ArticleScientific reports2025
General public takes up counterintuitive expert advice on effective climate action.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individual voluntary climate action could contribute to closing the gap between global emission targets and the instruments in place. However, complex regulatory frameworks make it difficult for individuals to understand which actions align with their goals. Expert advice might provide guidance, but it is not trivial how detailed the advice should be. In a large consequential choice experiment with five informational load conditions, this paper uses the voluntary cancellation of European Union Allowances as an application to narrow down a minimum amount of information required to induce effective actions. We find a clear pattern of advice being processed and followed, even if it includes a demanding level of detail and counters prior convictions. Moreover, a mere assertion is highly effective already. These results are good news for efforts to increase the effectiveness of voluntary climate action.
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.