Communicating highly divergent levels of scientific and social consensus: its effects on people’s scientific beliefs

Figures & data

Table 1. Adjusted means, standard errors, and effect sizes for GM safety beliefs and perceived scientific and social consensus as a function of consensus condition.

	GM safety beliefs		Perceived scientific consensus		Perceived social consensus
Condition	M (SE)	Cohen’s d	M (SE)	Cohen’s d	M (SE)	Cohen’s d
Scientific and social consensus	3.55 (.04)a, b	0.22	61.6 (1.3)a, b	0.64	24.5 (1.1)a, b	–0.33
Scientific consensus	3.47 (.04)	0.12	63.0 (1.3)c, d	0.70	35.1 (1.1)a, c	0.17
Social consensus	3.35 (.04)a	–0.04	38.4 (1.3)a, c, e	–0.28	28.2 (1.1)c	–0.15
No consensus	3.38 (.04)b	–	45.4 (1.3)b, d, e	–	31.5 (1.1)b	–

Note. Same subscripts within a column indicate that the two means are significantly different at p < .05. Cohen’s ds are reported for the consensus treatment versus no consensus conditions.

Figure 1. Results of mediation analysis (0 = no consensus condition, 1 = scientific and social consensus condition). Unstandardized regression coefficients (b), standard errors (SE), percentile bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and effect sizes (f²) are reported.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Keiichi Kobayashi, upon reasonable request.