Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: The results of two experiments

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2015, Pages

  Myers, Teresa A ^a   Maibach, Edward ^a   Peters, Ellen ^b   Leiserowitz, Anthony ^c  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMERICAN; ARTICLE; CLIMATE CHANGE; CONSENSUS; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN ACTIVITIES; HYPOTHESIS; IDEOLOGY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; POLITICAL SYSTEM; PUBLIC OPINION; SCIENTIFIC AGREEMENT; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

CLIMATE CHANGE; HUMAN ACTIVITIES; HUMANS;

EID: 84926359703     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120985     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. National Research Council. Climate change: Evidence, impacts, and choices. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies. 2012.
2. IPCC Summary for Policymakers. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, et al., editors. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2014. pp. 1-32.
3. US National Climate Assessment. 2014. Available: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report
4. Cook J, Nuccitelli D, Green SA, Richardson M, Winkler B, Painting R., et al. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ Res Lett. 2013; 8: 1-7. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 PMID: 25580157
5. Doran PT, Zimmerman MK. Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos. 2009; 90: 22-23. doi: 10.1029/2009EO030002
6. Farnsworth SJ, Lichter SR. Scientific assessments of climate change information in news and entertainment media. Sci Commun. 2012; 34: 435-459. doi: 10.1177/1075547011422957
7. Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J, Schneider SH. Expert credibility in climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107
8. Oreskes N. The scientific consensus on climate change. Sci, 2004; 306: 1686. PMID: 15576594
9. Powell JL. Why climate deniers have no scientific credibility: Only 1 of 9,135 recent peer-reviewed authors rejects global warming. 2014. Available: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
10. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Rosenthal S, Marlon J. Climate change in the American mind: Americans' global warming beliefs and attitudes in November, 2013. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication: Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT; 2014.
11. Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM. Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Glob Environ Change. 2004; 14: 125-136. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
12. Dunlap RE, McCright AM. Organized climate change denial. In Dryzek JS, Norgaard RB, Schlosberg D, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University. 2011, pp. 144-160.
13. Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press; 2010.
14. Pooley E. The climate war: True believers, power brokers, and the fight to save the earth. New York, NY: Hyperion; 2010.
15. Powell JL. The inquisition of climate science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2012.
16. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Vaughan S. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat Clim Chang. 2013; 3: 399-404. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1720
17. Ding D, Maibach EW, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat Clim Chang. 2011; 1: 462-466. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1295
18. McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Xiao C. Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Clim Chang. 2013; 119: 511-518. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9
19. Van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Feinberg G, Maibach E. The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE. In press.
20. Kahan D. Climate science communication and the measurement problem. Adv Pol Psychol. In press.
21. Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, Schwarz N, Cook J. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2012; 13: 106-131. doi: 10.1177/1529100612451018
22. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change Facts: Answers to Common Questions. Available: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html
23. Peters E, Hibbard J, Slovic P, Dieckmann N. Numeracy skill and the communication comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26: 741-748. PMID: 17485752
24. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 37-44. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0102100105 PMID: 11206945
25. Schwartz PH. Questioning the quantitative imperative: Decision aids, preventions and the ethics of disclosure. Hastings Cent Rep. 2011; 41: 30-39. PMID: 22238902
26. Budescu D, Weinberg S, Wallsten T. Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1988; 14: 281-294. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.14.2.281
27. Windschitl P, Weber E. The interpretation of "likely" depends on the context, but "70%" is 70% - right? The influence of associative processes on perceived certainty. J Exp Psychol. 1999; 25: 1514-1533. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1514 PMID: 10605832
28. Zimmer AC. Verbal vs. numeric processing of subjective probabilities. In Scholz R.W., editor. Decision making under uncertainty. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishers. 1983; pp. 159-182.
29. Brun W, Teigen KH. Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1988; 41: 390-404 doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(88)90036-2
30. Burkell J. What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2004; 92: 200-208.
31. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27: 696-713. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07307271 PMID: 17873259
32. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Rapoport A, Zwick R, Forsyth B. Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. J Exp Psychol. 1986; 115: 348-365. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.115.4.348
33. Peters E, Hart PS, Tusler M, Fraenkel L. Numbers matter to informed patient choices: A randomized design across age and numeracy levels. Med Decis Making. 2013. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13511705
34. Fetting JH, Siminoff LA, Piantadosi S, Abeloff MD, Damron DJ, Sarfield AM. Effect of patients' expectations of benefit with standard breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy on participation in a randomized clinical trial: A classical vignette study. J Clin Oncol. 1990; 8: 1476-1482. PMID: 2202790
35. Inglis S, Franill D. The effects of providing preoperative statistical anaestheic-risk information. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1993; 21: 799-805. PMID: 8122737
36. Marteau TM, Saidi G, Goodburn S, Lawton J, Michie S, Bobrow M. Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial or presenting screen negative results to pregnant women. Prenat Diagn. 2000; 20: 714-718. doi: 10.1002/1097-0223(200009)20:9〈714::AID-PD906〉3.0.CO;2-4 PMID: 11015699
37. Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Armstrong K. The effect of numeric statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2004; 24: 265-271. doi: 10.1177/0272989X04265482 PMID: 15155015
38. Hallowell N, Statham H, Murton F, Green J, Richards M. "Talking about chance": The presentation of risk information during genetic counseling for breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns. 1997; 6: 269-286. doi: 10.1023/A:1025624221369
39. Budescu DV, Broomell S, Por H. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychol Sci. 2009; 20: 299-308. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02284.x PMID: 19207697
40. Janiszewski C, Uy D. Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment. Psychol Sci. 2008; 19: 121-127. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02057.x PMID: 18271859
41. Olson MJ, Budescu DV. Patterns of preference for numeric and verbal probabilities. J Behav Decis Mak. 1997; 10: 117-131. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199706)10:2〈117::AID-BDM251〉3.0.CO;2-7
42. Dunlap RE, McCright AM. A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environ. 2008; 50: 26-35. doi: 10.3200/ENVT.50.5.26-35
43. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. Anti-reflexivity the American conservative movement's success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Cult Soc. 2010; 27: 100-133. doi: 10.1177/0263276409356001
44. Kahan D, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res. 2011; 14: 147-174. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
45. Kahan DM, Peters E, Cantrell DE, Slovic P. Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. The Cultural Cognition Project, Working Paper No. 116. 2013.
46. Hart PS, Nisbet EC. Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun Res. 2012; 39: 701-723.
47. Bolsen T, Leeper TJ, Shapiro MA. Doing what others do: Norms, science, and collective action on global warming. Am Politics Res. 2014; 42: 65-89. doi: 10.1177/1532673X13484173
48. Myers TA. Goodbye, listwise deletion: Presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data. Commun Methods Meas. 2011; 5: 297-310. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2011.624490
49. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob Environ Change. 2011; 21: 1163-1173. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003
50. Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Lowe L, Visser PS. The origins and consequences of democratic citizens' policy agendas: A study of popular concern about global warming. Clim Change. 2006; 77: 7-43. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9068-8
51. Friestad M., & Wright P. The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. J Consum Res. 1994; 21(1), 1-31.
52. Peters E, Västjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17: 407-413. PMID: 16683928
53. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. How making a risk estimate can change the feel of that risk: Shifting attitudes toward breast cancer risk in a general public survey. Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 57: 294-299. PMID: 15893211
54. Loewenstein G. The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychol Bull. 1994; 116: 75-98.
55. Jackson S, O'Keefe DJ, Jacobs S. The search for reliable generalization across messages: A comparison of research strategies. Hum Commun Res. 1988; 15: 127-142.
56. Slater MD. Use of message stimuli in mass communication research: A methodological assessment and discussion. Journal Mass Commun Q. 1991; 68: 412-421.
57. Maibach E. Knowing our options for setting the record straight, when doing so is particularly important. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2012; 13: 105.