Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change?
Abstract
Scientists are in near-universal agreement that human activity is a primary cause of climate change. Yet, despite this scientific consensus, the American public remains divided when it comes to beliefs about human-induced climate change. We investigate the role of partisan group identity and the politicization of science in undermining the impact of a scientific consensus message about human-induced climate change. We do so with a survey experiment administered on a nationally representative sample, finding that partisan identity—and especially politicization—can stunt the effect of a scientific consensus statement about climate change. We conclude with a discussion about how scientists, as a group, might work with partisans to more effectively communicate scientific information.
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?
Some studies suggest that consensus messages can backfire among conservatives and Republicans, leading them to report lower levels of belief in global warming and less support for climate policies.
“some studies suggest that consensus messages can even backfire among conservatives and Republicans, leading them to report lower levels of belief in global warming and less support for climate policies (Cook and Lewandowsky, 2016;Bolsen and Druckman, 2018;Ma et al., 2019).”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Bolsen and Druckman, 2018
Experimental studies have consistently shown that consensus messages can effectively correct people's perceptions of what scientists believe about climate change.
“experimental studies have consistently shown that consensus messages can effectively correct people's perceptions of what scientists believe about climate change (Van der Linden et al., 2015;Deryugina and Shurchkov, 2016;Bolsen and Druckman, 2018).”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Bolsen and Druckman, 2018
Several studies found that consensus messages did not change people's own beliefs about climate change or their attitudes toward climate action.
“Several studies found that consensus messages did not change people's own beliefs about climate change or their attitudes toward climate action (Deryugina and Shurchkov, 2016;Dixon et al., 2017;Bolsen and Druckman, 2018).”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Bolsen and Druckman, 2018
Cites
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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175799 · Cited by 971 · see citing works
The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence
van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118489 · Cited by 661 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change
Deryugina, T., & Shurchkov, O. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151469 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Motivated recall in the service of the economic system: The case of anthropogenic climate change.
Hennes, E. P., Ruisch, B. C., Feygina, I., Monteiro, C. A., & Jost, J. T. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000148 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 · Cited by 733 · see citing works
Self-citationKreps, S. E., & Kriner, D. L. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd4563 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
The US news media, polarization on climate change, and pathways to effective communication
Bolsen, T., & Shapiro, M. A. (2018) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1397039 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Self-citationThe gateway belief model: a large-scale replication
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Self-citationRekker, R. (2024) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2024.1254826 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N.
- Affiliations
- Georgia State University (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Druckman, James N.
- Venue
- Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-03-19
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 389-402
- ISSN
- 1368-4302 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7188
- OpenAlex
- W2791981454
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 57.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Pennsylvania
- Northwestern University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Keywords
- climate change, scientific consensus, partisan identity, politicization of science, public opinion, science communication, message effectiveness, 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
