Search

Journalists are often the adult public’s central source of scientific information, which means that their reporting shapes the relationship the public has with science. Yet philosophers of science largely ignore journalistic communication in their inquiries about trust in science. This paper aims to help fill this gap in research by comparing journalistic norm conflicts that arose when reporting on COVID-19 and tobacco, among other policy-relevant scientific topics. I argue that the public’s image of scientists– as depositories of indisputable, value-free facts, trustworthy only when in consensus– makes it particularly difficult for journalists to ethically communicate policy-relevant science rife with disagreement. In doing so, I show how journalists, like scientists, face the problem of inductive risk in such cases. To overcome this problem, I sketch a model of trust in science that is grounded in an alternative image of scientists– what I call the responsiveness model of trust in science. By highlighting the process of science over its product, the responsiveness model requires scientists to respond to empirical evidence and the public’s values to warrant the public’s trust. I then show why this model requires journalists to be the public’s watchdogs by verifying and communicating whether scientists are being properly responsive both epistemically and non-epistemically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the development wave of plant-based food in China from 2019, the plant-based food industry has gone through a development process from "soaring and enthusiastic" to "calm and rational". The current development of the entire industry tends to be stable and orderly. After five years of developments, the understandings of plant-based food in its development concepts nutritional characteristics, quality characteristics, processing technology, and policy regulations have basically achieved consensus throughout the industry: Plant-based food is an important way for the food industry to achieve efficient resource utilization and green low-carbon development; plant-based food could provide high-quality protein, which is beneficial for improving the dietary structure of residents; plant-based food has a clear difference from traditional vegetarian food, and it gives full play to its functional properties; the processing of plant-based food should fully realize the nutritional enrichment, quality enhancement and excellent flavor of the products; and the standardized development of the plant-based food industry needs to be supported by the corresponding policies, regulations and standards. In the future, the development of plant-based food industry should be guided by the trend of diversified market development, taking taste, price and clean label as the main problems, breaking through technological bottlenecks, thinking from multiple perspectives, diversifying the choices, and exploring its potential value to achieve the steady progress of the entire industry.

Copyright of Science & Technology of Cereals, Oils & Foods is the property of Science & Technology of Cereals, Oils & Foods Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Calcium /3-hydroxy-/3-methylbutyrate (CaHMB), as a new food raw material, has obtained approval in multiple countries, including China. In China, CaHMB is allowed to be used in foods for special medical purposes. However, despite being approved in China for over a decade, no products containing CaHMB have been introduced as foods for special medical purposes to the market. Thus, there is a need to form a consensus on the health benefits, safety, dosage and other aspects of CaHMB to facilitate its application in the relevant food industry, regulatory authorities and consumer understanding, thereby advancing its application to better address the nutritional and health needs of the publication. This article provided comprehensive analysis of the global research and application of CaHMB, engaging relevant academic and industrial experts to form the scientific consensus on the application of CaHMB via literature analysis and scientific discussions, as: 1) CaHMB, as new food raw material and the calcium salt form of HMB, plays a crucial role to supplement HMB in promoting muscle protein synthesis and reducing muscle protein breakdown; 2) CaHMB supplementation is beneficial to correct the negative nitrogen balance and improving muscle health in the elderly and people with various diseases (such as sarcopenia syndrome, oncology, etc.); 3) The safety of CaHMB is widely recognized, and appropriate increase its maximal daily intake limit locally can better support target population to receive health benefits and promote industrial application development. Recommendations: At the policy level, proactive measures can guide the appropriate increase in the maximal daily intake limit of CaHMB to better address the nutritional and health needs of the population; further strengthen scientific research and innovation on CaHMB to provide scientific and technical evidence supporting its optimal application and related policy development; promote CaHMB application in food industry, especially in foods for special medical purposes, to further forest high-quality development of related industries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research field of nonprofits and philanthropy has grown exponentially. To what extent do nonprofit scholars share a common language? Answering this question is crucial to assessing the field's intellectual cohesiveness. We studied how coauthor networks, scholarly reputation, and the prevalence of female authors influence consensus formation. We found that the degree of consensus for all major research topics in the field has increased over time—For every 10% growth in the volume of literature, shared language increased by 1.4%. A cohesive research community on nonprofits and philanthropy has been forming since the early 2000s. Female scholars are fewer in number and less cited than males; their presence did not exceed 40% for most topics. The citation counts of scholars and small-world property of networks are positively associated with consensus, suggesting that star researchers and knowledge brokers bridging different intellectual communities are key to sharing research interests and language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The multi-purpose of publicizing a scientific consensus includes a communicative strategy by which scientific institutions accommodate the weighty social and economic demands to demonstrate they are collaborating and cooperating with non-scientific sectors of society, relying on a wide range of spokespeople and representatives to carry out the delivery of their consensus in formal, institutionally arranged, professional and impersonal public settings. I investigate the conditions and presuppositions that make it possible for a research consortium to contribute indirectly to public discourse beyond the presentation of empirical data and theoretical speculations routinely associated with knowledge-producing collectives. The baptismal action of researchers in selecting a designative name to announce a new discovery of virus species and species variants does not follow the rigorous regulations that standardize all names of taxonomic categories in other biological sciences as well as higher order taxa in virology. It is argued here that the lack of clarity in the denotation of the term ‘Ebola’ (in epidemiological reports from West Africa throughout 2014–2016) serves the purpose of shifting a receptor’s understanding of a statement from its explicit assertive point to an implicit declarative, commissive, directive or expressive, covertly delivered point. Specialists of nomenclature concerned with quality assurance regard this lapse in standardization as a consequence of human fallibility demanding urgent intervention. Here it is proposed instead that the occlusive effect of a technical descriptive name may serve an important communicative function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anthropogenic climate change is a scientific fact, but U.S. public discourse around the issue remains mired in controversy, including in education. Our study leverages natural language processing methods to give a precise look into the extent to which climate change-related topics are covered in 30 of the most widely used high school history textbooks in California and Texas. We find that history textbooks situate climate change-related topics within narratives of U.S. progress and development, and focus on the role of government in climate action. Consistent with analyses of science curricula, we also find that history textbooks emphasize controversy in climate discussions. Despite differences in state-level standards, the content of textbooks in California and Texas is surprisingly similar in the extent and nature of climate change-related discourse. Our study indicates that history textbook reform is an important arena for expanding and improving climate change education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a clear consensus among climate scientists about the reality and serious consequences of anthropogenic climate change. However, a vocal minority challenges this consensus. While some research has drawn attention to how conservative foundations support these anti-consensus scientists, less is known about how these scholars are embedded within the broader scientific community. Here, we analyze the networks of anti-consensus and consensus scientists and observe the extent to which these groups are maintained through peer collaborations (e.g. co-authorship) or substantive focus (e.g. research specialization). Using bibliometric data, we construct co-authorship and bibliographic networks linking scientists that appear in two key reports representing the consensus and anti-consensus positions. We identify specialty areas using text analysis and model participation in either series of reports. Results indicate that anti-consensus scientists are not in the same network as consensus scientists and have somewhat different research specializations than consensus scientists although there is substantive overlap. Additionally, anti-consensus scientists do not form a coherent network among themselves, which suggests they do not constitute a separate scientific community, but rather are composed of a disparate group of idiosyncratic scientists. • Clear consensus exists among climate scientists about anthropogenic climate change, yet a small minority is anti-consensus. • Consensus and anti-consensus scientists differ by collaboration and somewhat by specialization, among other factors. • Consensus scientists form a community, while anti-consensus scientists have few ties to consensus scientists or each other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay examines the important roles for values in science, from deciding which research projects are worth pursuing, to shaping good methodological approaches (including ethical concerns), to assessing the sufficiency of evidence for scientific claims. I highlight the necessity of social and ethical value judgements in science, particularly for producing properly responsible research. I then examine the implications of the need for values to inform scientific practice for public trust in science. I argue that values serve as a key basis for public trust in scientists, along with the presence of expertise and engagement in a well-functioning expert community, and that scientists should thus be more open about the values informing their work. This result holds whether the science at issue is a matter of consensus or still contested within the scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several recent studies have debated whether climate change consensus messages cause reactance, although they sometimes employ different procedures and measurement. This study uses procedures and measures from competing studies to allow for a comparison of the respective approaches. We find that climate change consensus messages cause reactance, particularly among Republicans and those who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change. These findings highlight concerns that consensus messaging strategies may be ineffective or backfire among audiences that science communicators are most keen to target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent article, Ma, Dixon, and Hmielowski (2019. Psychological Reactance from Reading Basic Facts on Climate Change: The Role of Prior Views and Political Identification. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 71–86) explore whether scientific consensus messages activate psychological reactance. They find no main effect of the consensus message on psychological reactance, but a subsequent moderation analysis appears to show reactance among audiences who question the existence of climate change, especially Republicans. Here we attempt to replicate this finding in a large national sample of American adults (N = 6,301). Consistent with Ma et al., we find no main effect of the consensus condition on our measure of psychological reactance. However, in contrast to Ma et al., we find no evidence of psychological reactance among Republicans, conservatives, or those with dismissive prior views. Although people who question climate change are more likely to say that the 97% consensus message is manipulative, this main effect exists regardless of experimental condition, indicating that psychological reactance does not stem from exposure to the scientific consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has confirmed the prominent role of group processes in the promotion and endorsement of disinformation. We report three studies on a psychological framework derived from integrated threat theory—a psychological theory which describes how perceived threat leads to group polarization and prejudice—composed of the following constructs: group belongingness, perceived threat, outgroup derogation, and intergroup anxiety. Our pilot study suggested that need to belong and intergroup anxiety predict antiscientific beliefs (pseudoscientific, paranormal, and conspiracy theories), thus justifying the general applicability of integrated threat theory. Study 1 investigates the transition from weak to strong critical thinking regarding pseudoscientific doctrines. Besides greater outgroup derogation and perceived threats among strong critical thinkers, the model does not perform well in this context. Study 2 focuses on the intergroup conflict around anthropogenic global warming, revealing the strong predictive power of the model. These results are discussed in relation to the distinctive psychological profiles of science acceptance and rejection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific-consensus communication is among the most promising interventions to minimize the gap between experts' and the public's belief in scientific facts. There is, however, discussion about its effectiveness in changing consensus perceptions and beliefs about contested science topics. This preregistered meta-analysis assessed the effects of communicating the existence of scientific consensus on perceived scientific consensus and belief in scientific facts. Combining 43 experiments about climate change, genetically modified food, and vaccination, we found that a single exposure to consensus messaging had a positive effect on perceived scientific consensus (g = 0.55) and on belief in scientific facts (g = 0.12). Consensus communication yielded very similar effects for climate change and genetically modified food, whereas the low number of experiments about vaccination prevented conclusions regarding this topic. Although these effects are small, communicating scientific consensus appears to be an effective way to change factual beliefs about contested science topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science & Technology is the property of Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science & Technology Periodical Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We explore messy translations of evidence in policy as a site of 'uncomfortable science'. Drawing on the work of John Law, we follow evidence as a 'fluid object' of its situation, also enacted in relation to a hinterland of practices. Working with the qualitative interview accounts of mathematical modellers and other scientists engaged in the UK COVID‐19 response, we trace how models perform as evidence. Our point of departure is a moment of controversy in the public announcement of second national lockdown in the UK, and specifically, the projected daily deaths from COVID‐19 presented in support of this policy decision. We reflect on this event to trace the messy translations of "scientific consensus" in the face of uncertainty. Efforts among scientists to realise evidence‐based expectation and to manage the troubled translations of models in policy, including via "scientific consensus", can extend the dis‐ease of uncomfortable science rather than clean it up or close it down. We argue that the project of evidence‐based policy is not so much in need of technical management or repair, but that we need to be thinking altogether differently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Misinformation carries the potential for immense damage to public understanding of science and for evidence-based decision making at an individual and policy level. Our research explores the following questions within seismology: which claims can be considered misinformation, which are supported by a consensus, and which are still under scientific debate? Consensus and debate are important to quantify, because where levels of scientific consensus on an issue are high, communication of this fact may itself serve as a useful tool in combating misinformation. This is a challenge for earthquake science, where certain theories and facts in seismology are still being established. The present study collates a list of common public statements about earthquakes and provides–to the best of our knowledge–the first elicitation of the opinions of 164 earth scientists on the degree of verity of these statements. The results provide important insights for the state of knowledge in the field, helping identify those areas where consensus messaging may aid in the fight against earthquake related misinformation and areas where there is currently lack of consensus opinion. We highlight the necessity of using clear, accessible, jargon-free statements with specified parameters and precise wording when communicating with the public about earthquakes, as well as of transparency about the uncertainties around some issues in seismology.

Copyright of Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science & Technology is the property of Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science & Technology Periodical Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap is the property of Amsterdam University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Prior research has demonstrated that communicating the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening is an effective way to increase public understanding and engagement with the issue. However, less is known about (1) how persuasive this message is to oppositional audiences, (2) how long message effects last over time, and (3) what factors predict whether such effects last. We address these questions in a two-wave longitudinal study and find that consensus messaging leads to updated consensus beliefs across Global Warming's Six Americas. Although consensus treatment effects decay over time, 40% of the original treatment effect remains 26 days later. Additionally, the treatment effect is most durable among people Doubtful or Dismissive of climate change. Our findings address an ongoing debate in the literature and support a Bayesian learning perspective, with little evidence of motivated reasoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consensus about a classification is defined as agreement on a set of classes (concepts or categories) and their relations (such as generic relations and whole-part relations) for us in forming beliefs. While most research on scientific consensus has focused on consensus about a belief as a mark of truth, we highlight the importance of consensus in justifying shared classificatory language. What sort of consensus, if any, is the best basis for communicating and reasoning with scientific classifications? We describe an often-overlooked coordinative role for consensus that leverage agreement on how to disagree such that actors involved can still achieve one or more shared aims even when they do not agree on shared beliefs or categories. Looking forward, we suggest that investigating structures and methods for coordinative consensus provides an important new direction for research on the epistemic foundations of knowledge organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies examining climate change risk perceptions rarely differentiate between personal and general risk perceptions. Researchers could come to conflicting conclusions about what variables are important in predicting people's perceptions of risk if they do not differentiate between perceptions of personal and general risk. In this study, we used data from a survey of residents in a Midwestern region of the United States to examine the relationship between two measures of knowledge and perceptions of the risk of climate change at personal and the global (i.e. general) levels. Knowledge of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change significantly predicted perceptions of both types of risks, but was more strongly related to greater risk perceptions at the global level. Knowledge of climate change's impact on regional flooding predicted greater climate change risk perception, and we did not find a difference in its association with risk perception at the global versus the personal level. Understanding how different types of knowledge influence peoples' perception of climate change risks can foster a better understanding of related decision-making processes and used to support more strategic public education and communication on climate change. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2028883. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science & Technology is the property of Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science & Technology Periodical Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The majority of scientists agree on climate change and on the most daunting environmental problems humans are facing today. Moved by a commendable desire to contribute to the solution of these problems, several scientists have decided to speak up, telling the scientific truth about climate change to decision-makers and the public. Although appreciating the commitment to intervene in the public arena, I discuss some limits of these interventions. I argue that stating the reality of climate change does not prescribe any specific solution and sometimes it seems faint in distributing responsibilities. I ask whether unveiling/knowing the truth can be enough to foster radical transformations. Can knowledge move people towards transformative actions if power relationships do not change? Various environmental justice controversies prove that even when science is certain—and this is rarely the case in that kind of controversies—knowing might be not enough in the face of power structures preventing free choices and radical changes. In the end of my article, I state that it is fair to recognize that scientists have done their parts, and it is now up to social movements to foster the radical changes in power relationships that are needed for transforming societies.

Abstract College and university biology majors who are not climate change deniers may yet be unaware of the degree of scientific consensus on climate change and unprepared to communicate about climate science to others. This study reports on a population of climate change accepting biology majors at a large, private research university in the American northeast. Our students tended to greatly underestimate the degree of scientific consensus around climate change, to be only moderately worried about climate change, and to be unconfident in their ability to communicate about the state of the scientific consensus around climate change. After an introduction to the scholarly literature that substantiates and quantifies the scientific consensus on climate change in the context of a course on biological research literature, our students showed significant increases in their estimates of the consensus on climate change, and their estimates were more accurate. Additionally, they became more worried about climate change as well as more confident in their ability to communicate about the scientific consensus to others. These results are in line with the Gateway Belief Model, which positions perception of scientific agreement on climate change as an important driver of acceptance and motivation toward action.

What affects the way in which climate change is presented in science classes in public middle and high schools in the United States? A new survey suggests that both individual and community factors play a role. The most effective way to improve climate change education is by improving teacher training in the field of climate science. But there are systemic obstacles to teaching about climate change. New state science standards are helping to diminish such obstacles, but these standards, in turn, are provoking a political backlash across the nation. As with public action on climate change in general, public action on climate change education will be furthered by a recognition of the scientific consensus - and what that consensus means. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some people hold beliefs that are opposed to overwhelming scientific evidence. Such misperceptions can be harmful to both personal and societal well-being. Communicating scientific consensus has been found to be effective in eliciting scientifically accurate beliefs, but it is unclear whether it is also effective in correcting false beliefs. Here, we show that a strategy that boosts people's understanding of and ability to identify scientific consensus can help to correct misperceptions. In three experiments with more than 1,500 U.S. adults who held false beliefs, participants first learned the value of scientific consensus and how to identify it. Subsequently, they read a news article with information about a scientific consensus opposing their beliefs. We found strong evidence that in the domain of genetically engineered food, this two-step communication strategy was more successful in correcting misperceptions than merely communicating scientific consensus. The data suggest that the current approach may not work for misperceptions about climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization ("the fertilization view"). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization view seems to be uncontested by the editors, reviewers, and authors who contribute to scientific journals. However, Americans are split on whether the fertilization view is a "philosophical or religious belief" (45%) or a "biological and scientific fact" (46%), and only 38% of Americans view fertilization as the starting point of a human's life. In the two studies that explored experts' views on the matter, the fertilization view was the most popular perspective held by public health and IVF professionals. Since a recent study suggested that 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human's life begins, experts in biology were surveyed to provide a new perspective to the literature on experts' views on this matter. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. The founding principles of the field Science Communication suggest that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available. Given that perspective--and a recent study's finding that a majority of Americans believe they deserve to know when a human's life begins in order to make informed reproductive decisions--science communicators should work to increase the level of science awareness on the fertilization view, as it stands alone as the leading biological perspective on when a human's life begins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are inconsistent findings concerning the efficacy of consensus messages to persuade individuals to hold scientifically supported positions on climate change. In this experiment, we tested the impact of consensus messages on skeptics’ climate beliefs and attitudes and investigated how the decision to pretest initial climate beliefs and attitudes prior to consensus message exposure may influence results. We found that although consensus messages led individuals to report higher scientific agreement estimates, total effects on key variables were likely an artifact of study design; consensus messages only affected climate attitudes and beliefs when they were measured both before and after message exposure. In the absence of a pretest, we did not observe significant total effects of consensus messages on climate outcomes. These results highlight the limitations of consensus messaging strategies at reducing political polarization and the importance of experimental designs that mimic real-world contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uncertainty surrounds the public understanding of climate change and provides fertile ground for conspiracy theories. Typically, such conspiracy theories assert that climate scientists and politicians are distorting or hijacking the science to suit their own purposes. Climate change conspiracy theories resemble other conspiracy theories in some respects, but in others they appear to be quite different. For example, climate change conspiracy theories appear to be motivated by the desire to deny or minimize an unwelcome and threatening conclusion. They also appear to be more contentious than other types of conspiracy theories. Perhaps to an unparalleled extent, people on both sides of the issue champion climate change conspiracy theories. Finally, more than other conspiracy theories, those concerning climate change appear to be more politically loaded, dividing opinion across the left-right continuum. Some empirical evidence suggests that climate change conspiracy theories may be harmful, steering people away from environmentally friendly initiatives. They therefore present a significant challenge for governments and environmental organizations that are attempting to convince people to take action against global warming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the impact of presenting scientific and social consensus information together on people’s scientific beliefs when the two types of consensus information contradict each other. Japanese adults (N = 1,518) received information about high scientific consensus and low social consensus on the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods, information only about high scientific consensus, information only about low social consensus, or no consensus information. The presentation of only scientific or social consensus information had no effect on participants’ beliefs about the safety of GM foods, whereas the simultaneous presentation of scientific and social consensus information improved their beliefs in some degree. The effect of presenting scientific and social consensus information together was mediated by perceived scientific consensus.

In recent years, there has been considerable interest in studying and using scientific consensus messaging strategies to influence public opinion. Researchers disagree, sometimes vociferously, about how to examine the potential influence of consensus messaging, debating one another publicly and privately. In this essay, we take a step back and focus on some of the important questions that scholars might consider when researching scientific consensus messaging. Hopefully, reflecting on these questions will help researchers better understand the reasons for the different points of debate and improve the work moving forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public understanding of and support for GM foods in the U.S. are generally low and out of step with the scientific community, and particularly among those who identify as environmentalists. In order to communicate the scientific consensus on GM foods to these audiences, messages may need to be tailored to reduce reactance. We employ a messaging experiment that tests the potential for first-person narratives to link acceptance of the scientific evidence on climate change to the scientific evidence on GM foods among individuals high in environmental concern. Our study found that such messages were generally more effective than non-narrative messages or narrative messages without climate change information, and they were especially effective at conveying scientific consensus and influencing personal views on GM foods among those who identify as environmentalists, through reduced reactance. The results offer modest evidence of a theoretically driven, practical technique for communicating scientific consensus about GM foods in a way that can help reduce reactance in people who are especially likely to oppose GM foods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

College and university biology majors who are not climate change deniers may yet be unaware of the degree of scientific consensus on climate change and unprepared to communicate about climate science to others. This study reports on a population of climate change accepting biology majors at a large, private research university in the American northeast. Our students tended to greatly underestimate the degree of scientific consensus around climate change, to be only moderately worried about climate change, and to be unconfident in their ability to communicate about the state of the scientific consensus around climate change. After an introduction to the scholarly literature that substantiates and quantifies the scientific consensus on climate change in the context of a course on biological research literature, our students showed significant increases in their estimates of the consensus on climate change, and their estimates were more accurate. Additionally, they became more worried about climate change as well as more confident in their ability to communicate about the scientific consensus to others. These results are in line with the Gateway Belief Model, which positions perception of scientific agreement on climate change as an important driver of acceptance and motivation toward action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the impact of presenting scientific and social consensus information together on people's scientific beliefs when the two types of consensus information contradict each other. Japanese adults (N = 1,518) received information about high scientific consensus and low social consensus on the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods, information only about high scientific consensus, information only about low social consensus, or no consensus information. The presentation of only scientific or social consensus information had no effect on participants' beliefs about the safety of GM foods, whereas the simultaneous presentation of scientific and social consensus information improved their beliefs in some degree. The effect of presenting scientific and social consensus information together was mediated by perceived scientific consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Gateway Belief Model describes a process of attitudinal change where a shift in people's perception of the scientific consensus on an issue leads to subsequent changes in their attitudes which in turn predict changes in support for public action. In the current study, we present the first large-scale confirmatory replication of the GBM. Specifically, we conducted a consensus message experiment on a national quota sample of the US population (N = 6,301). Results support the mediational hypotheses of the GBM: an experimentally induced change in perceived scientific consensus causes subsequent changes in cognitive (belief) and affective (worry) judgments about climate change, which in turn are associated with changes in support for public action. The scientific consensus message also had a direct effect on support for public action. We further found an interaction with both political ideology and prior attitudes such that conservatives and climate change disbelievers were more likely to update their beliefs toward the consensus. We discuss the model's theoretical and practical implications, including why conveying scientific consensus can help reduce politically motivated reasoning. • Using a large national sample, this study replicates the Gateway Belief Model (GBM). • Exposure to a consensus message increased perceived scientific consensus (PSC). • A change in PSC subsequently predicted (smaller) changes in private attitudes. • Changes in these attitudes were in turn associated with greater support for action. • Main effects on PSC were greater for conservatives and reduced motivated cognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]