The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence
Open accessAbstract
There is currently widespread public misunderstanding about the degree of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, both in the US as well as internationally. Moreover, previous research has identified important associations between public perceptions of the scientific consensus, belief in climate change and support for climate policy. This paper extends this line of research by advancing and providing experimental evidence for a "gateway belief model" (GBM). Using national data (N = 1104) from a consensus-message experiment, we find that increasing public perceptions of the scientific consensus is significantly and causally associated with an increase in the belief that climate change is happening, human-caused and a worrisome threat. In turn, changes in these key beliefs are predictive of increased support for public action. In short, we find that perceived scientific agreement is an important gateway belief, ultimately influencing public responses to climate change.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Some recent evidence suggests that when people are taught about the role of consensus and what the consensus is on a topic, this can help to bring their ideas into alignment with the science (Goldberg et al., 2022;van der Linden et al., 2015).”
From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as van der Linden et al., 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 Van der Linden et al., 2015
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
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
Climate change 2007: the physical science basis
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Marquis, M. C., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., Miller, H. L., & Chen, Z. (2007) · Cited by 23,398
(2013) · Cited by 6,752
Enders, C., & Bandalos, D. (2001) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0803_5 · Cited by 4,978
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-6243 · Cited by 3,575
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 Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Oreskes, N. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1103618 · Cited by 1,814
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
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R. G., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. G. (2013) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 · Cited by 1,518
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bast J, Spencer R (2014) The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’. The Wall Street Journal.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–658 of 658
Carnes, N., & Henderson, G. L. (2025) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s000712342510063x
Zhang, B., Pinto, J., Prado, P., & Patterson, R. (2025) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83797-811-320251007
BUDAK, E., & Baloğlu, E. (2025) · Türk Kütüphaneciliği · doi:10.24146/tk.1652586
Facts versus feelings isn’t the way to think about communicating science
Cook, J., & van der Linden, S. (2017) · doi:10.64628/aai.w7t945uq6
The Social Cost of GreenwashingPreprint
Leippold, M., Senni, C. C., & Vaghefi, S. A. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5483808
American Public Opinion on Climate Change
Chen, C., MacInnis, B., & Krosnick, J. A. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-84483-6_190
Wu, V. Y. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-64678-3
Development and validation of MACK-12: A short multidimensional climate knowledge scale
Labonté, K., & St-Arnaud, V. C. (2025) · PLOS Climate · doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000600 · Cited by 1
(Un-)scientifically Spun: Narratives, Belief Updating, and Pro-Environmental Behavior
Banerjee, A., & Momsen, K. (2025) · Environmental and Resource Economics · doi:10.1007/s10640-025-01045-2
Platform-generated misinformation warning labels during disasters: A U.S.-China comparative study
Zhang, C. S., & Kim, S. (2025) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2025.102356 · Cited by 1
van der Linden, S. (2025) · Apollo (University of Cambridge) · doi:10.17863/cam.120930
Self-citationConsensus and dissent between climate activists and oil and gas employees in the United Kingdom
Exley, E., Halttunen, K., & Staffell, I. (2025) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.114229
Communicating the need for climate action
Lammers, J., & Formanski, F. J. (2026) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02503-x
Tran, L., & Su, Y. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6036077
Tsang, S. J. (2026) · International Journal of Science Education Part B · doi:10.1080/21548455.2026.2613453
Zhang, J., He, N., Jiang, J., & Xu, J. (2026) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470251410872
Li, C.-L., & Jim, C. Y. (2026) · Environmental Challenges · doi:10.1016/j.envc.2026.101437
Li, W., Lu, S., Zheng, X., Xu, S., & Lantigua, H. (2026) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470261420148
Psychiatry in transition: an assessment in the context of societal change
Wedmann, F. M., Albasini, F., Davidson, R., Mayr, A. M., & Conca, A. (2026) · Annals of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12991-026-00637-6
An updated consensus survey of environmental and natural resource economists
Kosnik, L.-R. D., Whitehead, J. C., & Haab, T. C. (2026) · Contemporary Economic Policy · doi:10.1111/coep.70025
Which message works best? Experimental evidence on disaster appeals
Astobiza, A. M., & Lozano, R. O. (2026) · Next research. · doi:10.1016/j.nexres.2026.101605
Public perceptions of energy security risks and energy transition support in France and Germany
Sloot, D., Limbach, K., Faure, C., Guetlein, M.-C., Fïchtner, W., & Schultmann, F. (2026) · Cell Reports Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.crsus.2026.100663
Updating in parallel under threat : cues, emotions, frames, and memories
Georgarakis, G. N. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/e0cecd3az44daz4250za25czc075b31d59ab
Understanding misinformation and fighting for information
Altay, S. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/2e02b9cfz3b17z4c05za865zfcbe3a9fb6e4
Using General Messages to Persuade on a Politicized Scientific IssuePreprint
Santillana, M., Ognyanova, K., Lin, J., Lazer, D., Druckman, J., Simonson, M. D., Baum, M., Perlis, R., & Green, J. (2021) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Communicating expert consensus increases personal support for COVID-19 mitigation policiesPreprint
van der Linden, S., & Kerr, J. R. (2024) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Scientific consensus communication about contested science: A preregistered meta-analysisPreprint
Riet, J. V. ‘., Veling, H., Riet, J. V. '., Schaap, G., & Buijzen, M. (2026) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
The language of scientific uncertainty in Congressional hearings
Coberley, D. D. (2026) · Text and Talk · doi:10.1515/text-2024-0245
Arin, K. P., Ortiz, J. M., & Sayour, N. (2026) · Journal of Economic Studies · doi:10.1108/jes-12-2025-0974
Consensus Messaging Shifts Beliefs About Climate Change in a Field Experiment
Rode, J. B., Clarke, C. E., & van der Linden, S. (2026) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470261442409 · Cited by 1
Ethics and action pathways for psychologists in a time of climate crisis
Houlding, C., Barnett, B. M., Colton, S., Houlding, E., Schmidt, F., & Thege, B. K. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1770041 · Cited by 2
Kharwar, K., Nair, P., Vaishnav, D. K., Bansal, A., & Amoss, L. D. (2026) · Australian Journal of Environmental Education · doi:10.1017/aee.2026.10187
Green Is the New Bad: Libertarian Populism and the Edgar Friendly Style of Climate Denial
Bellolio, C. (2026) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2026.2691473
When tradition burns: Misinterpreting prescribed fire across the science–society gap in Iberia
Navarro, L. (2026) · Ecological Solutions and Evidence · doi:10.1002/2688-8319.70276
Bayramoğlu, Z., Candemir, S., & Doğan, H. G. (2026) · Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi · doi:10.24181/tarekoder.1845483
Tavares, S. S., Xie, C. J., Aluru, A., Lima, I. S., Pêgo, A. C., & Gozzelino, R. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1816888
Senekane, M. F., & Moreetsi, C. O. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1872901
Sabherwal, A. C., & Sparkman, G. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2533408123
Tran, L., & Su, Y. (2026) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2026.109188
Chan, H., Eom, K., Liu, P., & Tam, K. (2026) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.70103
Hao, F. (2026) · Environmental Sociology · doi:10.1080/23251042.2026.2711921
Sousa, J. C., & Schmidt, L. (2026) · Climate · doi:10.3390/cli14080169
Wang, Y., & Turvey, C. G. (2026) · Economic Analysis and Policy · doi:10.1016/j.eap.2026.08.035
Zhou, Y., & Li, S. S. (2026) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2026.2723343
Defining climate change acceptance in undergraduate science student populations: A Delphi study
Duke, J., & Holt, E. A. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0356374
Guest editorial: Restor(y)ing hopeful socioecological futures
Panos, A. M., & Woodard, R. (2026) · English Teaching Practice & Critique · doi:10.1108/etpc-09-2026-289
Turning the tables on industry narratives: a health communication playbook for promoting health
Stückler, D., Berteletti, F., & McKee, M. (2026) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/daag130
What Beliefs Are Central in the Climate Change Belief System Network?
Nowlin, M. C. (2026) · Social Science Quarterly · doi:10.1111/ssqu.70202
A scoping review of articles and the instruments they use to measure climate change acceptance
Duke, J., Wattier, K., & Holt, E. A. (2026) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.70769
Gonzaga, E. A., & López, I. M. G. (2026) · Frontiers in Sustainability · doi:10.3389/frsus.2026.1877871
Tian, J., Gong, Y., Sun, M., & Sun, Y. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.103212
Il clima mediato. Attori, arene e frame del racconto pubblico della crisi climatica
Cappi, V., & Parmiggiani, P. (2026) · SOCIOLOGIA DELLA COMUNICAZIONE · doi:10.3280/sil2026-001011
Phan, D., Spirkl, N., Kauk, J., & Asbrand, J. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10677469/v1
Wang, Y., Ma, L., & Deng, Y. (2026) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2026.2738121
Controversial to whom? A defense of the intra-scientific consensus view
Bellolio, C. (2026) · Contemporary Political Theory · doi:10.1057/s41296-026-00855-3
Zwolinski, A., Burgers, C., & van der Meer, T. (2026) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2026.102763
Metadata
- Authors
- van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- George Mason University (US)
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-02-25
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e0118489
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4340922
- OpenAlex
- W2139841269
- Cited by
- 661
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 88 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 17
- FWCI
- 168.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- Rockefeller Family Fund
- 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
- scientific consensus, climate change beliefs, public perception of science, anthropogenic climate change, climate policy support
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Models, Theoretical, Consensus, 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
