Exposure to Scientific Consensus Does Not Cause Psychological Reactance

References

• Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2018). Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(3), 389–402. doi: 10.1177/1368430217737855
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, P. R., & McKnight, J. (2017). “A statistically representative climate change debate”: Satirical Television news, scientific consensus, and public perceptions of global warming. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 25(3), 166–180. doi: 10.1080/15456870.2017.1324453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, T. H., & Kay, A. C. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809–824. doi: 10.1037/a0037963
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2016). Rational irrationality: Modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 160–179. doi: 10.1111/tops.12186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0175799. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., … Nuccitelli, D. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. doi: 10.1080/03637750500111815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1(9), 462–466. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, G., Hmielowski, J., & Ma, Y. (2017). Improving climate change acceptance among U.S. conservatives through value-based message targeting. Science Communication, 39(4), 520–534. doi: 10.1177/1075547017715473
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A. (March 15th, 2018). You need 16 times the sample size to estimate an interaction than to estimate a main effect. Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science. Retrieved from https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/03/15/need-16-times-sample-size-estimate-interaction-estimate-main-effect/.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, M. H., van der Linden, S., Ballew, M. T., Rosenthal, S. A., & Leiserowitz, A. (2019). The role of anchoring in judgments about expert consensus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(3), 192–200.
   Google Scholar
• Hainmueller, J., Mummolo, J., & Xu, Y. (2018). How much should we trust estimates from multiplicative interaction models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice. Political Analysis, 27, 163–192. doi: 10.1017/pan.2018.46
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622–626. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2943
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, J. R., & Wilson, M. S. (2018). Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and GM food safety. PloS ONE, 13(7), e0200295. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Rosenthal, S., Cutler, M., & Kotcher, J. (2018). Climate change in the American mind: March 2018. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 399–404. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, Y., Dixon, G., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2019). Psychological reactance from reading basic facts on climate change: The role of prior views and political identification. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 71–86. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2018.1548369
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E., & Xiao, C. (2013). Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Climatic Change, 119(2), 511–518. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mildenberger, M., & Tingley, D. (2017). Beliefs about climate beliefs: The importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. British Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moyer-Gusé, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36, 26–52.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, T., Maibach, E., Peters, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: The results of two experiments. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuldt, J. P., Roh, S., & Schwarz, N. (2015). Questionnaire design effects in climate change surveys: Implications for the partisan divide. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 67–85. doi: 10.1177/0002716214555066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 181–211. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Boven, L., Ehret, P. J., & Sherman, D. K. (2018). Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 492–507. doi: 10.1177/1745691617748966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2018a). Perceptions of scientific consensus predict later beliefs about the reality of climate change using cross-lagged panel analysis: A response to Kerr and Wilson (2018). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 60, 110–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2018b). Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 2–3. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0259-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2019). The gateway belief model: A large-scale Replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 49–58.
   Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008. doi: 10.1002/gch2.201600008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PloS One, 10(2), e0118489. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Improving public engagement with climate change: Five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 758–763. doi: 10.1177/1745691615598516
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, B., van der Linden, S., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R., Howe, P. D., & Leiserowitz, A. (2018). Experimental effects of climate messages vary geographically. Nature Climate Change, 8(5), 370–374. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0122-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar