Exposure to Scientific Consensus Does Not Cause Psychological Reactance
Sander van der Linden, Edward Maibach, Anthony Leiserowitz
Abstract
Sander van der Linden, Edward Maibach, Anthony Leiserowitz
Abstract
In a recent article, Ma, Dixon, and Hmielowski (2019. Psychological Reactance from Reading Basic Facts on Climate Change: The Role of Prior Views and Political Identification. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 71–86) explore whether scientific consensus messages activate psychological reactance. They find no main effect of the consensus message on psychological reactance, but a subsequent moderation analysis appears to show reactance among audiences who question the existence of climate change, especially Republicans. Here we attempt to replicate this finding in a large national sample of American adults (N = 6,301). Consistent with Ma et al., we find no main effect of the consensus condition on our measure of psychological reactance. However, in contrast to Ma et al., we find no evidence of psychological reactance among Republicans, conservatives, or those with dismissive prior views. Although people who question climate change are more likely to say that the 97% consensus message is manipulative, this main effect exists regardless of experimental condition, indicating that psychological reactance does not stem from exposure to the scientific consensus.
OpenAlex reports 57 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In a recent article, Ma, Dixon, and Hmielowski (2019. Psychological Reactance from Reading Basic Facts on Climate Change: The Role of Prior Views and Political Identification. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 71–86) explore whether scientific consensus messages activate psychological reactance. They find no main effect of the consensus message on psychological reactance, but a subsequent moderation analysis appears to show reactance among audiences who question the existence of climate change, especially Republicans. Here we attempt to replicate this finding in a large national sample of American adults (N = 6,301). Consistent with Ma et al., we find no main effect of the consensus condition on our measure of psychological reactance. However, in contrast to Ma et al., we find no evidence of psychological reactance among Republicans, conservatives, or those with dismissive prior views. Although people who question climate change are more likely to say that the 97% consensus message is manipulative, this main effect exists regardless of experimental condition, indicating that psychological reactance does not stem from exposure to the scientific consensus.
Key concepts: Reactance, Scientific consensus, Moderation, Psychology, Social psychology, Politics, Identification (biology), Climate change