The effect of information provision on public consensus about climate change

Tatyana Deryugina, Olga Shurchkov

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Abstract

Despite over 20 years of research and scientific consensus on the topic, climate change continues to be a politically polarizing issue. We conducted a survey experiment to test whether providing the public with information on the exact extent of scientific agreement about the occurrence and causes of climate change affects respondents' own beliefs and bridges the divide between conservatives and liberals. First, we show that the public significantly underestimated the extent of the scientific consensus. We then find that those given concrete information about scientists' views were more likely to report believing that climate change was already underway and that it was caused by humans. However, their beliefs about the necessity of making policy decisions and their willingness to donate money to combat climate change were not affected. Information provision affected liberals, moderates, and conservatives similarly, implying that the gap in beliefs between liberals and conservatives is not likely to be bridged by information treatments similar to the one we study. Finally, we conducted a 6-month follow-up with respondents to see if the treatment effect persisted; the results were statistically inconclusive.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Article numbere0151469
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume11
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2016

Fingerprint

Climate Change
Consensus
Climate change
climate change
Surveys and Questionnaires
Policy Making
Decision Making
Research
Experiments
testing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

The effect of information provision on public consensus about climate change. / Deryugina, Tatyana; Shurchkov, Olga.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 11, No. 4, e0151469, 01.04.2016.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

@article{c0b5c36440f64d2d8f42f49cdff4518a,
title = "The effect of information provision on public consensus about climate change",
abstract = "Despite over 20 years of research and scientific consensus on the topic, climate change continues to be a politically polarizing issue. We conducted a survey experiment to test whether providing the public with information on the exact extent of scientific agreement about the occurrence and causes of climate change affects respondents' own beliefs and bridges the divide between conservatives and liberals. First, we show that the public significantly underestimated the extent of the scientific consensus. We then find that those given concrete information about scientists' views were more likely to report believing that climate change was already underway and that it was caused by humans. However, their beliefs about the necessity of making policy decisions and their willingness to donate money to combat climate change were not affected. Information provision affected liberals, moderates, and conservatives similarly, implying that the gap in beliefs between liberals and conservatives is not likely to be bridged by information treatments similar to the one we study. Finally, we conducted a 6-month follow-up with respondents to see if the treatment effect persisted; the results were statistically inconclusive.",
author = "Tatyana Deryugina and Olga Shurchkov",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0151469",
volume = "11",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of information provision on public consensus about climate change

AU - Deryugina,Tatyana

AU - Shurchkov,Olga

PY - 2016/4/1

Y1 - 2016/4/1

N2 - Despite over 20 years of research and scientific consensus on the topic, climate change continues to be a politically polarizing issue. We conducted a survey experiment to test whether providing the public with information on the exact extent of scientific agreement about the occurrence and causes of climate change affects respondents' own beliefs and bridges the divide between conservatives and liberals. First, we show that the public significantly underestimated the extent of the scientific consensus. We then find that those given concrete information about scientists' views were more likely to report believing that climate change was already underway and that it was caused by humans. However, their beliefs about the necessity of making policy decisions and their willingness to donate money to combat climate change were not affected. Information provision affected liberals, moderates, and conservatives similarly, implying that the gap in beliefs between liberals and conservatives is not likely to be bridged by information treatments similar to the one we study. Finally, we conducted a 6-month follow-up with respondents to see if the treatment effect persisted; the results were statistically inconclusive.

AB - Despite over 20 years of research and scientific consensus on the topic, climate change continues to be a politically polarizing issue. We conducted a survey experiment to test whether providing the public with information on the exact extent of scientific agreement about the occurrence and causes of climate change affects respondents' own beliefs and bridges the divide between conservatives and liberals. First, we show that the public significantly underestimated the extent of the scientific consensus. We then find that those given concrete information about scientists' views were more likely to report believing that climate change was already underway and that it was caused by humans. However, their beliefs about the necessity of making policy decisions and their willingness to donate money to combat climate change were not affected. Information provision affected liberals, moderates, and conservatives similarly, implying that the gap in beliefs between liberals and conservatives is not likely to be bridged by information treatments similar to the one we study. Finally, we conducted a 6-month follow-up with respondents to see if the treatment effect persisted; the results were statistically inconclusive.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84963719015&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84963719015&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0151469

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0151469

M3 - Article

VL - 11

JO - PLoS One

T2 - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 4

M1 - e0151469

ER -