ReviewPublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2022
Public trust and mistrust of climate science: A meta-narrative review.
Review in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trust as a Driver of Pro-Ecological Behaviour: The Power of Experts and Interpersonal Networks in a Low-Trust Context.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Trust in science during the COVID-19 pandemic: A typology of internet users in South Africa.PloS one · 2026Article
- The importance of science communication and public engagement to professional associations.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
- Perceptions of science, science communication, and climate change attitudes in 68 countries - the TISP dataset.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Is science to be trusted? How environmentally active youths relate to science in social media.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- Belief updating when confronted with scientific evidence: Examining the role of trust in science.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- Work and the public understanding of science.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic meta-narrative literature review aims to explore the narratives of trust evident in literature on public (mis)trust relating to climate science published up until May 2021, and to present the main findings from these papers. We identified six narratives of trust: attitudinal trust, cognitive trust, affective trust, contingencies of trust, contextual trust and communicated trust. The papers' main findings spanned theoretical conclusions on the importance of positionality to trust and morality to trustworthiness, to qualitative findings that the scientific community was mainly trusted, to quantitative findings that explored how trust functioned as an independent, dependent or mediating variable. This literature review sheds important light on the interrelationship between climate science and publics, highlights areas for further research, and in its characterisation of trust narratives provides a language for conceptualising trust that can further interdisciplinary engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.