IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0151469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change

Author

Listed:
  • Tatyana Deryugina
  • Olga Shurchkov

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Tatyana Deryugina & Olga Shurchkov, 2016. "The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151469
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151469
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151469
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151469&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0151469?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua Schwartzstein, 2014. "Selective Attention And Learning," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(6), pages 1423-1452, December.
    2. James Andreoni & Alison Sanchez, 2014. "Do Beliefs Justify Actions or Do Actions Justify Beliefs? An Experiment on Stated Beliefs, Revealed Beliefs, and Social-Image Manipulation," NBER Working Papers 20649, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    4. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    5. Aaron McCright & Riley Dunlap & Chenyang Xiao, 2013. "Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 511-518, July.
    6. Stephan Lewandowsky & Gilles E. Gignac & Samuel Vaughan, 2013. "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 399-404, April.
    7. Kiesel, Kristin & Villas-Boas, Sofia B., 2013. "Can information costs affect consumer choice? Nutritional labels in a supermarket experiment," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 153-163.
    8. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2011. "Ideological Segregation Online and Offline," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(4), pages 1799-1839.
    9. Bryan Bollinger & Phillip Leslie & Alan Sorensen, 2011. "Calorie Posting in Chain Restaurants," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 91-128, February.
    10. Trudy Cameron, 2005. "Updating Subjective Risks in the Presence of Conflicting Information: An Application to Climate Change," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-97, January.
    11. Sander L van der Linden & Anthony A Leiserowitz & Geoffrey D Feinberg & Edward W Maibach, 2015. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
    12. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marc Fabel & Matthias Flückiger & Markus Ludwig & Helmut Rainer & Maria Waldinger & Sebastian Wichert, 2022. "The Power of Youth: Did the "Fridays for Future" Climate Movement Trickle-Up to Influence, Voters, Politicians, and the Media?," CESifo Working Paper Series 9742, CESifo.
    2. Tomas Molina & Ernest Abadal, 2021. "The Evolution of Communicating the Uncertainty of Climate Change to Policymakers: A Study of IPCC Synthesis Reports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Graham Beattie & Yi Han & Andrea La Nauze, 2019. "Conservation Spillovers: The Effect of Rooftop Solar on Climate Change Beliefs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1425-1451, November.
    4. Sedona Chinn & P. Sol Hart, 2021. "Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Homes of the future: Unpacking public perceptions to power the domestic hydrogen transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    6. Jason Gainous & Rodger A. Payne & Melissa K. Merry, 2021. "Do Source cues or frames matter? Convincing the public about the veracity of climate science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1894-1906, July.
    7. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    8. Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    9. Mst Asma Khatun & Shibly Shahrier & Koji Kotani, 2020. "Cooperation and cognition gaps for salinity: A field experiment of information provision," Working Papers SDES-2020-4, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jun 2020.
    10. Tu, Meng & Zhang, Bing & Xu, Jianhua & Lu, Fangwen, 2020. "Mass media, information and demand for environmental quality: Evidence from the “Under the Dome”," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    2. Oana Georgiana SECUIAN & Anamaria Gabriela VLAD & Mihaela VLAD, 2021. "Smart city a solution for dealing with climate change in European cities," Smart Cities International Conference (SCIC) Proceedings, Smart-EDU Hub, vol. 9, pages 285-296, November.
    3. Marc A. Ragin & Benjamin L. Collier & Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2021. "The effect of information disclosure on demand for high‐load insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 88(1), pages 161-193, March.
    4. Nano Barahona & Cristóbal Otero & Sebastián Otero, 2023. "Equilibrium Effects of Food Labeling Policies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(3), pages 839-868, May.
    5. Cheng, Ing-Haw & Hsiaw, Alice, 2022. "Distrust in experts and the origins of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    6. Eric Plutzer & A. Lee Hannah, 2018. "Teaching climate change in middle schools and high schools: investigating STEM education’s deficit model," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 305-317, August.
    7. Pierre Dubois & Paulo Albuquerque & Olivier Allais & Céline Bonnet & Patrice Bertail & Pierre Combris & Saadi Lahlou & Natalie Rigal & Bernard Ruffieux & Pierre Chandon, 2021. "Effects of front-of-pack labels on the nutritional quality of supermarket food purchases: evidence from a large-scale randomized controlled trial," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 119-138, January.
    8. Raphael Bergoeing & Facundo Piguillem, 2018. "Cooperatives vs Traditional Banks: The impact of Interbank Market Exclusion," Documentos de Trabajo 338, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
    9. John Cawley & Alex Susskind & Barton Willage, 2020. "The Impact of Information Disclosure on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment of Calorie Labels on Restaurant Menus," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1020-1042, September.
    10. Christel W. van Eck & Bob C. Mulder & Sander van der Linden, 2020. "Climate Change Risk Perceptions of Audiences in the Climate Change Blogosphere," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    11. Romain Cadario & Pierre Chandon, 2020. "Which Healthy Eating Nudges Work Best? A Meta-Analysis of Field Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 465-486, May.
    12. Carisa Bergner & Bruce A. Desmarais & John Hird, 2019. "Speaking truth in power: Scientific evidence as motivation for policy activism," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    13. Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    14. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2018. "Self-assessed understanding of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 349-362, November.
    15. Tobias König & Renke Schmacker, 2022. "Preferences for Sin Taxes," CESifo Working Paper Series 10046, CESifo.
    16. Jessica E. Hughes & James D. Sauer & Aaron Drummond & Laura E. Brumby & Matthew A. Palmer, 2023. "Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    17. Hidalgo-Hidalgo, Marisa & Jiménez, Natalia & López-Pintado, Dunia, 2021. "Social influence and position effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 113-131.
    18. Jason Gainous & Rodger A. Payne & Melissa K. Merry, 2021. "Do Source cues or frames matter? Convincing the public about the veracity of climate science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1894-1906, July.
    19. Tatyana Deryugina, 2013. "How do people update? The effects of local weather fluctuations on beliefs about global warming," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 397-416, May.
    20. Gordon Gauchat & Timothy O’Brien & Oriol Mirosa, 2017. "The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 297-306, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151469. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.