scholarly journals Boosting understanding and identification of scientific consensus can help to correct false beliefs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aart van Stekelenburg ◽  
Gabi Schaap ◽  
Harm Veling ◽  
Moniek Buijzen

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 effective in eliciting scientifically accurate beliefs, but it is unclear whether it is also effective in correcting false beliefs. Here we show that a boosting strategy that empowers people to understand and identify scientific consensus can help to correct misperceptions. In three experiments with over 1,500 US adults holding false beliefs, participants first learned the value of scientific consensus and how to identify it. Subsequently, they were exposed to a news article with information about a scientific consensus opposing their belief. We found strong evidence that in the domain of genetically engineered food this two-step communication strategy is more successful in correcting misperceptions than merely communicating scientific consensus. The data suggest the current approach may not work for misperceptions about climate change.

2021 ◽  
pp. 095679762110077
Author(s):  
Aart van Stekelenburg ◽  
Gabi Schaap ◽  
Harm Veling ◽  
Moniek Buijzen

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.


Author(s):  
Inmaculada de Melo-Martín ◽  
Kristen Intemann

Current debates about climate change or vaccine safety provide an alarming illustration of the potential impacts of dissent about scientific claims. False beliefs about evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it are commonplace, as is corrosive doubt about the existence of widespread scientific consensus. Deployed aggressively and to political ends, ill-founded dissent can intimidate scientists, stymie research, and lead both the public and policymakers to oppose important policies firmly rooted in science. To criticize dissent is, however, a fraught exercise. Skepticism and fearless debate are key to the scientific process, making it both vital and incredibly difficult to characterize and identify dissent that is problematic in its approach and consequences. Indeed, as de Melo-Martín and Intemann show, the criteria commonly proposed as means of identifying inappropriate dissent are flawed, and the strategies generally recommended to tackle such dissent are not only ineffective but could even make the situation worse. The Fight against Doubt proposes that progress on this front can best be achieved by enhancing the trustworthiness of the scientific community and being more realistic about the limits of science when it comes to policymaking. It shows that a richer understanding is needed of the context in which science operates so as to disarm problematic dissent and those who deploy it in the pursuit of their goals.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107554702110272
Author(s):  
Jacob B. Rode ◽  
Saad Iqbal ◽  
Brendon J. Butler ◽  
Peter H. Ditto

The current study investigates how people respond to a climate science consensus statement embedded within a news article. Participants ( N = 1,048) were randomly assigned to read a news article about climate change, read the same article with a scientific consensus message included, read a simple consensus statement, or a control condition. Participants in consensus conditions had increased perceptions of scientific agreement compared with those who did not receive consensus information. Moreover, the article was similarly effective as an overt consensus statement. However, neither consensus statement affected other climate change attitudes, suggesting the effect may be limited to consensus perceptions.


Author(s):  
Josh Pasek

Scholars assessing the public understanding of science have long regarded informing Americans about scientific facts as key to raising Americans’ scientific literacy. But many Americans appear to be aware of the scientific consensus and nonetheless reject it. The individuals who are aware of the scientific consensus and reject its tenets tend to distrust scientists. They also focus their rejection on particular issues for which they may be otherwise motivated. This rejection may be driven by elites, who argue against the scientific consensus on issues like climate change by asserting either that the science is unsettled or by contending that the scientific consensus is itself a conspiratorial ploy. Individuals’ patterns of beliefs seem to imply that they view scientific evidence they dislike as the result of a conspiracy.


Author(s):  
John Cook

Scientific agreement on climate change has strengthened over the past few decades, with around 97% of publishing climate scientists agreeing that human activity is causing global warming. While scientific understanding has strengthened, a small but persistent proportion of the public actively opposes the mainstream scientific position. A number of factors contribute to this rejection of scientific evidence, with political ideology playing a key role. Conservative think tanks, supported with funding from vested interests, have been and continue to be a prolific source of misinformation about climate change. A major strategy by opponents of climate mitigation policies has been to cast doubt on the level of scientific agreement on climate change, contributing to the gap between public perception of scientific agreement and the 97% expert consensus. This “consensus gap” decreases public support for mitigation policies, demonstrating that misconceptions can have significant societal consequences. While scientists need to communicate the consensus, they also need to be aware of the fact that misinformation can interfere with the communication of accurate scientific information. As a consequence, neutralizing the influence of misinformation is necessary. Two approaches to neutralize misinformation involve refuting myths after they have been received by recipients (debunking) or preemptively inoculating people before they receive misinformation (prebunking). Research indicates preemptive refutation or “prebunking” is more effective than debunking in reducing the influence of misinformation. Guidelines to practically implement responses (both preemptive and reactive) can be found in educational research, cognitive psychology, and a branch of psychological research known as inoculation theory. Synthesizing these separate lines of research yields a coherent set of recommendations for educators and communicators. Clearly communicating scientific concepts, such as the scientific consensus, is important, but scientific explanations should be coupled with inoculating explanations of how that science can be distorted.


2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  

Abstract   Climate change (CCh) is having an impact on people's health and health systems, directly and indirectly. Drastic and sudden changes in climatic conditions with heat waves and rapid temperature variations, an increased risk of floods, droughts and forest fires are some of the direct impacts related to CCh, with important consequences on health (e.g. heatstroke, electrolyte imbalance, kidney, respiratory as well as infectious related diseases) and mental well-being (e.g. stress and anxiety for an uncertain future). Some indirect effects include the alteration of natural ecosystems, changing vector patterns, air pollution and aeroallergens, or increased food insecurity. For certain sectors of the population and some regions, these direct and indirect impacts overlap with many other environmental and socioeconomic stressors (e.g. overcrowded megacities, poverty and poor nutrition, living in highly contaminated sites, increased dependence on a remote global market, growing gender and class inequalities), increasing the already large vulnerability of those affected populations. Low- and middle-income countries are under greater threat, but more developed economies can be- and in fact are- severely affected as well. This is of particular concern in relation to children together with the elderly, both considered the most vulnerable population groups affected by CCh as highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Adverse effects of altered environments during fetal or child developmental stages can result in irreversible and long-lasting health sequelae; uncertainty and loss of control in the face of CCh can have mental health consequences. Gathering best scientific evidence-based information on current and future health threats related to CCh from the perspective of the most vulnerable population subgroups is essential for an effective preparedness of the public health system, and therefore for lessening or avoiding many of those health impacts by applying well-designed and innovative adaptation measures. Health vulnerability and adaptation assessments to CCh requires establishing partnerships among different scientific domains (e.g. public health experts, environmentalists, meteorologists, social scientists), and stakeholders, including community representatives and policy makers. Present workshop, with 3 presenters and one panellist, aims at analysing and sharing expertise on the following aspects: Approaches for characterising health and well-being vulnerability and adaptation measures in the context of CCh by integrating future climatic and socio-economic drivers. Analysis of children's health vulnerability in a CCh context. European initiatives for promoting multidisciplinary scientific evidence analysis, and the interconnection with the decision-making process for the development of innovative and effective adaptation programs that enables diminishing health vulnerability against CCh. Key messages Expanded efforts in the health impact assessment of vulnerable groups against growing risks from climate change is needed for developing effective public health adaptation and preparedness programs. Addressing climate change health vulnerability requires of gathering scientific evidence and collaboration from multiple sectors and stakeholders adapted to regional/local context.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Carmen Garcia Mateo

<p>It is expected that 80% of the world population will be living in urban areas by 2050, therefore more pressure on natural resources will be exacerbated if we continue with harmful human environmental practices, since pre-industrial era, intensifying the mayor environmental, social and economic challenges in cities. Scientific evidence shows the potential of Nature Based Solution to tackle environmental, societal and economic challenge related to urbanization, climate change, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in cities.</p><p>The research article analyses EU regulation and framework related to cities, environmental, economic, and aim to discuss the status quo of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) integration in urban planning Cities in H2020 Project, for better implementation policies on NBS at the city level, identifying gaps and potentials through a comprehensive mapping of the terrain on NBS policies in EU Cities, allowing for upscale and replication of those solutions in a form of a validated roadmap for sustainable cities across Europe and world-wide.</p><p>The main findings to shape the sustainability world of tomorrow of the research activities are as follow: to promote the inclusion of NBS in urban planning and decision making processes it was generally perceived that cities with more investment in research and innovation funding are more suitable for enabling cities to design and implement transition pathways to becoming inclusive, resilient, sustainable, low-carbon and resource efficient, to tackle most of the challenges Europe is facing today, such as climate change, health and well-being, loss of biodiversity of unsustainable urbanization.</p><p> Therefore, cities will contribute to improve the environmental, social and economic dimension, providing the way towards a more resource efficient, competitive and green economy with the implemention of the NBS, that might be tackled in an integrated, coherent and holistic approach to enhance sustainability, resilience and quality of life for dwellers.</p>


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alistair Soutter ◽  
René Mõttus

Although the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change continues to grow, public discourse still reflects a high level of scepticism and political polarisation towards anthropogenic climate change. In this study (N = 499) we attempted to replicate and expand upon an earlier finding that environmental terminology (“climate change” versus “global warming”) could partly explain political polarisation in environmental scepticism (Schuldt, Konrath, & Schwarz, 2011). Participants completed a series of online questionnaires assessing personality traits, political preferences, belief in environmental phenomenon, and various pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours. Those with a Conservative political orientation and/or party voting believed less in both climate change and global warming compared to those with a Liberal orientation and/or party voting. Furthermore, there was an interaction between continuously measured political orientation, but not party voting, and question wording on beliefs in environmental phenomena. Personality traits did not confound these effects. Furthermore, continuously measured political orientation was associated with pro-environmental attitudes, after controlling for personality traits, age, gender, area lived in, income, and education. The personality domains of Openness, and Conscientiousness, were consistently associated with pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, whereas Agreeableness was associated with pro-environmental attitudes but not with behaviours. This study highlights the importance of examining personality traits and political preferences together and suggests ways in which policy interventions can best be optimised to account for these individual differences.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-139
Author(s):  
Naresh Bhakta Adhikari

The paper mainly analyses the environmental threats focusing on climate change to human security in Nepal. Major aspects of human security are interlinked and interconnected in our context. Among them, human security offers much to the vibrant field of environmental security in Nepal. Environmental threats are linked to the overall impact on human survival, well-being, and productivity. A great deal of human security is tied to peoples’ access to natural resources and vulnerabilities to environmental change. The major environmental threats in our context is the climate change which have widespread implications for Nepal, causing impacts to water availability, agricultural production, forestry, among many other detrimental effects. The critical threat of environmental security needs to be taken into serious consideration to save our succeeding generation. This article primarily interpreted the government action towards emerging environmental threat based on realist approach. For the study of theme of this article, descriptive and analytical research has been used to draw present major environmental threats in Nepal. With consideration to factors, this article attempted to identify the major environmentally vulnerable areas that are likely to hamper the overall status of human security in Nepal. This paper also tried to suggest the measures to enhance the environmental security considering prospects and policy focusing on Nepalese diverse aspects.


Author(s):  
Hui Zhang

Introduction: This study examined effects of two journalistic practices in reporting conflicting scientific evidence, hedging and presentation format, on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility and issue uncertainty. Methods: An online experiment was conducted using students from a western U.S. university. Hedging was manipulated as reporting methodological limitations versus not reporting the limitations in news articles covering the conflict. Presentation format was manipulated as using a single news article to report both sides of the conflict versus using double articles with one side of the conflict in one article and the other side in the other article. Results: The study found that perceived issue uncertainty was higher in hedged news articles than that in non-hedged articles; presentation format did not affect people’s perceived issue uncertainty. For scientists’ credibility (both competence and trustworthiness), this study found that it was lower in the single-article format than that in the double-article format; for journalists’ credibility, this study found that journalists’ trustworthiness in the two formats did not vary, but their competence was lower in the double-article format than that in the single-article format. Conclusion: This study contributes to the field of science and health communication by examining effects of presentation format used in communicating conflicting health-related scientific evidence and by examining effects of communicating scientific limitations in a context where conflicting evidence exists. Keywords: conflicting scientific evidence, hedging, presentation format, scientists’ credibility, journalists’ credibility


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document