Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science

Abstract

Although most experts agree that CO2 emissions are causing anthropogenic global warming (AGW), public concern has been declining. One reason for this decline is the ‘manufacture of doubt’ by political and vested interests, which often challenge the existence of the scientific consensus. The role of perceived consensus in shaping public opinion is therefore of considerable interest: in particular, it is unknown whether consensus determines people’s beliefs causally. It is also unclear whether perception of consensus can override people’s ‘worldviews’, which are known to foster rejection of AGW. Study 1 shows that acceptance of several scientific propositions—from HIV/AIDS to AGW—is captured by a common factor that is correlated with another factor that captures perceived scientific consensus. Study 2 reveals a causal role of perceived consensus by showing that acceptance of AGW increases when consensus is highlighted. Consensus information also neutralizes the effect of worldview.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Final latent variable Model 3 in Study 1 for item types (a) and (b) from Table 1.
Figure 2: The interaction effect of experimental conditions on the association between mean-centred free-market endorsement and acceptance of AGW in Study 2 (AGWb predicted from the regression model).

References

  1. 1

    Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J. & Schneider, S. H. Expert credibility in climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 12107–12109 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Doran, P. T. & Zimmerman, M. K. Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS 90, 21–22 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Oreskes, N. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306, 1686 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Freudenburg, W. R. & Muselli, V. Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 483–491 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J. & Jenkins, J. C. Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change 114, 169–188 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Scruggs, L. & Benegal, S. Declining public concern about climate change: Can we blame the Great Recession? Glob. Environ. Change 22, 505–515 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Ding, D., Maibach, E., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C. & Leiserowitz, A. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Clim. Change 1, 462–466 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Dunlap, R. E. & McCright, A. M. A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustainable Dev. 50, 26–35 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Kahan, D. M. Fixing the communications failure. Nature 463, 296–297 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Heath, Y. & Gifford, R. Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environ. Behav. 38, 48–71 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Anti-reflexivity: The American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theor. Culture Soc. 27, 100–133 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147–174 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Rolfe-Redding, J., Maibach, E. W., Feldman, L. & Leiserowitz, A. Republicans and Climate Change: An Audience Analysis of Predictors for Belief and Policy Preferences (Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2012).

  14. 14

    Wilson, R. S., Arvai, J. L. & Arkes, H. R. My loss is your loss... sometimes: Loss aversion and the effect of motivational biases. Risk Anal. 28, 929–938 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Puhl, R. M., Schwartz, M. B. & Brownell, K. D. Impact of perceived consensus on stereotypes about obese people: A new approach for reducing bias. Health Psychol. 24, 517–525 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Stangor, C., Sechrist, G. B. & Jost, J. T. Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27, 486–496 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Zitek, E. M. & Hebl, M. R. The role of social norm clarity in the influenced expression of prejudice over time. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43, 867–876 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Conway, L. C. I. & Schaller, M. When authorities commands backfire: Attributions about consensus and effects on deviant decision making. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 89, 311–326 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Leviston, Z. & Walker, I. A. Baseline Survey of Australian Attitudes to Climate Change: Preliminary Report Technical Report, CSIRO (Behavioural Sciences Research Group, 2010).

  20. 20

    Gignac, G. E. Multi-factor modeling in individual differences research: Some recommendations and suggestions. Personal. Individual Differ. 42, 37–48 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-theoretic Approach 2nd edn (Springer, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112, 155–159 (1992).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Hayes, A. F. & Matthes, J. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 924–936 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K. & Gignac, G. E. NASA faked the moon landing therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychol. Sci. (in the press).

  25. 25

    Chigwedere, P., Seage, G. R., Gruskin, I., Lee, S. & Essex, T-H. Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. J. Acq. Immun. Def. Syn. 49, 410–415 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Nattrass, N. Still crazy after all these years: The challenge of AIDS denialism for science. AIDS Behav. 14, 248–251 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Kalichman, S. C., Eaton, L. & Cherry, C. ‘There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS’: AIDS denialism beliefs among people living with HIV/AIDS. J. Behav. Medicine 33, 432–440 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotech. 4, 87–90 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Cohen, G. L., Gastil, J. & Slovic, P. Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognition. Law Human Behav. 34, 501–516 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Carrico, A. R. et al. Energy and climate change: Key lessons for implementing the behavioral wedge. J. Energ. Environ. Law 61–67 (2011).

  31. 31

    Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol. Sci. Public Int. 13, 106–131 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Kelly, J. A. et al. HIV risk behavior reduction following intervention with key opinion leaders of population—An experimental-analysis. Am. J. Public Health 81, 168–171 (1991).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Kelly, J. A. et al. Randomised, controlled, community-level HIV-prevention intervention for sexual-risk behaviour among homosexual men in US cities. Lancet 350, 1500–1505 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Douglas, K. M. & Sutton, R. M. Right about others, wrong about ourselves? Actual and perceived self-other differences in resistance to persuasion. British J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 585–603 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Douglas, K. M. & Sutton, R. M. The hidden impact of conspiracy theories: Perceived and actual influence of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana. J. Soc. Psychol. 148, 210–221 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Lewandowsky, S. Popular consensus: Climate change set to continue. Psychol. Sci. 22, 460–463 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Schär, C. et al. The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves. Nature 427, 332–336 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Rahmstorf, S. & Coumou, D. Increase of extreme events in a warming world. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 17905–17909 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Discovery Grant and a Linkage Grant from the Australian Research Council and an Australian Professorial Fellowship to the first author. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of J. Wong during data collection. We thank G. Brown for his suggestions concerning the questionnaire design and J. Cook, T. Lombrozo and K. Oberauer for comments on an earlier draft of this article. S.L. receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), including an ARC Linkage Grant with the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.L. designed and supervised the studies and wrote the paper. G.E.G. and S.L. jointly conducted the analyses and G.E.G. contributed to writing of the article, and S.V. was involved in design and execution of Study 2.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephan Lewandowsky.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 511 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. & Vaughan, S. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Clim Change 3, 399–404 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing