read a simple consensus statement, or a control condition. Participants in consensus conditions had increased perceptions of scientific agreement compared with those who did not receive consensus information. Moreover, the article was similarly effective as an overt consensus statement. However, neither consensus statement affected other climate change attitudes, suggesting the effect may be limited to consensus perceptions.

Climate Change Consensus Messages May Cause Reactance in Conservatives, But There is No Meta-Analytic Evidence That They Backfire

“…Based on meta-analytic evidence from 20 studies, communication practitioners can be more confident that consensus messages about climate change likely will not backfire among conservatives. Since consensus messages can be shared in various ways and forums (e.g., videos, news articles; Goldberg et al, 2019;Rode, Iqbal, et al, 2021), it may be beneficial to make them more widespread. Yet consensus messages-similar to other persuasive messages-are unlikely to cause widespread changes in perspectives about divisive political topics (for a longer discussion, see Rode, Dent, et al, 2021; also see Coppock et al, 2020).…”

A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change

“…In recent years, one of the most studied strategies to correct these misperceptions and influence climate change attitudes has been communicating the message that 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening 12,13 . A large body of experimental studies supports the notion that communicating this 'classic' scientific consensus can shift consensus perceptions, as well as beliefs in the reality of climate change and human activity as its primary cause, climate change worry, and support for public action [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] . In addition, two meta-analyses of these studies provide converging evidence for the effectiveness of consensus messaging.…”

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

“…Other research finds that the consensus message has similar effects across the ideological spectrum (Deryugina & Shurchkov, 2016; Imundo & Rapp, 2022; Myers et al, 2015; Rode, Dent, Benedict, et al, 2021; Rode, Iqbal, Butler, et al, 2021). Moreover, although some theoretical frameworks—such as the theory of cultural cognition—predict backfire effects (Kahan et al, 2011), most research does not find backfire effects among conservatives (e.g., Dixon et al, 2017; Rode, Iqbal, Butler, et al, 2021). This is consistent with the lack of evidence for backfire effects in the literature more generally (Guess & Coppock, 2020; Nyhan,2021; Swire-Thompson et al, 2020; Wood & Porter, 2019).…”

“…Some researchers argue that, as a secondorder normative belief (i.e., a belief about what others believe), the scientific consensus is a non-identity-threatening message, which can lead to greater belief revision among Republicans and conservatives than among Democrats and liberals (Chinn & Hart, 2021a;Goldberg, van der Linden, Ballew, Rosenthal, Gustafson, & Leiserowitz, 2019;Lewandowsky et al, 2013;van der Linden et al, 2015van der Linden et al, , 2018aZhang et al, 2018). Other research finds that the consensus message has similar effects across the ideological spectrum (Deryugina & Shurchkov, 2016;Imundo & Rapp, 2022;Myers et al, 2015;Rode, Dent, Benedict, et al, 2021;Rode, Iqbal, Butler, et al, 2021). Moreover, although some theoretical frameworks-such as the theory of cultural cognition-predict backfire effects (Kahan et al, 2011), most research does not find backfire effects among conservatives (e.g., Dixon et al, 2017;Rode, Iqbal, Butler, et al, 2021).…”

“…Accordingly, many studies have found that communicating descriptive norms, such as the fact that “97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening” can successfully debias people’s perception of the scientific consensus and can lead to statistically significant (but smaller) downstream changes in beliefs about climate change and support for climate policy (Bolsen & Druckman, 2018; Brewer & McKnight, 2017; Cook et al, 2017; Goldberg, van der Linden, Ballew, Rosenthal, Gustafson, & Leiserowitz, 2019; Goldberg, van der Linden, Ballew, Rosenthal, & Leiserowitz, 2019; Harris et al, 2019; Imundo & Rapp, 2022; Kobayashi, 2018; Lewandowsky et al, 2013; Myers et al, 2015; van der Linden, Leiserowitz & Maibach, 2019; Zhang et al, 2018). Indeed, a recent meta-analysis of 20 scientific consensus experiments found a significant effect on personal attitudes about climate change (Hedge’s g = 0.08)—across the political spectrum (Rode, Iqbal, Butler, et al, 2021). 1…”