Cited by 530Climate Change Communication and PerceptionRisk Perception and ManagementClimate Change Policy and Economics

The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science

Lewandowsky, Stephan, Gignac, Gilles E., Vaughan, Samuel·2013·Nature Climate Change

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nclimate1720

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In one experimental study, underscoring the consensus was particularly effective for people whose worldview otherwise might have predisposed them towards rejection of climate science.

    “In one experimental study, underscoring the consensus was particularly effective for people whose worldview otherwise might have predisposed them towards rejection of climate science [38].”
  • When people are informed of the pervasive consensus about the fundamentals of climate change, they become more likely to endorse the basic premise of global warming, and they attribute a larger share of the observed warming trend to human CO2 emissions.

    “Recent research has shown that the role of worldview may be attenuated by underscoring the breadth of consensus among scientists: When people are informed of the pervasive consensus about the fundamentals of climate change, they become more likely to endorse the basic premise of global warming, and they attribute a larger share of the observed warming trend to human CO2 emissions [37], [38].”
  • These general and robust findings help identify communicative means by which motivated reasoning can be attenuated or circumvented.

    “These general and robust findings help identify communicative means by which the motivated reasoning can be attenuated or circumvented [5], [32], [38], [50].”
  • A further 3 items queried scientific propositions that were also used in previous research.

    “A further 3 items queried scientific propositions that were also used in previous research [27], [38].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S.
Affiliations
The University of Western Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Lewandowsky, Stephan
Venue
Nature Climate Change
Published
2012-10-28
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
399-404
ISSN
  • 1758-678X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-6798
OpenAlex
W2089347171
Cited by
527
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 68 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 1
FWCI
78.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Climate Change (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
Keywords
public acceptance of science, anthropogenic climate change, worldview, climate change concern, climate change skepticism, science communication

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