Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27752964›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2017

Informing Public Perceptions About Climate Change: A 'Mental Models' Approach.

Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, Wändi Bruine de Bruin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Gabrielle Wong-ParodiDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. gwongpar@cmu.edu.
Wändi Bruine de BruinDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation SES-0949710National Science Foundation SES-1463492
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the specter of climate change looms on the horizon, people will face complex decisions about whether to support climate change policies and how to cope with climate change impacts on their lives. Without some grasp of the relevant science, they may find it hard to make informed decisions. Climate experts therefore face the ethical need to effectively communicate to non-expert audiences. Unfortunately, climate experts may inadvertently violate the maxims of effective communication, which require sharing communications that are truthful, brief, relevant, clear, and tested for effectiveness. Here, we discuss the 'mental models' approach towards developing communications, which aims to help experts to meet the maxims of effective communications, and to better inform the judgments and decisions of non-expert audiences.

Indexed as

Access to InformationClimateClimate ChangeCommunicationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePublic OpinionResearch PersonnelDecision MakingHumansJudgmentModels, PsychologicalPublic PolicyResearchClimate change communicationDecision makingMental models approach

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.