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.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism

Abstract

Despite over 50 years of messaging about the reality of human-caused climate change, substantial portions of the population remain sceptical. Furthermore, many sceptics remain unmoved by standard science communication strategies, such as myth busting and evidence building. To understand this, we examine psychological and structural reasons why climate change misinformation is prevalent. First, we review research on motivated reasoning: how interpretations of climate science are shaped by vested interests and ideologies. Second, we examine climate scepticism as a form of political followership. Third, we examine infrastructures of disinformation: the funding, lobbying and political operatives that lend climate scepticism its power. Guiding this Review are two principles: (1) to understand scepticism, one must account for the interplay between individual psychologies and structural forces; and (2) global data are required to understand this global problem. In the spirit of optimism, we finish by describing six strategies for reducing the destructive influence of climate scepticism.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Purchase on Springer Link

Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The interplay between individual and collective influences on climate scepticism.
Fig. 2: Perceptions of the level of threat that climate change presents to each nation.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Washington, H. & Cook, J. Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand (Routledge, 2011).

  2. Whitmarsh, L. Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 690–700 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Capstick, S. B. & Pidgeon, N. F. What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Glob. Environ. Change 24, 389–401 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hornsey, M. J., Chapman, C. M. & Humphrey, J. E. Climate skepticism decreases when the planet gets hotter and conservative support wanes. Glob. Environ. Change 74, 102492 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., Lemcke-Stampone, M., Moore, D. W. & Safford, T. G. Tracking public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLoS ONE 10, e0138208 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Egan, P. J. & Mullin, M. Climate change: US public opinion. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 20, 209–227 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Polino, C. in El Estado de la Ciencia: Principales Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Iberoamericanos/Interamericanos 2019 57–66 (RICYT, 2019).

  8. Ecker, U. K. H. et al. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 13–29 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewandowsky, S. Climate change disinformation and how to combat it. Annu. Rev. Public Health 42, 1–21 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G. & Fielding, K. S. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 622–626 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gauchat, G. Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77, 167–187 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Diamond, E., Bernauer, T. & Mayer, F. Does providing scientific information affect climate change and GMO policy preferences of the mass public? Insights from survey experiments in Germany and the United States. Environ. Polit. 29, 1199–1218 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hart, P. S. & Nisbet, E. C. Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun. Res. 39, 701–723 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewandowsky, S., Mann, M. E., Brown, N. J. L. & Friedman, H. Science and the public: debate, denial, and skepticism. J. Soc. Pol. Psychol. 4, 537–553 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ellerton, P. Climate sceptic or climate denier? It’s not that simple and here’s why. The Conversation https://theconversation.com/climate-sceptic-or-climate-denier-its-not-that-simple-and-heres-why-117913 (2019).

  16. Lewandowsky, S. & Oberauer, K. Motivated rejection of science. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25, 217–222 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108, 480–498 (1990).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Haidt, J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol. Rev. 108, 814–834 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hornsey, M. J. & Fielding, K. S. Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. Am. Psychol. 72, 459–473 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Campbell, T. H. & Kay, A. C. Solution aversion: on the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 809–824 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hornsey, M. J. & Fielding, K. S. Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 14, 3–35 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kassarjian, H. H. & Cohen, J. B. Cognitive dissonance and consumer behavior. Calif. Manag. Rev. 8, 55–64 (1965).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mata, A., Sherman, S. J., Ferreira, M. B. & Mendonça, C. Strategic numeracy: self-serving reasoning about health statistics. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37, 165–173 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kunda, Z. Motivated inference—self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 636–647 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lewandowsky, S. & Oberauer, K. Worldview-motivated rejection of science and the norms of science. Cognition 215, 104820 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kahan, D. M. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 8, 407–424 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

  28. Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E. & Vaughan, S. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 399–404 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fielding, K. S. & Hornsey, M. J. A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: insights and opportunities. Front. Psychol. 7, 121 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Cohen, G. L. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 808–822 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Turner, J. C. Social Influence (Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1991).

  32. Hornsey, M. J. Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: a historical review. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2, 204–222 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010).

  34. Farrell, J. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 92–97 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaplan, R. & Uchimiya, E. Where the 2016 Republican candidates stand on climate change. CBS News www.cbsnews.com/news/where-the-2016-republican-candidates-stand-on-climate-change (2015).

  36. Matthews, D. Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times. Here’s all of it. Vox https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement (2017).

  37. Escobar, H. Brazil’s new president has scientists worried. Here’s why. Science https://www.science.org/content/article/brazil-s-new-president-has-scientists-worried-here-s-why (2019).

  38. Fielding, K. S., Head, B. W., Laffan, W., Western, M. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Australian politicians’ beliefs about climate change: political partisanship and political ideology. Environ. Polit. 21, 712–733 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Dunlap, R. E. Clarifying anti-reflexivity: conservative opposition to impact science and scientific evidence. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 021001 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M. & Yarosh, J. H. The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 58, 4–23 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 1163–1172 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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 

  44. Carmichael, J. T. & Brulle, R. J. Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013. Environ. Polit. 26, 232–252 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mildenberger, M. & Leiserowitz, A. Public opinion on climate change: is there an economy–environment tradeoff? Environ. Polit. 26, 801–824 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gustafson, A. et al. The development of partisan polarization over the Green New Deal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 940–944 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kahan, D. M. et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 732–735 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Drummond, C. & Fischhoff, B. Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9587–9592 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Hamilton, L. C. Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change 104, 231–242 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ballew, M. T., Pearson, A. R., Goldberg, M. H., Rosenthal, S. A. & Leiserowitz, A. Does socioeconomic status moderate the political divide on climate change? The roles of education, income, and individualism. Glob. Environ. Change 60, 102024 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Czarnek, G., Kossowska, M. & Szwed, P. Right-wing ideology reduces the effects of education on climate change beliefs in more developed countries. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 9–13 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tesler, M. Elite domination of public doubts about climate change (not evolution). Polit. Commun. 35, 306–326 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hornsey, M. J. The role of worldviews in shaping how people appraise climate change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42, 36–41 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol. Q. 52, 155–194 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jones, J. M. Democratic, Republican confidence in science diverges. Gallup https://news.gallup.com/poll/352397/democratic-republican-confidence-science-diverges.aspx (2021).

  56. Brulle, R. J., Hall, G., Loy, L. & Schell-Smith, K. Obstructing action: foundation funding and US climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change 166, 17 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Dunlap, R. E. & Jacques, P. J. Climate change denial books and conservative think tanks: exploring the connection. Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 699–731 (2013).

  58. Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E. & Freeman, M. The organisation of denial: conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environ. Polit. 17, 349–385 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Brulle, R. J. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change 122, 681–694 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Supran, G. & Oreskes, N. Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977–2014). Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 084019 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ruser, A. in Civil Society: Concepts, Challenges, Contexts (eds Hoelscher, M. et al.) 349–358 (Springer, 2022).

  62. Plehwe, D. Reluctant transformers or reconsidering opposition to climate change mitigation? German think tanks between environmentalism and neoliberalism. Globalizations https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2038358 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Almiron, N., Boykoff, M., Narberhaus, M. & Heras, F. Dominant counter-frames in influential climate contrarian European think tanks. Climatic Change 162, 2003–2020 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Plehwe, D. Whither Energiewende? Strategies to manufacture uncertainty and unknowing to redirect Germany’s Renewable Energy Law. Int. J. Public Policy (2022).

  65. Oreskes, N. Systematicity is necessary but not sufficient: on the problem of facsimile science. Synthese 196, 881–905 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Moreno, J. A., Kinn, M. & Narberhaus, M. A stronghold of climate change denialism in Germany: case study of the output and press representation of the think tank EIKE. Int. J. Commun. 16, 267–288 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Michaels, L. & Ainger, K. in Climate Change Denial and Public Relations: Strategic Communication and Interest Groups in Climate Inaction (eds Almiron, N. & Xifra, J.) 159–177 (Routledge, 2019).

  68. Best, J. Varieties of ignorance in neoliberal policy: or the possibilities and perils of wishful economic thinking. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 29, 1159–1182 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. The Lloyd’s Register Foundation World Risk Poll. Lloyd’s Register Foundation https://wrp.lrfoundation.org.uk/ (2021).

  70. Björnberg, K. E., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M. & Hansson, S. O. Climate and environmental science denial: a review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 229–241 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Simpson, N. P. et al. Climate change literacy in Africa. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 937–944 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Guha, R. A. & Alier, J. M. Varieties of Environmentalism: Essays North and South (Routledge, 1997).

  73. Kim, S. Y. & Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. Cross-national public opinion on climate change: the effects of affluence and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Polit. 14, 79–106 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C.-Y. & Leiserowitz, A. A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1014–1020 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Tranter, B. K. & Booth, K. I. Scepticism in a changing climate: a cross-national study. Glob. Environ. Change 33, 154–164 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Painter, J. & Ashe, T. Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 044005 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Schmidt, A., Ivanova, A. & Schäfer, M. S. Media attention for climate change around the world: a comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1233–1248 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A. & Fielding, K. S. Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 614–620 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., Steg, L., Böhm, G. & Fisher, S. Climate change perceptions and their individual-level determinants: a cross-European analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 55, 25–35 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E. & Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environ. Polit. 25, 338–358 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Smith, E. K. & Mayer, A. Anomalous Anglophones? Contours of free market ideology, political polarization, and climate change attitudes in English-speaking countries, Western European and post-Communist states. Climatic Change 152, 17–34 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Birch, S. Political polarization and environmental attitudes: a cross-national analysis. Environ. Polit. 29, 697–718 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Vihma, A., Reischl, G. & Nonbo Andersen, A. A climate backlash: comparing populist parties’ climate policies in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. J. Environ. Dev. 30, 219–239 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Kulin, J., Johansson Sevä, I. & Dunlap, R. E. Nationalist ideology, rightwing populism, and public views about climate change in Europe. Environ. Polit. 30, 1111–1134 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Huber, R. A. The role of populist attitudes in explaining climate change skepticism and support for environmental protection. Environ. Polit. 29, 959–982 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Huber, R. A., Greussing, E. & Eberl, J.-M. From populism to climate scepticism: the role of institutional trust and attitudes towards science. Environ. Polit. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1978200 (2021).

  87. Higham, J. S. C. Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2021 Snapshot (The Centre for Climate Change Econcomics and Policy, 2021).

  88. Clark, C. E. & Crawford, E. P. Influencing climate change policy: the effect of shareholder pressure and firm environmental performance. Bus. Soc. 51, 148–175 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Flammer, C. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: the environmental awareness of investors. Acad. Manag. J. 56, 758–781 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Motta, M. The enduring effect of scientific interest on trust in climate scientists in the United States. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 485–488 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Baker, S. & Martinson, D. L. The TARES test: five principles for ethical persuasion. J. Mass Media Ethics 16, 148–175 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Benestad, R. et al. Learning from mistakes in climate research. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 126, 699–703 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Lewandowsky, S., Ballard, T., Oberauer, K. & Benestad, R. A blind expert test of contrarian claims about climate data. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 91–97 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 24, 56–62 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Wolsko, C. Expanding the range of environmental values: political orientation, moral foundations, and the common ingroup. J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 284–294 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H. & Seiden, J. Red, white, and blue enough to be green: effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 65, 7–19 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Feygina, I., Jost, J. T. & Goldsmith, R. E. System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of ‘system-sanctioned change’. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36, 326–338 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Kidwell, B., Farmer, A. & Hardesty, D. M. Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: political ideology and congruent appeals. J. Consum. Res. 40, 350–367 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Whitmarsh, L. & Corner, A. Tools for a new climate conversation: a mixed-methods study of language for public engagement across the political spectrum. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 122–135 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Feldman, L. & Hart, P. S. Climate change as a polarizing cue: framing effects on public support for low-carbon energy policies. Glob. Environ. Change 51, 54–66 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Dixon, G., Hmielowski, J. & Ma, Y. Improving climate change acceptance among U.S. conservatives through value-based message targeting. Sci. Commun. 39, 520–534 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Bain, P. G. et al. Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 154–157 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Moser, S. C. & Dilling, L. Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  104. Nemet, G. F., Holloway, T. & Meier, P. Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 014007 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. West, J. J. et al. Co-benefits of global greenhouse gas mitigation for future air quality and human health. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 885–889 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Thurston, G. D. Health co-benefits. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 863–864 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Maibach, E. W., Nisbet, M., Baldwin, P., Akerlof, K. & Diao, G. Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10, 299 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W. & Leiserowitz, A. A. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change 113, 1105–1112 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Petrovic, N., Madrigano, J. & Zaval, L. Motivating mitigation: when health matters more than climate change. Climatic Change 126, 245–254 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R. & Jeffries, C. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 600–603 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Bernauer, T. & McGrath, L. F. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 680–683 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Fielding, K. S., Hornsey, M. J., Thai, H. A. & Toh, L. L. Using ingroup messengers and ingroup values to promote climate change policy. Climatic Change 158, 181–199 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Hornsey, M. J. & Esposo, S. Resistance to group criticism and recommendations for change: lessons from the intergroup sensitivity effect. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 3, 275–291 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Esposo, S. R., Hornsey, M. J. & Spoor, J. R. Shooting the messenger: outsiders critical of your group are rejected regardless of argument quality. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 52, 386–395 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., Rosenthal, S. A. & Leiserowitz, A. Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 573–577 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Kousser, T. & Tranter, B. The influence of political leaders on climate change attitudes. Glob. Environ. Change 50, 100–109 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Hornsey, M. J., Chapman, C. M., Fielding, K. S., Louis, W. R. & Pearson, S. A political experiment may have extracted Australia from the climate wars. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 695–696 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Smith, J. R. et al. Congruent or conflicted? The impact of injunctive and descriptive norms on environmental intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 32, 353–361 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Cialdini, R. B. & Goldstein, N. J. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 591–621 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Aarts, H. & Dijksterhuis, A. The silence of the library: environment, situational norm, and social behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 18–28 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 913–923 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R. & Louis, W. R. Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. J. Environ. Psychol. 28, 318–326 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Rees, J. H. & Bamberg, S. Climate protection needs societal change: determinants of intention to participate in collective climate action. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44, 466–473 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B. & Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35, 472–482 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. & Kallgren, C. A. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Kormos, C., Gifford, R. & Brown, E. The influence of descriptive social norm information on sustainable transportation behavior: a field experiment. Environ. Behav. 47, 479–501 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Schultz, P. W. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21, 25–36 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95, 1082–1095 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Cialdini, R. B. Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 105–109 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Schubert, C. Green nudges: do they work? Are they ethical? Ecol. Econ. 132, 329–342 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Ruggeri, K. et al. The general fault in our fault lines. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1369–1380 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Cook, J. et al. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 048002 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. & Ecker, U. K. H. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS ONE 12, e0175799 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Goldberg, M. H. et al. The experience of consensus: video as an effective medium to communicate scientific agreement on climate change. Sci. Commun. 41, 659–673 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Imundo, M. N. & Rapp, D. N. When fairness is flawed: effects of false balance reporting and weight-of-evidence statements on beliefs and perceptions of climate change. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 11, 258–271 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 2–3 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Rode, J. B. et al. Influencing climate change attitudes in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 76, 101623 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Van Stekelenburg, A., Schaap, G., Veling, H., Van’t Riet, J. & Buijzen, M. Scientific consensus communication about contested science: a preregistered meta-analysis. Psychol. Sci. (in the press).

  140. Van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Perceptions of scientific consensus predict later beliefs about the reality of climate change using cross-lagged panel analysis: a response to Kerr and Wilson (2018). J. Environ. Psychol. 60, 110–111 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Harvey, A. G., Armstrong, C. C., Callaway, C. A., Gumport, N. B. & Gasperetti, C. E. COVID-19 prevention via the science of habit formation. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 30, 174–180 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. White, K., Habib, R. & Hardisty, D. J. How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: a literature review and guiding framework. J. Mark. 83, 22–49 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Gonzalez-Arcos, C., Joubert, A. M., Scaraboto, D., Guesalaga, R. & Sandberg, J. ‘How do I carry all this now?’ Understanding consumer resistance to sustainability interventions. J. Mark. 85, 44–61 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Eckhardt, G. M. & Dobscha, S. The consumer experience of responsibilization: the case of Panera Cares. J. Bus. Ethics 159, 651–663 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Arrhenius, S. XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Lond. Edinb. Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 41, 237–276 (1896).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Hudson, M. George Bush Sr could have got in on the ground floor of climate action—history would have thanked him. The Conversation https://theconversation.com/george-bush-sr-could-have-got-in-on-the-ground-floor-of-climate-action-history-would-have-thanked-him-108050 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge D. Plehwe for helpful discussions and pointers to relevant literature. M.J.H. acknowledges funding support from the Australian Research Council Discovery scheme (DP220101566). S.L. acknowledges financial support from the European Research Council (ERC Advanced Grant 101020961 PRODEMINFO) and the Humboldt Foundation in Germany through a research award. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Hornsey.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hornsey, M.J., Lewandowsky, S. A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism. Nat Hum Behav 6, 1454–1464 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01463-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01463-y

This article is cited by

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