Abstract:Anthropogenic climate change threatens the structure and function of ecosystems throughout the globe, but many people are still skeptical of its existence. Traditional "knowledge deficit model" thinking has suggested that providing the public with more facts about climate change will assuage skepticism. However, presenting evidence contrary to prior beliefs can have the opposite effect and result in a strengthening of previously held beliefs, a phenomenon known as biased assimilation or a backfire effect. Given this, strategies for effectively communicating about socioscientific issues that are politically controversial need to be thoroughly investigated. We randomly assigned 184 undergraduates from an environmental science class to one of three experimental conditions in which we exposed them to short videos that employed different messaging strategies: (a) an engaging science lecture, (b) consensus messaging, and (c) elite cues. We measured changes in student perceptions of climate change across five constructs (content knowledge, acceptance of scientific consensus, perceived risk, support for action, and climate identity) before and after viewing videos. Consensus messaging outperformed the other two conditions in increasing student acceptance of the scientific consensus, perceived risk of climate change, and climate identity, suggesting this may be an effective strategy for communicating the gravity of anthropogenic climate change. Elite cues outperformed the engaging science lecture condition in increasing student support for action on climate, with politically conservative students driving this relationship, suggesting that the messenger is more important than the message if changing opinions about the necessity of action on climate change is the desired outcome. Relative to the other conditions, the engaging science lecture did not support change in students' perceptions on climate, but appealing to student respect for authority produced positive results. Notably, we observed no decline in students' acceptance of climate science, indicating that none of the conditions induced a backfire effect.

Politicized Science Communication: Predicting Scientists’ Acceptance of Overstatements by Their Knowledge Certainty, Media Perceptions, and Presumed Media Effects

The Politicization of Climate Science: Media Consumption, Perceptions of Science and Scientists, and Support for Policy

The politics of politicization: Climate change debates in Canadian print media

Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate

Six minutes to promote change: People, not facts, alter students' perceptions on climate change

Politicization and Polarization in Climate Change News Content, 1985-2017

Climate change and knowledge politics

The Partisan Brain

The influence of partisan news on climate mitigation support: An investigation into the mediating role of perceived risk and efficacy

Majority of German citizens, US citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement

Climate change news coverage, partisanship, and public opinion

The nature and origins of political polarization over science

Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and GM food safety

Biased processing and opinion polarization: experimental refinement of argument communication theory in the context of the energy debate

The role of gender in peer-group perceptions of climate scientists' media statements

Hostility has a trivial effect on persuasiveness of rebutting science denialism on social media

How people decide who is correct when groups of scientists disagree

How Grammatical Choice Shapes Media Representations of Climate (Un)certainty

The great divide: understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014

‘Fake News’ in Science Communication: Emotions and Strategies of Coping with Dissonance Online

How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework