The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Correcting misinformation about climate change: the impact of partisanship in an experimental setting
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822 · cited 1×
“However, information content is not the only factor in persuasion: opinions are also affected by the source of information (Petty and Cacioppo 1986).”
BackgroundThe Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721414531598 · Cited by 2,136
Cultural cognition of scientific consensus.
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246 · Cited by 1,686
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139032490 · Cited by 1,281
Gauchat, G. (2012) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122412438225 · Cited by 1,091 · cited 1×
“However, partisanship increasingly influences perceptions of scientific credibility (Gauchat 2012, Motta 2017), so scientists may not necessarily be the most effective source of a persuasive message.”
BackgroundThe Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the U.S.
Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016) · Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995 · Cited by 786
The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence
van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118489 · Cited by 661
Cited by
Online misinformation about climate change
Treen, K. M. D., Williams, H. T. P., & O'Neill, S. J. (2020) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.665 · Cited by 441
Why do people believe COVID-19 conspiracy theories?
Uscinski, J. E., Enders, A. M., Klofstad, C., Seelig, M., Funchion, J., Everett, C., Wuchty, S., Premaratne, K., & Murthi, M. (2020) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-015 · Cited by 429
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373
Misinformation, Disinformation, and Online Propaganda
Guess, A. M., & Lyons, B. A. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.003 · Cited by 284
The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009 · Cited by 262
Metadata
- Authors
- Benegal, S. D., & Scruggs, L. A.
- Venue
- Climatic Change
- Published
- 2018-04-13
- Volume
- 148
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 61-80
- ISSN
- 0165-0009 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1480
- OpenAlex
- W2798244769
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 54.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Correcting misinformation about climate change: the impact of partisanship in an experimental setting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10584-018-2192-4
- The paper
- Benegal, S. D., & Scruggs, L. A. (2018). Correcting misinformation about climate change: the impact of partisanship in an experimental setting. Climatic Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2192-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
