Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40999711›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)2026

Sampling and processing of climate change information and disinformation across three diverse countries.

Zahra Rahmani Azad, Tobia Spampatti, Sebastian Gluth, Kim-Pong Tam, Ulf J J Hahnel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Zahra Rahmani AzadFaculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1072-972X
Tobia SpampattiCenter for Conflict and Cooperation, New York University, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0714-6494
Sebastian GluthDepartment of Psychology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2241-5103
Kim-Pong TamThe Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1485-1343
Ulf J J HahnelFaculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0595-5899

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the media, accurate climate information and climate disinformation often coexist and present competing narratives about climate change. Whereas previous research documented detrimental effects of disinformation on climate beliefs, little is known about how people seek climate-related content and how this varies between cross-cultural contexts. In a preregistered experiment, we studied how individuals sequentially sample and process Pro- and Anti-climate statements across 15 rounds. Participants from the United States, China, and Germany (N

Indexed as

Climate ChangeCross-Cultural ComparisonDisinformationSocial MediaChinaGermanyHumansMedia ExposureUnited Statesclimate actionclimate policiesconfirmation biasdisinformationinformation sampling

Identifiers

PMID40999711
PMCPMC13543321

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.