The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 the citing paper
“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].”
From The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science (2013) · cites this paper as [38]
In the citing paper
“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].”
From The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science (2013) · cites this paper as [38]
In the citing paper
“These general and robust findings help identify communicative means by which the motivated reasoning can be attenuated or circumvented [5], [32], [38], [50].”
From The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science (2013) · cites this paper as [38]
In the citing paper
“A further 3 items queried scientific propositions that were also used in previous research [27], [38].”
From The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science (2013) · cites this paper as [38]
Citations
Cites
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
Self-citationThe role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves
Schär, C., Vidale, P. L., Lüthi, D., Frei, C., Häberli, C., Liniger, M. A., & Appenzeller, C. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02300 · Cited by 2,787
Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.41.3.924 · Cited by 2,452
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Oreskes, N. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1103618 · Cited by 1,814
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
Increase of extreme events in a warming world
Rahmstorf, S., & Coumou, D. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1101766108 · Cited by 1,319
Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J. T., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y · Cited by 1,221
Expert credibility in climate change
Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107 · Cited by 872
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–530 of 530
Cormick, C., & Edelsztein, V. C. (2024) · Principia an international journal of epistemology · doi:10.5007/1808-1711.2024.e93904
Analysis and Prediction of Bird Migration Using RFA and GBR
-, S. G., Rabindranath, S., Nirmala, S. , -, S. C. S., Doddegowda, B. J., & -, A. S. (2024) · International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research · doi:10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i04.26673
Klimmt, C., & Spreen, N. (2024) · Science communication · doi:10.1177/10755470241308532 · Cited by 1
The Possibilities and Perils of Research Engagement with Policymakers
Kalmbach, J. A., & Ralston, J. J. (2025) · Natural resource management and policy · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-90889-7_8
Tykhomyrova, E. B., & Tykhomyrova, A. (2025) · Mediaforum Analytics Forecasts Information Management · doi:10.31861/mediaforum.2025.16.139-160
Zhang, B., Pinto, J., Prado, P., & Patterson, R. (2025) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83797-811-320251007
Facts versus feelings isn’t the way to think about communicating science
Cook, J., & van der Linden, S. (2017) · doi:10.64628/aai.w7t945uq6
Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
Lewandowsky, S., & Cook, J. (2014) · doi:10.64628/ab.fas6guhws
Self-citationAre you a poor logician? Logically, you might never know
Lewandowsky, S., & Pancost, R. D. (2014) · doi:10.64628/aa.squgkt49y
Self-citation4 Communicating about Climate Change
Burke, S. E. L. (2015) · CSIRO Publishing eBooks · doi:10.1071/9781486302536-ch04
Salazar, A. S. C., Caramés, M. A., Henriques, S. M., Cevasco, J., & Larrosa, P. N. F. (2025) · Psicologia & Sociedade · doi:10.1590/1807-0310/2025v37288378
Line, E. N., Jaramillo, S., Goldwater, M. B., & Horne, Z. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26829020
Using consensus messaging and social identity to influence perceptions about nuclear power
Bullock, O. M., & Courtel, J. (2026) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/149820251115055708
Zhang, J., He, N., Jiang, J., & Xu, J. (2026) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470251410872
Kim, T., Sergeev, D. N., & Schwaiger, R. (2026) · Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research · doi:10.1002/aesr.202500246
From reflexivity to anti-reflexivity: climate change polarization in the United States
Swanson, E. (2026) · Frontiers in Sociology · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2026.1743306
Environmental regulation informed by biased stakeholders
Ambec, S., & Coria, J. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2026.103334
Study of the catalytic hydrogenation of triglycerides and their derivatives
Laverdura, U. P. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/6f185403zaffbz46b1z8e0bz90c8b49cbd2c
Understanding misinformation and fighting for information
Altay, S. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/2e02b9cfz3b17z4c05za865zfcbe3a9fb6e4
Sidelining Mitigation: Climate Delay Discourses Among Municipal Legislators in Southeastern Brazil
Patriani, T. Y. (2026) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.70074
Communicating expert consensus increases personal support for COVID-19 mitigation policiesPreprint
van der Linden, S., & Kerr, J. R. (2024) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Scientific consensus communication about contested science: A preregistered meta-analysisPreprint
Riet, J. V. ‘., Veling, H., Riet, J. V. '., Schaap, G., & Buijzen, M. (2026) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Who Believes Misinformation That Is Aligned with Dominant Narratives in Mainstream Media?
Schläpfer, F. (2026) · Journalism and Media · doi:10.3390/journalmedia7020103
Sousa, J. C., & Schmidt, L. (2026) · Climate · doi:10.3390/cli14080169
Zhou, Y., & Li, S. S. (2026) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2026.2723343
Increased Attribution of Climate Change in the Press Coverage of the 2023 Canadian Wildfires
Daoust-Boisvert, A., & Ross, B. L. (2026) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2026.2721573
Augsburg, F. I., Prochazka, F., Thomm, E., & Bauer, J. (2026) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625261484418
A scoping review of articles and the instruments they use to measure climate change acceptance
Duke, J., Wattier, K., & Holt, E. A. (2026) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.70769
Wang, Y., Ma, L., & Deng, Y. (2026) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2026.2738121
Poggio, L., Corral, G. S.-D., García, J. A., Hernández-Gómez, J. M., & Aragonés, J. I. (2026) · Studies in Psychology Estudios de Psicología · doi:10.1177/02109395261499468
Metadata
- 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
- Semantic Scholar
- 74019f20176343c9d20dcffd389854d3a11c1f44
- 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
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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
