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

peer reviewedCommunicating the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is real increases climate change beliefs, worry and support for public action in the United States. In this preregistered experiment, we tested two scientific consensus messages, a classic message on the reality of human-caused climate change and an updated message additionally emphasizing scientific agreement that climate change is a crisis. Across online convenience samples from 27 countries (n = 10,527), the classic message substantially reduces misperceptions (d = 0.47, 95% CI (0.41, 0.52)) and slightly increases climate change beliefs (from d = 0.06, 95% CI (0.01, 0.11) to d = 0.10, 95% CI (0.04, 0.15)) and worry (d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.10)) but not support for public action directly. The updated message is equally effective but provides no added value. Both messages are more effective for audiences with lower message familiarity and higher misperceptions, including those with lower trust in climate scientists and right-leaning ideologies. Overall, scientific consensus messaging is an effective, non-polarizing tool for changing misperceptions, beliefs and worry across different audiences

Identitetsskapande hos unga vuxna tillkomna medspermadonation : En kvalitativ intervjustudie om upplevelsen av identitetsskapande blanddanska och svenska unga vuxna tillkomna med spermadonation

Godkänd: 2021-06-02</p

Data_Sheet_1_Ideological predictors of anti-science attitudes: exploring the impact of group-based dominance and populism in North America and Western Europe.docx

This research examined individual-level ideological variables as predictors of anti-science attitudes, encompassing a lack of acceptance, belief, and trust in science as an institution and source of knowledge. We specifically focused on ideologies associated with group-based dominance and populism while also considering conventional predictors like scientific literacy, symbolic ideology, and partisanship. Study 1 was an original survey (U.S. participants, N = 700), which replicated prior research showing that political conservative identity and attitudes favoring group-based dominance most strongly predicted anti-science attitudes. In contrast, populist attitudes had no substantial effect. In Study 2, analyzing data from the Dutch LISS Panel (N = 2,186), group-based dominance attitudes, specifically with regard to gender, as well as populist attitudes and conspiracy beliefs, emerged as the most prominent factors predicting anti-science attitudes. These studies speak to the role of group-based dominance attitudes in undermining the perceived validity of science, as observed in both North American and Western European samples. Whether these results reflect more consistent patterns or are specific to particular countries and cultural contexts is not clear, emphasizing the need for future research on how these ideologies shape and perpetuate anti-science attitudes.</p

Trust in Climate Scientists and Political Ideology: A 26-Country Analysis

Trust in climate scientists is critical for public awareness and engagement in mitigating climate change. Previous research has shown that right-wing political ideology is associated with lower trust in climate scientists, yet the predominant focus on Western countries raises questions about the universality of this relationship. Addressing this gap in our preregistered study, we analyze cross-sectional, secondary data across 26 countries from all inhabited continents (N = 10,646). While observing generally high trust, right-leaning individuals reported lower trust in climate scientists compared to those further to the left. However, we find considerable differences in this association across countries, with Anglophone countries showing the strongest association. Contrary to popularly motivated reasoning accounts, education did not moderate this relationship. The findings highlight the consistency of the political ideology-trust in climate scientists relationship across 26 countries but also underscore overlooked variations outside Western contexts

Trust in Climate Scientists and Political Ideology: A 26-Country Analysis

Preprint: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/dvczr Trust in climate scientists is critical for public awareness and engagement in mitigating climate change. Previous research has shown that right-wing political ideology is associated with lower trust in climate scientists, yet the predominant focus on Western countries raises questions about the universality of this relationship. Addressing this gap in our preregistered study, we analyze cross-sectional, secondary data across 26 countries from all inhabited continents (N = 10,646). While observing generally high trust, right-leaning individuals reported lower trust in climate scientists compared to those further to the left. However, we find considerable differences in this association across countries, with Anglophone countries showing the strongest association. Contrary to popularly motivated reasoning accounts, education did not moderate this relationship. The findings highlight the consistency of the political ideology-trust in climate scientists relationship across 26 countries but also underscore overlooked variations outside Western contexts

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

Communicating the scientific consensus that climate change is real increases climate change beliefs, worry, and support for public action in the US. Recent science goes beyond the mere reality of climate change—there is now broad agreement that climate change is a crisis. In this preregistered 27-country experiment (N = 10,527), we tested two scientific consensus messages, a classic message on the reality of climate change and an updated message additionally emphasizing the crisis status agreement. The classic message corrects misperceptions and slightly increases climate change beliefs and worry but not support for public action. The updated message is equally effective but provides no added value. Both messages are more effective for audiences with lower message familiarity and higher misperceptions, including those with lower trust in climate scientists and right-leaning ideologies. Overall, scientific consensus messaging is an effective, non-polarizing tool for climate change communication across diverse audiences

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

Funder: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic: e-INFRA CZ project (ID:90140)Funder: Social Psychology Program, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of AmsterdamFunder: Columbia University’s Office for Undergraduate Globe EducationCommunicating the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is real increases climate change beliefs, worry and support for public action in the United States. In this preregistered experiment, we tested two scientific consensus messages, a classic message on the reality of human-caused climate change and an updated message additionally emphasizing scientific agreement that climate change is a crisis. Across online convenience samples from 27 countries (n = 10,527), the classic message substantially reduces misperceptions (d = 0.47, 95% CI (0.41, 0.52)) and slightly increases climate change beliefs (from d = 0.06, 95% CI (0.01, 0.11) to d = 0.10, 95% CI (0.04, 0.15)) and worry (d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.10)) but not support for public action directly. The updated message is equally effective but provides no added value. Both messages are more effective for audiences with lower message familiarity and higher misperceptions, including those with lower trust in climate scientists and right-leaning ideologies. Overall, scientific consensus messaging is an effective, non-polarizing tool for changing misperceptions, beliefs and worry across different audiences