TY - JOUR
T1 - Scientific-Consensus Communication About Contested Science
T2 - A Preregistered Meta-Analysis
AU - van Stekelenburg, Aart
AU - Schaap, Gabi
AU - Veling, Harm
AU - van ’t Riet, Jonathan
AU - Buijzen, Moniek
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2022.
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137689903&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/09567976221083219
DO - 10.1177/09567976221083219
M3 - Article
C2 - 36242521
AN - SCOPUS:85137689903
SN - 0956-7976
VL - 33
SP - 1989
EP - 2008
JO - Psychological Science
JF - Psychological Science
IS - 12
ER -
