Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42728268›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Consumer understanding of climate targets is low and hard to improve: evidence from three online studies.

Vittoria Battocletti, Alfredo Desiato, Alessandro Romano, Chiara Sotis, Tobias H Tröger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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

5 authors.

Vittoria BattoclettiUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Alfredo DesiatoAston University, Birmingham, UK. a.desiato1@aston.ac.uk.
Alessandro RomanoBocconi University, Milan, Italy.
Chiara SotisNorthwestern University, Evanston, USA. chiara.sotis@northwestern.edu.
Tobias H TrögerGoethe University, Leibniz Institute SAFE and ECGI, Frankfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many firms publicize net-zero or carbon neutral targets, yet it is unclear whether consumers understand these targets. Policy proposals-as well as recent court rulings-call on firms to explain what those targets mean. We test whether such explanations enhance consumer understanding in two online studies with nationally representative U.S. samples (N=300; N=1,500) and in a large-scale webcam-based eye-tracking experiment (N=500). Baseline knowledge is low: 95 percent of respondents fail to name even one defining feature of net-zero or carbon neutral targets, yet they are willing to pay a price premium for gift cards from companies with such targets. Concise disclosures raise objective understanding when a single product is shown, but none of the formats alter willingness to pay. In a more realistic setting with multiple products and competing cues, disclosures attract substantial gaze time, yet no longer improve comprehension; the visually salient color-coded format is associated with more misconceptions. These findings contribute to the growing evidence that individual-level measures, such as information provision, may be a less effective response to systemic problems like global warming than previously thought.

Identifiers

PMID42728268
PMCPMC13569486

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.