Communicated and Perceived Public Consensus About Climate Change

Abstract

People’s beliefs about the public opinion on climate change can play a significant role in determining their own attitudes and likelihood to engage in climate-friendly behavior. However, limited research exists on the perception of consensus and effective ways to inform individuals about public opinion. In this study, we examined whether presenting information in two different formats—packed or unpacked—would impact people’s perception of public agreement on climate change. In two experiments (total N = 506; 151 participants from the USA and 355 participants from Norway), participants read about the public opinion on different topics related to climate change, either in an “unpacked” way (e.g., 5% strongly oppose, 8% somewhat oppose, 41% somewhat support, and 46% strongly support funding research into renewable energy), or in a “packed” way (e.g., 13% somewhat or strongly oppose, and 87% somewhat or strongly support funding research into renewable energy), before rating the perceived public (dis)agreement about the topics. We hypothesized that presenting information in a packed way would lead to higher perceived agreement, but found no support for this hypothesis. Interestingly, our results showed that participants’ own beliefs or attitudes were positively related to perceived agreement. The findings contribute to the literature on false consensus and motivated reasoning.