Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39356647›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

How to distinguish climate sceptics, antivaxxers, and persistent sceptics: Evidence from a multi-country survey of public attitudes.

Zeynep Clulow, David Reiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Zeynep ClulowEnergy Policy Research Group, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7297-2018
David ReinerEnergy Policy Research Group, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2004-8696

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Distrust in science has been linked to scepticism over vaccines and climate change. Using data from nationally representative surveys administered in eight key countries for global efforts to mitigate climate change and COVID-19 (Australia, Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Africa, the UK and US), we find that distrust in scientists was an important predictor variable for most sceptics, who were sceptical of one issue but not both, in February 2021, when most countries had experienced their first wave of the pandemic. However, the association was significantly weaker among the segment of hardcore sceptics who were both climate sceptics and antivaxxers. We demonstrate that these individuals tended to possess many of the typical sceptic characteristics such as high distrust in social institutions and rightward political orientation, which are (collectively) suggestive of an underlying sceptic mindset rather than a specific distrust of scientists. Our results suggest that different types of sceptics necessitate different strategies to dispel scepticism.

Indexed as

Climate ChangeCOVID-19Public OpinionAttitudeAustraliaBrazilChinaFemaleHumansIndiaJapanMalePandemicsSARS-CoV-2South AfricaSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39356647
PMCPMC11446448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.