Skip to main content
. 2024 Aug 26;8(10):1892–1905. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2

Fig. 2. Effects of the classic and updated scientific consensus intervention on all post-intervention outcomes.

Fig. 2

a, shows that both the classic and the updated consensus messages increase perceived scientific consensus and agreement. The upper vertical line represents the actual scientific reality consensus (97%); the lower vertical line represents the actual scientific crisis agreement (88%). b, shows that both messages increase belief in climate change, its human causation and climate change worry but not support for public action. The updated condition does not further increase belief in crisis, worry or support for public action. a,b, the means of each outcome per condition and the 95% CI (which are too small to be visible in panel a) are presented on the left-hand side. On the right-hand side, Bayes factors for between-group comparisons are shown. We only indicate Bayes factors for the tested hypotheses, not all comparisons. ‘Classic’ refers to the message communicating the scientific consensus on the reality of climate change. ‘Updated’ refers to the message communicating the scientific consensus on the reality of climate change and the scientific agreement on climate change as a crisis.Across both panels, sample sizes for all outcomes are: nclassic = 3,488; nupdated = 3,527; and ncontrol = 3,512, except for belief in human causation of climate change, where: nclassic = 3,443; nupdated = 3,490; and ncontrol = 3,464. These results are reported in the sections ‘Misperceptions of the reality consensus and crisis agreement’, ‘Effectiveness of the updated scientific consensus message’ and ‘Effectiveness of the updated scientific consensus message’. Complete results are described in the Results and the Supplementary Results.