The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change: A population-based survey experiment
Open accessAbstract
This article analyses whether different institutional sources of scientific information have an impact on its credibility. Through a population-based survey experiment of a national representative sample of the Spanish public, we measure the credibility that citizens attribute to scientific information on the evolution of CO 2 emissions disclosed by different institutional sources (business associations, government, non-government environmental organisations, international bodies and national research institutions). The findings show that an institutional credibility gap exists in science communication. We also investigate the factors accounting for the credibility of the different institutional sources by examining variables related to knowledge, interest, trust, reputation, deference, attitudes, values and personal characteristics. Exploratory regression analyses reveal that identical variables can produce different effects on the credibility of scientific information, depending on the institutional source to which it is attributed.
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
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.
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?
Given the data discussed, there are a wide range of cases in which the mentioned effects are likely to arise, namely when the public scientific testimony captures specific behaviour and the public trusts the source, which is frequently the case.
“The argument here is only meant to support the view that, given the data discussed, there are also a wide range of cases in which the mentioned effects are likely to arise, that is, when the PST captures specific behaviour and the public trusts the source, which is frequently the case”
From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Sanz-Menéndez and Cruz-Castro [2019]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Other perspectives highlight the idea of ‘cognitive misers’ whereby individuals use ‘cognitive shortcuts or heuristic devices’ (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981).”
BackgroundSchuenemeyer, J. H., Murtagh, F., & Heck, A. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488578 · Cited by 4,874 · see citing works
Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction
Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139025751 · Cited by 4,210 · see citing works
The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/266350 · Cited by 3,543 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…was related to the analysis of the attitude of the audience towards the communicator, and the source of information was presented as an important factor affecting the effectiveness of communication (e.g. Hovland and Weiss, 1951), indirect data on credibility proceeded from studies of ‘prestige’.”
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 2,299 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.205064 · Cited by 1,400 · see citing works
The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology
(2008) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.001.0001 · Cited by 1,382 · see citing works
Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2015) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483398075 · Cited by 837 · see citing works
The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study
Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T., & McCallum, D. B. (1997) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00842.x · Cited by 753 · see citing works
Credibility and trust in risk communication
Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-1952-5_10 · Cited by 731 · see citing works
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1981) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2168-0_17 · Cited by 712 · see citing works
Population-Based Survey Experiments
Mutz, D. C. (2011) · doi:10.1515/9781400840489 · Cited by 674 · see citing works
Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis
Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton‐Smith, I. (2007) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662506070159 · Cited by 671 · see citing works
Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society
Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (1995) · Cited by 613 · see citing works
The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies
Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005) · Journal of Nanoparticle Research · doi:10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 · Cited by 556 · see citing works
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2010) · Theory, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0263276409356001 · Cited by 539 · see citing works
Oxford handbook of climate change and society
Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B., & Schlosberg, D. (2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-5078 · Cited by 517 · see citing works
Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology
Braman, D., Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2009) · Scholarly Commons - George Washington University Law School (George Washington University) · Cited by 508 · see citing works
An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming
Hmielowski, J. D., Feldman, L., Myers, T. A., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. W. (2013) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662513480091 · Cited by 461 · see citing works
Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality
Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511762888 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2006) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl003 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain
Evans, G., & Durant, J. (1995) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1088/0963-6625/4/1/004 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Nisbet, M. C., & Kotcher, J. (2009) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547008328797 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H. C., Tarantola, T., Silva, C., & Braman, D. (2015) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716214559002 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Science communication and the issue of trust
Weingart, P., & Guenther, L. (2016) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.15050301 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science
Gauchat, G. (2010) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662510365246 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2012) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547012441691 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Says Who?: Epistemic Authority Effects in Social Judgment
Kruglanski, A. W., Raviv, A., Bar‐Tal, D., Raviv, A., Sharvit, K., Ellis, S., Bar, R., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2005) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(05)37006-7 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00353 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Critchley, C. R. (2008) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662506070162 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
EUROPEAN PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE
Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Evans, G. (1994) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/6.2.163 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Anderson, A. A., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Corley, E. A. (2012) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr032 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Hui, L., & Priest, S. H. (2009) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662508097625 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
James, O., & Ryzin, G. G. V. (2015) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074015580390 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
The Cultural-Cognitive Mapping of Scientific Professions
Gauchat, G., & Andrews, K. T. (2018) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122418773353 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
The enduring effect of scientific interest on trust in climate scientists in the United States
Motta, M. (2018) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0126-9 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Predictors of trust in the general science and climate science research of US federal agencies
Myers, T. A., Kotcher, J., Stenhouse, N., Anderson, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Beall, L., & Leiserowitz, A. (2016) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662516636040 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities
Cacciatore, M. A., Browning, N., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M. A., & Corley, E. A. (2018) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662516661090 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Science Controversies the Dynamics of Public Disputes in the United States
Nelkin, D. (1995) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412990127.n19 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
The American People and Science Policy: The Role of Public Attitudes in the Policy Process
Morgan, M. G., & Miller, J. D. (1984) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.2307/3323913 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2008) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.341 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Sleeth‐Keppler, D., Perkowitz, R., & Speiser, M. (2015) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2015.1062790 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
The continuing need for disinterested research
Ziman, J. M. (2002) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-002-0060-z · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Campbell, D. T. (1971) · Urban Affairs Quarterly · doi:10.1177/107808747100700202 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
The Credibility of Government Performance Reporting
Ryzin, G. G. V., & Lavena, C. F. (2013) · Public Performance & Management Review · doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576370104 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
The public’s trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling
Carlisle, J. E., Feezell, J. T., Michaud, K. E. H., Smith, E. R. A. N., & Smith, L. (2010) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662510375663 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?
Skuce, A. G., Cook, J., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Rice, K., Green, S., Jacobs, P., & Nuccitelli, D. A. (2016) · Bulletin of Science Technology & Society · doi:10.1177/0270467617702781 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Youtie, J., Bozeman, B. L., Jabbehdari, S., & Kao, A. (2016) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.001 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Priest, S. H. (2014) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547014535878 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Citizens' support for government spending on science and technology
Menéndez, L. S., Ryzin, G. G. V., & Matute, E. D. P. (2013) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/sct091 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Attitudinal gaps: How experts and lay audiences form policy attitudes toward controversial science
Su, L. Y.-F., Cacciatore, M. A., Brossard, D., Corley, E. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2015) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scv031 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Gauchat, G. (2018) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0147-4 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Goldfarb, J. L., & Kriner, D. L. (2017) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547016688325 · Cited by 20 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Examples of interesting experiment-based case studies in other thematic domains are as follows: Critchley (2008), Carlisle et al. (2010), Brewer and Ley (2014) or Goldfarb and Kriner (2017).”
BackgroundEconomic crisis and public attitudes toward science: A study of regional differences in Spain
Menéndez, L. S., & Ryzin, G. G. V. (2013) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662513489790 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Researcher Views About Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in Nanotechnology
McComas, K. A. (2011) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9264-4 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2012) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662512449993 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Lobera J Torres AC (2015) El prestigio social de las profesiones tecnocientíficas [The social prestige of technoscientific professions]. In: FECYT (ed.) Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología 2014 [Social perception of science and technology 2014]. Madrid: FECYT, pp. 217– 240.
- Sanz-Menéndez L Cruz Castro L Caparros A (2017) Credibilidad de la información científica y confianza de los ciudadanos en las instituciones: un diseño experimental sobre el cambio climático y las emisiones de CO2 [Credibility on the scientific information and citizens’ confidence in institutions; an experimental design on climate change and CO2 emissions]. In: FECYT (ed.) Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnologia 2016 [Social perception of science and technology 2016]. Madrid: FECYT, pp. 307– 335.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Information sources, perceived personal experience, and climate change beliefs
Rosenthal, S. (2022) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101796 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Effect of Explanation Conceptualisations on Trust in AI-assisted Credibility Assessment
Pareek, S., van Berkel, N., Velloso, E., & Goncalves, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3686922 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Michalovich, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662520905466 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Trust and Mistrust in Sources of Scientific Information on Climate Change and Vaccines
Rowland, J., Estevens, J., Krzewińska, A., Warwas, I., & Delicado, A. (2022) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-021-00304-0 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Tranter, B., Lester, L., Foxwell-Norton, K., & Palmer, M. A. (2023) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625231165405 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Improving knowledge transfer and collaboration between science and business in Spain
OECD (2021) · OECD science, technology and industry policy papers · doi:10.1787/4d787b35-en · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Characterizing the semantic features of climate change misinformation on Chinese social media
Chu, J., Zhu, Y., & Ji, J. (2023) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625231166542 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Cobern, W. W., Adams, B. A., Pleasants, B. A.-S., Bentley, A., & Kagumba, R. (2022) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-021-00292-1 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Sheen, G. C.-H., Tung, H. H., & Wu, W.-C. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260961 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Debunking nutrition myths: An experimental test of the ‘truth sandwich’ text format
König, L. M. (2023) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12665 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Estigarribia, L., Chalabe, J. K. T., Cisnero, K. G., Wajner, M., & Romano, L. G. (2022) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-022-00362-y · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms
Peters, U. (2023) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/715001 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Rubín, A., Brondi, S., & Pellegrini, G. (2022) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-022-01569-5 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Klaus, G., Oswald, L., Ernst, A. M., & Merk, C. (2021) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.20010203 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Environmental Information: Different Sources Different Levels of Pro-Environmental Behaviours?
Dagiliūtė, R. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su152014773 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Morphett, K., Magi-Prowse, C. R., Roiko, A. H., & Fielding, K. S. (2025) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2025.2522653 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Peinado, V., Valiente, C., Contreras, A., Trucharte, A., & Vázquez, C. (2024) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2024.112782 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Fillol, A., Sween-Cadieux, E. M., Ventelou, B., Larose, M., Nguemdjo, U., Kadio, K., Dagenais, C., & Ridde, V. (2022) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-022-00854-x · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Are Pandas Effective Ambassadors for Promoting Wildlife Conservation and International Diplomacy?
Yang, D., & Lin, C. A. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su141811383 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Mede, N. G. (2022) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.21050305 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Hanimann, A. (2023) · Swiss Political Science Review · doi:10.1111/spsr.12554 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Slutskiy, P., & Boonchutima, S. (2022) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/00027642221118297 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Ashworth, P., & Clarke, E. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-10617-0_7 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
The UK public’s trust in tobacco industry involvement in science – an experimental survey
Legg, T., Bero, L. A., & Lewandowsky, S. (2024) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2024.1360277 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING SCIENCE
Park, J., Yoon, H., Kim, M., & Jho, H. (2021) · Journal of Baltic Science Education · doi:10.33225/jbse/21.20.840 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Stimpson, J. P., & Ortega, A. N. (2026) · Health Affairs Scholar · doi:10.1093/haschl/qxag098 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Cervantes-Martínez, J. F., & García, A. M. D. J. G. (2024) · ElOrnitorrinco tachado · doi:10.36677/eot.v0i18.23205 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Menéndez-Signorini, J., Frigola-Reig, J., & Marca-Francés, G. (2025) · Palabra Clave · doi:10.5294/pacla.2025.28.s1.6 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Bridging the Divide: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Trust in Science
Kabakçı, G. Z., Kara, U. Y., Çavdar, G. B., & Toros, E. (2025) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251352376 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Hoştut, S., & Hof, S. D. V. H. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-42465-7_12 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Factual Divergence and Risk Perceptions
Kosovac, A. (2022) · Exchanges The Interdisciplinary Research Journal · doi:10.31273/eirj.v9i2.660 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Hoştut, S., & Hof, S. D. V. H. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22438-7_12-1
Silkāne, V., & Dāvidsone, A. (2022) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99885-1_50
Aleme, H. G., Giordan, M., & Bertoldo, R. R. (2023) · Investigações em Ensino de Ciências · doi:10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2023v28n1p383
Alcazar, R. K., & Digal, S. K. (2024) · Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies · doi:10.62249/jmds.2013.2445
Schönbach, K. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-47059-3_2
Deviatko, I. F., Шеремет, Е. П., Polyakova, V., & Fursov, K. S. (2025) · Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/23780231251332431
Fillol, A., Sween-Cadieux, E. M., Ventelou, B., Larose, M., Nguemdjo, U., Kadio, K., Dagenais, C., & Ridde, V. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19906312
Fillol, A., Sween-Cadieux, E. M., Ventelou, B., Larose, M., Nguemdjo, U., Kadio, K., Dagenais, C., & Ridde, V. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19906318
Fillol, A., Sween-Cadieux, E. M., Ventelou, B., Larose, M., Nguemdjo, U., Kadio, K., Dagenais, C., & Ridde, V. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19906315
Fillol, A., Sween-Cadieux, E. M., Ventelou, B., Larose, M., Nguemdjo, U., Kadio, K., Dagenais, C., & Ridde, V. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19906321
Duda, A., Touzel, V., & Reifegerste, D. (2026) · Health Literacy and Communication Open · doi:10.1080/28355245.2026.2652597
Cheung, J. C. T., & Ho, S. S. (2026) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.70291
Mission-driven research: opportunities and challenges for Canada
Castle, D. G. A., Phillips, P. W. B., & Shamess, D. (2026) · FACETS · doi:10.1139/facets-2025-0404
gallo, G. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11153008/v1
Roovers, H., Adriaanse, M. A., Vos, H. M. M., & van Gestel, L. C. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-74733-8
Gomaa, M., Hefny, H., & Salman, G. (2026) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-026-09666-7
Understanding and addressing the root causes of climate change disinformation: an integrative review
Filho, W. L., Hassen, T. B., Dinis, M. A. P., Luetz, J. M., & Ibrahim, A. M. (2026) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-026-04320-3
Framing the climate crisis: lessons from a national participatory photography engagement in Zambia
Nyambe, A. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences · doi:10.1007/s13412-026-01156-2
- Authors
- Sanz-Menéndez, L., & Cruz-Castro, L.
- Affiliations
- Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Spain
- ORCID
- Sanz-Menéndez, Luis
- Venue
- Public Understanding of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-04-17
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 534-553
- ISSN
- 0963-6625 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6609
- PMC
- PMC7323778
- OpenAlex
- W2937673812
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 11.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Public Understanding of Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación (CSO2016-79045-C2-1-R)
- 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 › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Keywords
- climate change communication, science communication, CO2 emissions, institutional trust, environmental organizations, research institutions, deference to experts, public attitudes toward 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
