Climate Change Consensus Messages Cause 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217737855
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, S., Lane, D. S., & Hart, P. S. (2018). In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 807–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518791094
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, S., & Pasek, J. (2020). Some deficits and some misperceptions: Linking partisanship With climate change cognitions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, edaa007. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edaa007
   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. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deryugina, T., & Shurchkov, O. (2016). The effect of information provision on public consensus about climate change. PLoS ONE, 11(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151469
   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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, G. (2016). Applying the gateway belief model to genetically modified food perceptions: New insights and additional questions. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 888–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, G., Hmielowski, J., & Ma, Y. (2019). More evidence of psychological reactance to consensus messaging: A response to van der Linden, Maibach, and Leiserowitz. Environmental Communication, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1671472
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, G., & Hubner, A. (2018). Neutralizing the effect of political worldviews by communicating scientific agreement: A thought-listing study. Science Communication, 40(3), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018769907
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2012). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 399–404. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1548369
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and Polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meirick, P. C., & Nisbett, G. S. (2011). I approve this message: Effects of sponsorship, Ad tone, and reactance in 2008 presidential advertising. Mass Communication and Society, 14(5), 666–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.530381
   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(1), 26–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, T. A., 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), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120985
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rains, S. A., & Turner, M. M. (2007). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A test and extension of the intertwined model. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00298.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Clarke, C. E., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: Evidence from a randomized experiment. BMC Public Health, 15(1207), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2541-4
   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), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2019). Exposure to scientific consensus does not cause psychological reactance. Environmental Communication, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1617763
   Google Scholar