- home
- Advanced Search
- Energy Research
- Energy Research
description Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Other literature type 2025Embargo end date: 20 Jan 2025 Italy, Sweden, Serbia, United Kingdom, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Serbia, Belgium, Switzerland, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Austria, AustriaPublisher:Springer Science and Business Media LLC Publicly fundedFunded by:EC | JITSUVAX, SNSF | Scientific and public per..., WT +8 projectsEC| JITSUVAX ,SNSF| Scientific and public perceptions of the political terrain of climate change science ,WT ,SSHRC ,ANR| PSL ,ARC| Discovery Projects - Grant ID: DP190101675 ,ARC| Discovery Projects - Grant ID: DP180102384 ,EC| Governance ,ARC| Discovery Projects - Grant ID: DP190101507 ,ARC| ARC Future Fellowships - Grant ID: FT190100708 ,EC| CONSPIRACY_FXNiels G. Mede; Viktoria Cologna; Sebastian Berger; John Besley; Cameron Brick; Marina Joubert; Edward W. Maibach; Sabina Mihelj; Naomi Oreskes; Mike S. Schäfer; Sander van der Linden; Nor Izzatina Abdul Aziz; Suleiman Abdulsalam; Nurulaini Abu Shamsi; Balazs Aczel; Indro Adinugroho; Eleonora Alabrese; Alaa Aldoh; Mark Alfano; Innocent Mbulli Ali; Mohammed Alsobay; Marlene Altenmüller; R. Michael Alvarez; Richard Amoako; Tabitha Amollo; Patrick Ansah; Denisa Apriliawati; Flavio Azevedo; Ani Bajrami; Ronita Bardhan; Keagile Bati; Eri Bertsou; Cornelia Betsch; Apurav Yash Bhatiya; Rahul Bhui; Olga Białobrzeska; Michał Bilewicz; Ayoub Bouguettaya; Katherine Breeden; Amélie Bret; Ondrej Buchel; Pablo Cabrera-Álvarez; Federica Cagnoli; André Calero Valdez; Timothy Callaghan; Rizza Kaye Cases; Sami Çoksan; Gabriela Czarnek; Steven De Peuter; Ramit Debnath; Sylvain Delouvée; Lucia Di Stefano; Celia Díaz-Catalán; Kimberly C. Doell; Simone Dohle; Karen M. Douglas; Charlotte Dries; Dmitrii Dubrov; Małgorzata Dzimińska; Ullrich K. H. Ecker; Christian T. Elbaek; Mahmoud Elsherif; Benjamin Enke; Tom W. Etienne; Matthew Facciani; Antoinette Fage-Butler; Md. Zaki Faisal; Xiaoli Fan; Christina Farhart; Christoph Feldhaus; Marinus Ferreira; Stefan Feuerriegel; Helen Fischer; Jana Freundt; Malte Friese; Simon Fuglsang; Albina Gallyamova; Patricia Garrido-Vásquez; Mauricio E. Garrido Vásquez; Winfred Gatua; Oliver Genschow; Omid Ghasemi; Theofilos Gkinopoulos; Jamie L. Gloor; Ellen Goddard; Mario Gollwitzer; Claudia González-Brambila; Hazel Gordon; Dmitry Grigoryev; Gina M. Grimshaw; Lars Guenther; Håvard Haarstad; Dana Harari; Lelia N. Hawkins; Przemysław Hensel; Alma Cristal Hernández-Mondragón; Atar Herziger; Guanxiong Huang; Markus Huff; Mairéad Hurley; Nygmet Ibadildin; Maho Ishibashi; Mohammad Tarikul Islam; Younes Jeddi; Tao Jin; Charlotte A. Jones; Sebastian Jungkunz; Dominika Jurgiel; Zhangir Kabdulkair; Jo-Ju Kao; Sarah Kavassalis; John R. Kerr; Mariana Kitsa; Tereza Klabíková Rábová; Olivier Klein; Hoyoun Koh; Aki Koivula; Lilian Kojan; Elizaveta Komyaginskaya; Laura König; Lina Koppel; Kochav Koren Nobre Cavalcante; Alexandra Kosachenko; John Kotcher; Laura S. Kranz; Pradeep Krishnan; Silje Kristiansen; André Krouwel; Toon Kuppens; Eleni A. Kyza; Claus Lamm; Anthony Lantian; Aleksandra Lazić; Oscar Lecuona; Jean-Baptiste Légal; Zoe Leviston; Neil Levy; Amanda M. Lindkvist; Grégoire Lits; Andreas Löschel; Alberto López-Ortega; Carlos Lopez-Villavicencio; Nigel Mantou Lou; Chloe H. Lucas; Kristin Lunz-Trujillo; Mathew D. Marques; Sabrina J. Mayer; Ryan McKay; Hugo Mercier; Julia Metag; Taciano L. Milfont; Joanne M. Miller; Panagiotis Mitkidis; Fredy Monge-Rodríguez; Matt Motta; Iryna Mudra; Zarja Muršič; Jennifer Namutebi; Eryn J. Newman; Jonas P. Nitschke; Ntui-Njock Vincent Ntui; Daniel Nwogwugwu; Thomas Ostermann; Tobias Otterbring; Jaime Palmer-Hague; Myrto Pantazi; Philip Pärnamets; Paolo Parra Saiani; Mariola Paruzel-Czachura; Michal Parzuchowski; Yuri G. Pavlov; Adam R. Pearson; Myron A. Penner; Charlotte R. Pennington; Katerina Petkanopoulou; Marija M. Petrović; Jan Pfänder; Dinara Pisareva; Adam Ploszaj; Karolína Poliaková; Ekaterina Pronizius; Katarzyna Pypno-Blajda; Diwa Malaya A. Quiñones; Pekka Räsänen; Adrian Rauchfleisch; Felix G. Rebitschek; Cintia Refojo Seronero; Gabriel Rêgo; James P. Reynolds; Joseph Roche; Simone Rödder; Jan Philipp Röer; Robert M. Ross; Isabelle Ruin; Osvaldo Santos; Ricardo R. Santos; Philipp Schmid; Stefan Schulreich; Bermond Scoggins; Amena Sharaf;pmid: 39833242
pmc: PMC11747281
Abstract Science is integral to society because it can inform individual, government, corporate, and civil society decision-making on issues such as public health, new technologies or climate change. Yet, public distrust and populist sentiment challenge the relationship between science and society. To help researchers analyse the science-society nexus across different geographical and cultural contexts, we undertook a cross-sectional population survey resulting in a dataset of 71,922 participants in 68 countries. The data were collected between November 2022 and August 2023 as part of the global Many Labs study “Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism” (TISP). The questionnaire contained comprehensive measures for individuals’ trust in scientists, science-related populist attitudes, perceptions of the role of science in society, science media use and communication behaviour, attitudes to climate change and support for environmental policies, personality traits, political and religious views and demographic characteristics. Here, we describe the dataset, survey materials and psychometric properties of key variables. We encourage researchers to use this unique dataset for global comparative analyses on public perceptions of science and its role in society and policy-making.
Scientific Data arrow_drop_down REFF - University of Belgrade - Faculty of PhilosophyArticle . 2025License: CC BYData sources: REFF - University of Belgrade - Faculty of PhilosophyOxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2025License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveVrije Universiteit Brussel Research PortalArticle . 2025Data sources: Vrije Universiteit Brussel Research PortalPublikationer från Linköpings universitetArticle . 2025 . Peer-reviewedData sources: Publikationer från Linköpings universitetDigitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet - Academic Archive On-lineArticle . 2025 . Peer-reviewedUniversity of Bristol: Bristol ResearchArticle . 2025Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)University of St. Gallen: DSpaceArticle . 2025Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1038/s41597-024-04100-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen hybrid 3 citations 3 popularity Average influence Average impulse Average Powered by BIP!
more_vert Scientific Data arrow_drop_down REFF - University of Belgrade - Faculty of PhilosophyArticle . 2025License: CC BYData sources: REFF - University of Belgrade - Faculty of PhilosophyOxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2025License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveVrije Universiteit Brussel Research PortalArticle . 2025Data sources: Vrije Universiteit Brussel Research PortalPublikationer från Linköpings universitetArticle . 2025 . Peer-reviewedData sources: Publikationer från Linköpings universitetDigitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet - Academic Archive On-lineArticle . 2025 . Peer-reviewedUniversity of Bristol: Bristol ResearchArticle . 2025Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)University of St. Gallen: DSpaceArticle . 2025Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1038/s41597-024-04100-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 2025Publisher:IOP Publishing Omid Ghasemi; Viktoria Cologna; Niels G Mede; Samantha K Stanley; Noel Strahm; Robert Ross; Mark Alfano; John R Kerr; Mathew D Marques; Sebastian Berger; John C Besley; Cameron Brick; Marina Joubert; Edward Maibach; Sabina Mihelj; Ben R Newell; Naomi Oreskes; Mike S Schäfer;Abstract This study compares public trust in climate scientists and scientists in general across 68 countries (N = 69,534). On average, participants reported moderately high levels of trust in climate scientists, with trust levels being slightly lower than trust in scientists in general. Overall, this trust gap was larger among participants who identified as politically conservative or right-leaning, but there was considerable variation across countries.
add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1088/1748-9326/add1f9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eumore_vert add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1088/1748-9326/add1f9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2021Embargo end date: 04 Jun 2021 United KingdomPublisher:SAGE Publications Authors: Kerr, ; Wilson, MS;Previous research has highlighted how ideological factors such as political self-identification, religiosity and conspiracy thinking influence our beliefs about scientific issues such as climate change and vaccination. Across three studies (combined N = 9,022) we expand on this line of inquiry to show for the first time that the ideological attitudes relating to authoritarianism and group-based dominance predict disagreement with the scientific consensus in several scientific domains. We show these effects are almost entirely mediated by varying combinations of ideological (political ideology, religiosity, free-market endorsement, conspiracy thinking) and science-specific (scientific knowledge, trust in scientists) constructs, depending on the scientific issue in question. Importantly, a general distrust of science and scientists emerges as the most consistent mediator across different scientific domains. We find that, consistent with previous research, the ideological roots of rejection of science vary across scientific issues. However, we also show that these roots may share a common origin in ideological attitudes regarding authority and equality.
Group Processes & In... arrow_drop_down Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsArticle . 2021 . Peer-reviewedLicense: CC BYData sources: Crossrefadd ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1177/1368430221992126&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen hybrid 42 citations 42 popularity Top 10% influence Top 10% impulse Top 1% Powered by BIP!
more_vert Group Processes & In... arrow_drop_down Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsArticle . 2021 . Peer-reviewedLicense: CC BYData sources: Crossrefadd ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1177/1368430221992126&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Other literature type , Journal 2018Embargo end date: 14 Apr 2021 United KingdomPublisher:Public Library of Science (PLoS) Authors: Kerr, John R; Wilson, Marc Stewart;Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, a sizable minority of people doubt that human activity is causing climate change. Communicating the existence of a scientific consensus has been suggested as a way to correct individuals' misperceptions about human-caused climate change and other scientific issues, though empirical support is mixed. We report an experiment in which psychology students were presented with consensus information about two issues, and subsequently reported their perception of the level of consensus and extent of their endorsement of those issues. We find that messages about scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the safety of genetically modified food shift perceptions of scientific consensus. Using mediation models we also show that, for both these issues, high consensus messages also increase reported personal agreement with the scientific consensus, mediated by changes in perceptions of a scientific consensus. This confirms the role of perceived consensus in informing personal beliefs about climate change, though results indicate the impact of single, one-off messages may be limited.
add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1371/journal.pone.0200295&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 62 citations 62 popularity Top 1% influence Top 10% impulse Top 1% Powered by BIP!
more_vert add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1371/journal.pone.0200295&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu
description Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Other literature type 2025Embargo end date: 20 Jan 2025 Italy, Sweden, Serbia, United Kingdom, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Serbia, Belgium, Switzerland, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Austria, AustriaPublisher:Springer Science and Business Media LLC Publicly fundedFunded by:EC | JITSUVAX, SNSF | Scientific and public per..., WT +8 projectsEC| JITSUVAX ,SNSF| Scientific and public perceptions of the political terrain of climate change science ,WT ,SSHRC ,ANR| PSL ,ARC| Discovery Projects - Grant ID: DP190101675 ,ARC| Discovery Projects - Grant ID: DP180102384 ,EC| Governance ,ARC| Discovery Projects - Grant ID: DP190101507 ,ARC| ARC Future Fellowships - Grant ID: FT190100708 ,EC| CONSPIRACY_FXNiels G. Mede; Viktoria Cologna; Sebastian Berger; John Besley; Cameron Brick; Marina Joubert; Edward W. Maibach; Sabina Mihelj; Naomi Oreskes; Mike S. Schäfer; Sander van der Linden; Nor Izzatina Abdul Aziz; Suleiman Abdulsalam; Nurulaini Abu Shamsi; Balazs Aczel; Indro Adinugroho; Eleonora Alabrese; Alaa Aldoh; Mark Alfano; Innocent Mbulli Ali; Mohammed Alsobay; Marlene Altenmüller; R. Michael Alvarez; Richard Amoako; Tabitha Amollo; Patrick Ansah; Denisa Apriliawati; Flavio Azevedo; Ani Bajrami; Ronita Bardhan; Keagile Bati; Eri Bertsou; Cornelia Betsch; Apurav Yash Bhatiya; Rahul Bhui; Olga Białobrzeska; Michał Bilewicz; Ayoub Bouguettaya; Katherine Breeden; Amélie Bret; Ondrej Buchel; Pablo Cabrera-Álvarez; Federica Cagnoli; André Calero Valdez; Timothy Callaghan; Rizza Kaye Cases; Sami Çoksan; Gabriela Czarnek; Steven De Peuter; Ramit Debnath; Sylvain Delouvée; Lucia Di Stefano; Celia Díaz-Catalán; Kimberly C. Doell; Simone Dohle; Karen M. Douglas; Charlotte Dries; Dmitrii Dubrov; Małgorzata Dzimińska; Ullrich K. H. Ecker; Christian T. Elbaek; Mahmoud Elsherif; Benjamin Enke; Tom W. Etienne; Matthew Facciani; Antoinette Fage-Butler; Md. Zaki Faisal; Xiaoli Fan; Christina Farhart; Christoph Feldhaus; Marinus Ferreira; Stefan Feuerriegel; Helen Fischer; Jana Freundt; Malte Friese; Simon Fuglsang; Albina Gallyamova; Patricia Garrido-Vásquez; Mauricio E. Garrido Vásquez; Winfred Gatua; Oliver Genschow; Omid Ghasemi; Theofilos Gkinopoulos; Jamie L. Gloor; Ellen Goddard; Mario Gollwitzer; Claudia González-Brambila; Hazel Gordon; Dmitry Grigoryev; Gina M. Grimshaw; Lars Guenther; Håvard Haarstad; Dana Harari; Lelia N. Hawkins; Przemysław Hensel; Alma Cristal Hernández-Mondragón; Atar Herziger; Guanxiong Huang; Markus Huff; Mairéad Hurley; Nygmet Ibadildin; Maho Ishibashi; Mohammad Tarikul Islam; Younes Jeddi; Tao Jin; Charlotte A. Jones; Sebastian Jungkunz; Dominika Jurgiel; Zhangir Kabdulkair; Jo-Ju Kao; Sarah Kavassalis; John R. Kerr; Mariana Kitsa; Tereza Klabíková Rábová; Olivier Klein; Hoyoun Koh; Aki Koivula; Lilian Kojan; Elizaveta Komyaginskaya; Laura König; Lina Koppel; Kochav Koren Nobre Cavalcante; Alexandra Kosachenko; John Kotcher; Laura S. Kranz; Pradeep Krishnan; Silje Kristiansen; André Krouwel; Toon Kuppens; Eleni A. Kyza; Claus Lamm; Anthony Lantian; Aleksandra Lazić; Oscar Lecuona; Jean-Baptiste Légal; Zoe Leviston; Neil Levy; Amanda M. Lindkvist; Grégoire Lits; Andreas Löschel; Alberto López-Ortega; Carlos Lopez-Villavicencio; Nigel Mantou Lou; Chloe H. Lucas; Kristin Lunz-Trujillo; Mathew D. Marques; Sabrina J. Mayer; Ryan McKay; Hugo Mercier; Julia Metag; Taciano L. Milfont; Joanne M. Miller; Panagiotis Mitkidis; Fredy Monge-Rodríguez; Matt Motta; Iryna Mudra; Zarja Muršič; Jennifer Namutebi; Eryn J. Newman; Jonas P. Nitschke; Ntui-Njock Vincent Ntui; Daniel Nwogwugwu; Thomas Ostermann; Tobias Otterbring; Jaime Palmer-Hague; Myrto Pantazi; Philip Pärnamets; Paolo Parra Saiani; Mariola Paruzel-Czachura; Michal Parzuchowski; Yuri G. Pavlov; Adam R. Pearson; Myron A. Penner; Charlotte R. Pennington; Katerina Petkanopoulou; Marija M. Petrović; Jan Pfänder; Dinara Pisareva; Adam Ploszaj; Karolína Poliaková; Ekaterina Pronizius; Katarzyna Pypno-Blajda; Diwa Malaya A. Quiñones; Pekka Räsänen; Adrian Rauchfleisch; Felix G. Rebitschek; Cintia Refojo Seronero; Gabriel Rêgo; James P. Reynolds; Joseph Roche; Simone Rödder; Jan Philipp Röer; Robert M. Ross; Isabelle Ruin; Osvaldo Santos; Ricardo R. Santos; Philipp Schmid; Stefan Schulreich; Bermond Scoggins; Amena Sharaf;pmid: 39833242
pmc: PMC11747281
Abstract Science is integral to society because it can inform individual, government, corporate, and civil society decision-making on issues such as public health, new technologies or climate change. Yet, public distrust and populist sentiment challenge the relationship between science and society. To help researchers analyse the science-society nexus across different geographical and cultural contexts, we undertook a cross-sectional population survey resulting in a dataset of 71,922 participants in 68 countries. The data were collected between November 2022 and August 2023 as part of the global Many Labs study “Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism” (TISP). The questionnaire contained comprehensive measures for individuals’ trust in scientists, science-related populist attitudes, perceptions of the role of science in society, science media use and communication behaviour, attitudes to climate change and support for environmental policies, personality traits, political and religious views and demographic characteristics. Here, we describe the dataset, survey materials and psychometric properties of key variables. We encourage researchers to use this unique dataset for global comparative analyses on public perceptions of science and its role in society and policy-making.
Scientific Data arrow_drop_down REFF - University of Belgrade - Faculty of PhilosophyArticle . 2025License: CC BYData sources: REFF - University of Belgrade - Faculty of PhilosophyOxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2025License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveVrije Universiteit Brussel Research PortalArticle . 2025Data sources: Vrije Universiteit Brussel Research PortalPublikationer från Linköpings universitetArticle . 2025 . Peer-reviewedData sources: Publikationer från Linköpings universitetDigitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet - Academic Archive On-lineArticle . 2025 . Peer-reviewedUniversity of Bristol: Bristol ResearchArticle . 2025Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)University of St. Gallen: DSpaceArticle . 2025Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1038/s41597-024-04100-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen hybrid 3 citations 3 popularity Average influence Average impulse Average Powered by BIP!
more_vert Scientific Data arrow_drop_down REFF - University of Belgrade - Faculty of PhilosophyArticle . 2025License: CC BYData sources: REFF - University of Belgrade - Faculty of PhilosophyOxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2025License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveVrije Universiteit Brussel Research PortalArticle . 2025Data sources: Vrije Universiteit Brussel Research PortalPublikationer från Linköpings universitetArticle . 2025 . Peer-reviewedData sources: Publikationer från Linköpings universitetDigitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet - Academic Archive On-lineArticle . 2025 . Peer-reviewedUniversity of Bristol: Bristol ResearchArticle . 2025Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)University of St. Gallen: DSpaceArticle . 2025Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1038/s41597-024-04100-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 2025Publisher:IOP Publishing Omid Ghasemi; Viktoria Cologna; Niels G Mede; Samantha K Stanley; Noel Strahm; Robert Ross; Mark Alfano; John R Kerr; Mathew D Marques; Sebastian Berger; John C Besley; Cameron Brick; Marina Joubert; Edward Maibach; Sabina Mihelj; Ben R Newell; Naomi Oreskes; Mike S Schäfer;Abstract This study compares public trust in climate scientists and scientists in general across 68 countries (N = 69,534). On average, participants reported moderately high levels of trust in climate scientists, with trust levels being slightly lower than trust in scientists in general. Overall, this trust gap was larger among participants who identified as politically conservative or right-leaning, but there was considerable variation across countries.
add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1088/1748-9326/add1f9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eumore_vert add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1088/1748-9326/add1f9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2021Embargo end date: 04 Jun 2021 United KingdomPublisher:SAGE Publications Authors: Kerr, ; Wilson, MS;Previous research has highlighted how ideological factors such as political self-identification, religiosity and conspiracy thinking influence our beliefs about scientific issues such as climate change and vaccination. Across three studies (combined N = 9,022) we expand on this line of inquiry to show for the first time that the ideological attitudes relating to authoritarianism and group-based dominance predict disagreement with the scientific consensus in several scientific domains. We show these effects are almost entirely mediated by varying combinations of ideological (political ideology, religiosity, free-market endorsement, conspiracy thinking) and science-specific (scientific knowledge, trust in scientists) constructs, depending on the scientific issue in question. Importantly, a general distrust of science and scientists emerges as the most consistent mediator across different scientific domains. We find that, consistent with previous research, the ideological roots of rejection of science vary across scientific issues. However, we also show that these roots may share a common origin in ideological attitudes regarding authority and equality.
Group Processes & In... arrow_drop_down Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsArticle . 2021 . Peer-reviewedLicense: CC BYData sources: Crossrefadd ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1177/1368430221992126&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen hybrid 42 citations 42 popularity Top 10% influence Top 10% impulse Top 1% Powered by BIP!
more_vert Group Processes & In... arrow_drop_down Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsArticle . 2021 . Peer-reviewedLicense: CC BYData sources: Crossrefadd ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1177/1368430221992126&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Other literature type , Journal 2018Embargo end date: 14 Apr 2021 United KingdomPublisher:Public Library of Science (PLoS) Authors: Kerr, John R; Wilson, Marc Stewart;Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, a sizable minority of people doubt that human activity is causing climate change. Communicating the existence of a scientific consensus has been suggested as a way to correct individuals' misperceptions about human-caused climate change and other scientific issues, though empirical support is mixed. We report an experiment in which psychology students were presented with consensus information about two issues, and subsequently reported their perception of the level of consensus and extent of their endorsement of those issues. We find that messages about scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the safety of genetically modified food shift perceptions of scientific consensus. Using mediation models we also show that, for both these issues, high consensus messages also increase reported personal agreement with the scientific consensus, mediated by changes in perceptions of a scientific consensus. This confirms the role of perceived consensus in informing personal beliefs about climate change, though results indicate the impact of single, one-off messages may be limited.
add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1371/journal.pone.0200295&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 62 citations 62 popularity Top 1% influence Top 10% impulse Top 1% Powered by BIP!
more_vert add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1371/journal.pone.0200295&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu