In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication

被引:53
作者
Chinn, Sedona [1 ]
Lane, Daniel S. [1 ]
Philip, S. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Michigan, Dept Commun Studies, 5345 North Quad,105 South State St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[2] Univ Michigan, Commun Studies, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[3] Univ Michigan, Program Environm, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
关键词
consensus communication; scientific uncertainty; trust in science; PUBLIC SUPPORT; PERCEPTIONS; CLIMATE; UNCERTAINTY; INFORMATION; ACCEPTANCE; AUTHORITY; NUMERACY; DECISION; SCIENCE;
D O I
10.1177/0963662518791094
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
Scholars have recently suggested that communicating levels of scientific consensus (e.g. the percentage of scientists who agree about human-caused climate change) can shift public opinion toward the dominant scientific opinion. Initial research suggested that consensus communication effectively reduces public skepticism. However, other research failed to find a persuasive effect for those with conflicting prior beliefs. This study enters this contested space by experimentally testing how different levels of consensus shape perceptions of scientific certainty. We further examine how perceptions of certainty influence personal agreement and policy support. Findings indicate that communicating higher levels of consensus increases perceptions of scientific certainty, which is associated with greater personal agreement and policy support for non-political issues. We find some suggestive evidence that this mediated effect is moderated by participants' overall trust in science, such that those with low trust in science fail to perceive higher agreement as indicative of greater scientific certainty.
引用
收藏
页码:807 / 823
页数:17
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]   A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014 [J].
Achterberg, Peter ;
de Koster, Willem ;
van der Waal, Jeroen .
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE, 2017, 26 (06) :704-720
[2]   Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy [J].
Aklin, Michael ;
Urpelainen, Johannes .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2014, 38 :173-177
[3]   The Role of Media and Deference to Scientific Authority in Cultivating Trust in Sources of Information about Emerging Technologies [J].
Anderson, Ashley A. ;
Scheufele, Dietram A. ;
Brossard, Dominique ;
Corley, Elizabeth A. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH, 2012, 24 (02) :225-237
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2015, REL VIEWS CLIM EN IS
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1998, Journal of Risk Research, DOI [DOI 10.1080/136698798377042, 10.1080/136698798377042]
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2013, 97 PERC SCI AGR CLIM
[7]  
[Anonymous], GLOB CLIM CHANG FACT
[8]   THE MODERATOR MEDIATOR VARIABLE DISTINCTION IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL-RESEARCH - CONCEPTUAL, STRATEGIC, AND STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS [J].
BARON, RM ;
KENNY, DA .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1986, 51 (06) :1173-1182
[9]   Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses [J].
Brambor, T ;
Clark, WR ;
Golder, M .
POLITICAL ANALYSIS, 2006, 14 (01) :63-82
[10]   Whose Science Do You Believe? Explaining Trust in Sources of Scientific Information About the Environment [J].
Brewer, Paul R. ;
Ley, Barbara L. .
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION, 2013, 35 (01) :115-137