The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Climate Change Conceptual Change: Scientific Information Can Transform Attitudes
Open accessAbstract
Of this article's seven experiments, the first five demonstrate that virtually no Americans know the basic global warming mechanism. Fortunately, Experiments 2–5 found that 2–45 min of physical–chemical climate instruction durably increased such understandings. This mechanistic learning, or merely receiving seven highly germane statistical facts (Experiment 6), also increased climate‐change acceptance—across the liberal‐conservative spectrum. However, Experiment 7's misleading statistics decreased such acceptance (and dramatically, knowledge–confidence). These readily available attitudinal and conceptual changes through scientific information disconfirm what we term “stasis theory”—which some researchers and many laypeople varyingly maintain. Stasis theory subsumes the claim that informing people (particularly Americans) about climate science may be largely futile or even counterproductive—a view that appears historically naïve, suffers from range restrictions (e.g., near‐zero mechanistic knowledge), and/or misinterprets some polarization and (noncausal) correlational data. Our studies evidenced no polarizations. Finally, we introduce HowGlobalWarmingWorks.org—a website designed to directly enhance public “climate‐change cognition.”
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
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-6243 · Cited by 3,579
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
The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks
Braman, D., Kahan, D. M., Peters, E. M., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., & Mandel, G. N. (2012) · Scholarly Commons - George Washington University Law School (George Washington University) · Cited by 2,438
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011) · The Sociological Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x · Cited by 2,340
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
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society
Culbertson, J., & Wilson, C. (2013) · Cited by 1,139
Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
Dale, R. A. C., Yu, C., Nagai, Y., Coco, M. I., & Kopp, S. (2013) · Cited by 1,006
The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2013) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1720 · Cited by 527
Cited by
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., Carlton, J. S., Lewandowsky, S., Skuce, A. G., Green, S. A., et al. (2016) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 · Cited by 1,441
Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017) · Global Challenges · doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008 · Cited by 1,058
Motivated Rejection of Science
Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2016) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721416654436 · Cited by 389
McCright, A. M., Charters, M., Dentzman, K., & Dietz, T. (2016) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12171 · Cited by 236
How Hope and Doubt Affect Climate Change Mobilization
Marlon, J. R., Bloodhart, B., Ballew, M. T., Rolfe-Redding, J., Roser-Renouf, C., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00020 · Cited by 232
Metadata
- Authors
- Ranney, M. A., & Clark, D.
- Venue
- Topics in Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 49-75
- ISSN
- 1756-8757 (ISSN-L)
- 1756-8765
- OpenAlex
- W2253031324
- Cited by
- 344
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 114.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Climate Change Conceptual Change: Scientific Information Can Transform Attitudes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/tops.12187
- The paper
- Ranney, M. A., & Clark, D. (2016). Climate Change Conceptual Change: Scientific Information Can Transform Attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12187
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.
