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
Figures
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
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
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
Cook, J., Орескес, Н., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., Carlton, J. S., Lewandowsky, S., Skuce, A. G., Green, S., et al. (2016) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 · Cited by 1,637
Self-citationInoculating 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
Self-citationCook, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175799 · Cited by 971
Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking
Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983 · Cited by 773
Wang, L., Wu, W., Bolan, N. S., Tsang, D. C. W., Yang, L., Qin, M., & Hou, D. (2020) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123415 · Cited by 668
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
