Cited by 639Climate Change Communication and PerceptionMisinformation and Its ImpactsScience and Science Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 56 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that carbon dioxide emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a platform for denial of climate change, and bloggers have taken a prominent role in questioning climate science. We report a survey of climate-blog visitors to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that, above and beyond endorsement of free markets, endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings. Our results provide empirical support for previous suggestions that conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0956797612457686

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 57 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Inhofe J., 2012, The greatest hoax: How the global warming conspiracy threatens your future
  2. Oreskes N., 2010, Merchants of doubt

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 639

Metadata

Authors
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E.
Affiliations
The University of Western Australia (AU)
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2013-03-26
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
622-633
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2148186201
Cited by
638
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 12
FWCI
118.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Science and Science Education
Keywords
climate change denial, conspiracy theories, conspiracy beliefs, free market ideology, public acceptance of science, HIV/AIDS, smoking and lung cancer
MeSH terms
Denial, Psychological, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Fraud, Humans, Motivation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Science, Space Flight, United States, Moon, United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Climatic Processes, Blogging, 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