The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change
Open accessAbstract
Despite over 20 years of research and scientific consensus on the topic, climate change continues to be a politically polarizing issue. We conducted a survey experiment to test whether providing the public with information on the exact extent of scientific agreement about the occurrence and causes of climate change affects respondents' own beliefs and bridges the divide between conservatives and liberals. First, we show that the public significantly underestimated the extent of the scientific consensus. We then find that those given concrete information about scientists' views were more likely to report believing that climate change was already underway and that it was caused by humans. However, their beliefs about the necessity of making policy decisions and their willingness to donate money to combat climate change were not affected. Information provision affected liberals, moderates, and conservatives similarly, implying that the gap in beliefs between liberals and conservatives is not likely to be bridged by information treatments similar to the one we study. Finally, we conducted a 6-month follow-up with respondents to see if the treatment effect persisted; the results were statistically inconclusive.
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
“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 Deryugina and Shurchkov, 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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 Deryugina and Shurchkov, 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Morvan, C., & O’Connor, A. (2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912282432 · Cited by 18,284
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
Barker, T. J., Bashmakov, I., Bernstein, L., Bogner, J. R., Bosch, P. C., Dave, R., Davidson, O., Fisher, B. S., Grubb, M. J., Gupta, S. K., et al. (2007) · Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling · Cited by 9,160
Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2365 · Cited by 1,300
Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes
Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662504042690 · Cited by 1,236
How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments
Kuziemko, I., Norton, M. I., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2015) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20130360 · Cited by 1,109
Ideological Segregation Online and Offline *
Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjr044 · Cited by 980
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175799 · Cited by 971
Climate Change Disinformation and How to Combat It
Lewandowsky, S. (2020) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102409 · Cited by 384
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
The 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Deryugina, T., & Shurchkov, O.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Wellesley College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Deryugina, Tatyana
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2016-04-11
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e0151469
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4827814
- OpenAlex
- W2322343349
- Cited by
- 150
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 42.89
- 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)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- UIUC Campus Research Board (13013)
- 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, information provision, political polarization, public opinion, belief updating, willingness to pay, liberals and conservatives, survey experiment
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Public Opinion, Consensus, Geographic Information Systems, 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
