ArticleNature human behaviour2024
A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The gateway (mis)belief model: How misinformation impacts perceptions of scientific consensus and attitudes towards climate change.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Blueprint of a smokescreen: Introducing the validated climate disinformation corpus for behavioural research on combating climate disinformation.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Sampling and processing of climate change information and disinformation across three diverse countries.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Insights from climate psychology for misinformation research.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Combined signals of scientific and social consensus best mobilize action on societal challenges even if government and industry oppose.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Communicating scientific uncertainties: Effects of message and audience characteristics in the context of microplastic health risks.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026Article
- Using Motive-Alignment to Enhance Environmental Education for Youth: A Participatory Field Experiment.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Ideological polarization on anthropogenic climate change is stronger among politicians than among citizens across eight countries.Communications sustainability · 2026Article
- Messages from co-partisan elected officials can increase climate mitigation intentions without changing climate beliefs.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Political ideology and trust in scientists in the USA.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Gender and ideological orientation moderate the influence of climate misinformation on pro-environmental behavioural intentions.The British journal of social psychology · 2025Article
- What We Think Others Think and Do About Climate Change: A Multicountry Test of Pluralistic Ignorance and Public-Consensus Messaging.Psychological science · 2025Article
- Most Christian American religious leaders silently believe in climate change, and informing their congregation can help open dialogue.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Learning from and about scientists: Consensus messaging shapes perceptions of climate change and climate scientists.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
46 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Communicating the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is real increases climate change beliefs, worry and support for public action in the United States. In this preregistered experiment, we tested two scientific consensus messages, a classic message on the reality of human-caused climate change and an updated message additionally emphasizing scientific agreement that climate change is a crisis. Across online convenience samples from 27 countries (n = 10,527), the classic message substantially reduces misperceptions (d = 0.47, 95% CI (0.41, 0.52)) and slightly increases climate change beliefs (from d = 0.06, 95% CI (0.01, 0.11) to d = 0.10, 95% CI (0.04, 0.15)) and worry (d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.10)) but not support for public action directly. The updated message is equally effective but provides no added value. Both messages are more effective for audiences with lower message familiarity and higher misperceptions, including those with lower trust in climate scientists and right-leaning ideologies. Overall, scientific consensus messaging is an effective, non-polarizing tool for changing misperceptions, beliefs and worry across different audiences.
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.