Unquestioned Answers or Unanswered Questions: Beliefs About Science Guide Responses to Uncertainty in Climate Change Risk Communication
Abstract
In two experimental studies we investigated the effect of beliefs about the nature and purpose of science (classical vs. Kuhnian models of science) on responses to uncertainty in scientific messages about climate change risk. The results revealed a significant interaction between both measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2) beliefs about science and the level of communicated uncertainty on willingness to act in line with the message. Specifically, messages that communicated high uncertainty were more persuasive for participants who shared an understanding of science as debate than for those who believed that science is a search for absolute truth. In addition, participants who had a concept of science as debate were more motivated by higher (rather than lower) uncertainty in climate change messages. The results suggest that achieving alignment between the general public's beliefs about science and the style of the scientific messages is crucial for successful risk communication in science. Accordingly, rather than uncertainty always undermining the effectiveness of science communication, uncertainty can enhance message effects when it fits the audience's understanding of what science is.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
People who see science as an ongoing debate that will always have inherent uncertainty responded more positively to uncertainty about climate change research, compared to people who see science as uncovering absolute truths.
“people who see science as an ongoing debate that will always have inherent uncertainty responded more positively to uncertainty about climate change research, compared to people who see science as uncovering absolute truths (Rabinovich and Morton, 2012).”
From A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication (2020) · cites this paper as Rabinovich and Morton, 2012
Cites
Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement
Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1295 · Cited by 441 · see citing works
Budescu, D. V., Broomell, S., & Por, H.-H. (2009) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02284.x · Cited by 402 · see citing works
Lee, C.-J., & Scheufele, D. A. (2006) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/107769900608300406 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662520942122 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
The Effects of Uncertainty Frames in Three Science Communication Topics
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2019) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547019870811 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy
Aklin, M., & Urpelainen, J. (2014) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.006 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Acknowledging uncertainty impacts public acceptance of climate scientists’ predictions
Howe, L. C., MacInnis, B., Krosnick, J. A., Markowitz, E. M., & Socolow, R. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0587-5 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rabinovich, A., & Morton, T. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Exeter (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Rabinovich, Anna
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-02-10
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 992-1002
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W1955040935
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6
- FWCI
- 26.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Risk Analysis (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- British Academy
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
- Keywords
- beliefs about science, uncertainty communication, message persuasion, willingness to act, public understanding of science, science communication
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Communication, Culture, Female, Humans, Male, Public Opinion, Regression Analysis, Risk, Science, Comprehension, Uncertainty, Young Adult, Climate Change
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
