Between Scientists & Citizens

Why do people (scientists) think there is a “war on science”?–Bibliography

with one comment

Point 4 in my project “unilateral disarmament” considers why the story about beleaguered science is so prevalent. I will collect here scholarship potentially relevant to the issue.

Geiger, N., & Swim, J. K. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47(C), 79–90.

…We find that inaccurate perceptions of others’ opinions (i.e. pluralistic ignorance) contribute to self-silencing among those concerned about climate change….because perceptions that others do not share one’s opinion are associated with expecting to be perceived as less competent in a conversation about climate change.

Leviston, Z., Walker, I., & Morwinski, S. (2012). Your opinion on climate change might not be as common as you think. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 334–337.

We demonstrate that opinions about climate change are subject to strong false consensus effects, that people grossly overestimate the numbers of people who reject the existence of climate change in the broader community, and that people with high false consensus bias are less likely to change their opinions.

Mildenberger, M., & Tingley, D. (2017). Beliefs about Climate Beliefs: The Importance of Second-Order Opinions for Climate Politics. British Journal of Political Science, 59, 1–29.  Retrieved from

[False consensus + pluralistic ignorance]…We offer the first comprehensive examination of the distribution and content of second-order climate beliefs in the United States and China, drawing from six new opinion surveys of mass publics, political elites and intellectual elites. We demonstrate that all classes of political actors have second-order beliefs characterized by egocentric bias and global underestimation of pro-climate positions. [Also argues that part of the impact of misinformation campaigns is to create the perception that climate skepticism is rampant; and that understanding of the arguments about AGW is accurate.]

Post, S., & Ramirez, N. (2018). Politicized Science Communication: Predicting Scientists’ Acceptance of Overstatements by Their Knowledge Certainty, Media Perceptions, and Presumed Media Effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 107769901876966–21.

[Hostile media perceptions] Partisans in mediated conflicts usually perceive hostile news media, anticipate undesired media effects, and intend to engage discursively. It is hypothesized that hostile media perceptions also encourage polarizing communication. This is tested for scientists involved in a politicized science dispute…. Results indicate that the more certain climate scientists are of AGW, the more they perceive that the news media downplay AGW and presume that the media nourish politicians’ doubts about it. This explains their justifications of overstatements of scientific findings in public.


Written by jeangoodwin

May 19, 2018 at 1:22 pm

Posted in review

Tagged with

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] “denialism”). Elsewhere I’ve been developing the case for thinking that scientists, like the rest of us, aren’t particularly good at mapping the range of public opini…; we tend to overestimate the size of noisy, extreme […]

Have your say!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s