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

Bojana Većkalov^#¹, Sandra J Geiger^#², František Bartoš^{1

3}, Mathew P White⁴, Bastiaan T Rutjens¹, Frenk van Harreveld^{1

5}, Federica Stablum⁶, Berkan Akın^{1

7}, Alaa Aldoh¹, Jinhao Bai⁸, Frida Berglund^{9

10}, Aleša Bratina Zimic¹¹, Margaret Broyles¹², Andrea Catania¹³, Airu Chen¹⁴, Magdalena Chorzępa¹⁵, Eman Farahat¹⁶, Jakob Götz^{15

17}, Bat Hoter-Ishay¹⁴, Gesine Jordan¹⁸, Siri Joustra¹⁹, Jonas Klingebiel²⁰, Živa Krajnc^{21

22}, Antonia Krug²³, Thomas Lind Andersen²⁴, Johanna Löloff²⁵, Divya Natarajan²⁶, Sasha Newman-Oktan²⁷, Elena Niehoff²⁸, Celeste Paerels²⁹, Rachel Papirmeister³⁰, Steven Peregrina¹⁴, Felicia Pohl³¹, Amanda Remsö³², Abigail Roh¹⁴, Binahayati Rusyidi³³, Justus Schmidt⁷, Mariam Shavgulidze³⁴, Valentina Vellinho Nardin³⁵, Ruixiang Wang³⁶, Kelly Warner¹⁴, Miranda Wattier¹⁴, Chloe Y Wong³⁷, Mariem Younssi³⁸, Kai Ruggeri^{39

40}, Sander van der Linden⁴¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
² Environmental Psychology, Department of Cognition, Emotion and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. sandra.geiger@univie.ac.at.
³ Institute of Computer Science of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.
⁴ Cognitive Science Hub, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
⁵ National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
⁶ University of Trento, Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Trento, Italy.
⁷ University of Mannheim, Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany.
⁸ Liberal Arts Program, Faculty of Humanities, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
⁹ Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
¹⁰ Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
¹¹ Department of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
¹² Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
¹³ Department of Psychology, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.
¹⁴ Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
¹⁵ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
¹⁶ Department of Psychology, Behavioural and Economic Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
¹⁷ Motivation Psychology, Department of Occupational, Economic and Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
¹⁸ Department of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
¹⁹ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
²⁰ School of General Studies, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
²¹ Department of Psychology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
²² Department of Psychology, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
²³ Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
²⁴ Child and Adolescent Mental Health Center, Copenhagen University Hospital-Mental Health Services CPH, Copenhagen, Denmark.
²⁵ Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
²⁶ Department of Cognitive Science, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
²⁷ Program in Cognitive Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
²⁸ Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
²⁹ Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
³⁰ Department of Cognitive Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
³¹ Faculty of Psychology, Warsaw International Studies in Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
³² Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Kristianstad University, Kristianstad, Sweden.
³³ Social Welfare Department & Center for CSR, Social Entrepreneurship & Community Empowerment, FISIP, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor-Sumedang, Indonesia.
³⁴ Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
³⁵ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
³⁶ Columbia College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
³⁷ Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
³⁸ LAPCOS, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France.
³⁹ Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. dar56@cam.ac.uk.
⁴⁰ Policy Research Group, Centre for Business Research, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. dar56@cam.ac.uk.
⁴¹ Department of Psychology, School of the Biological Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

^# Contributed equally.

PMID: 39187712
PMCID: PMC11493676
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2

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

Bojana Većkalov et al. Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Oct.

. 2024 Oct;8(10):1892-1905.

doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2. Epub 2024 Aug 26.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
² Environmental Psychology, Department of Cognition, Emotion and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. sandra.geiger@univie.ac.at.
³ Institute of Computer Science of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.
⁴ Cognitive Science Hub, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
⁵ National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
⁶ University of Trento, Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Trento, Italy.
⁷ University of Mannheim, Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany.
⁸ Liberal Arts Program, Faculty of Humanities, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
⁹ Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
¹⁰ Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
¹¹ Department of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
¹² Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
¹³ Department of Psychology, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.
¹⁴ Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
¹⁵ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
¹⁶ Department of Psychology, Behavioural and Economic Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
¹⁷ Motivation Psychology, Department of Occupational, Economic and Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
¹⁸ Department of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
¹⁹ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
²⁰ School of General Studies, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
²¹ Department of Psychology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
²² Department of Psychology, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
²³ Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
²⁴ Child and Adolescent Mental Health Center, Copenhagen University Hospital-Mental Health Services CPH, Copenhagen, Denmark.
²⁵ Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
²⁶ Department of Cognitive Science, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
²⁷ Program in Cognitive Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
²⁸ Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
²⁹ Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
³⁰ Department of Cognitive Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
³¹ Faculty of Psychology, Warsaw International Studies in Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
³² Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Kristianstad University, Kristianstad, Sweden.
³³ Social Welfare Department & Center for CSR, Social Entrepreneurship & Community Empowerment, FISIP, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor-Sumedang, Indonesia.
³⁴ Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
³⁵ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
³⁶ Columbia College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
³⁷ Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
³⁸ LAPCOS, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France.
³⁹ Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. dar56@cam.ac.uk.
⁴⁰ Policy Research Group, Centre for Business Research, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. dar56@cam.ac.uk.
⁴¹ Department of Psychology, School of the Biological Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

^# Contributed equally.

PMID: 39187712
PMCID: PMC11493676
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2

Abstract

Communicating 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

**Fig. 1. Mean pre-intervention (mis)perceptions of the scientific consensus on the reality of climate change and agreement on climate change as a crisis per country sample.**
The error bars represent the 95% CI for each country. The dashed blue line represents the actual scientific reality consensus (97%). The dashed red line represents the actual scientific crisis agreement (88%).

**Fig. 2. Effects of the classic and updated scientific consensus intervention on all post-intervention outcomes.**
a, shows that both the classic and the updated consensus messages increase perceived scientific consensus and agreement. The upper vertical line represents the actual scientific reality consensus (97%); the lower vertical line represents the actual scientific crisis agreement (88%). b, shows that both messages increase belief in climate change, its human causation and climate change worry but not support for public action. The updated condition does not further increase belief in crisis, worry or support for public action. a,b, the means of each outcome per condition and the 95% CI (which are too small to be visible in panel a) are presented on the left-hand side. On the right-hand side, Bayes factors for between-group comparisons are shown. We only indicate Bayes factors for the tested hypotheses, not all comparisons. ‘Classic’ refers to the message communicating the scientific consensus on the reality of climate change. ‘Updated’ refers to the message communicating the scientific consensus on the reality of climate change and the scientific agreement on climate change as a crisis.Across both panels, sample sizes for all outcomes are: n_classic = 3,488; n_updated = 3,527; and n_control = 3,512, except for belief in human causation of climate change, where: n_classic = 3,443; n_updated = 3,490; and n_control = 3,464. These results are reported in the sections ‘Misperceptions of the reality consensus and crisis agreement’, ‘Effectiveness of the updated scientific consensus message’ and ‘Effectiveness of the updated scientific consensus message’. Complete results are described in the Results and the Supplementary Results.

See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

1. Lynas, M., Houlton, B. Z. & Perry, S. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett.16, 114005 (2021).
1. Cook, J. et al. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett.8, 024024 (2013).
1. Powell, J. L. Climate scientists virtually unanimous: anthropogenic global warming is true. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc.35, 121–124 (2015).
1. Egan, P. J. & Mullin, M. Climate change: US public opinion. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.20, 209–227 (2017).
1. Duffy, B., Malcolm, F., May, G., Hewlett, K. & Haggar, T. Public Perceptions of Climate Change (Policy Institute, 2022); https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/peritia-climate-change%E2%...

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Grants and funding

#2218595/National Science Foundation (NSF)

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- Nature Publishing Group
- PubMed Central
Medical
- MedlinePlus Health Information

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

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

Affiliations

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

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Figures

References

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Medical