对科学调查的认可促进了对气候政策证据的更好评估。

IF 4.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Climatic Change Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-19 DOI:10.1007/s10584-023-03535-y
Jessica E Hughes, James D Sauer, Aaron Drummond, Laura E Brumby, Matthew A Palmer
{"title":"对科学调查的认可促进了对气候政策证据的更好评估。","authors":"Jessica E Hughes,&nbsp;James D Sauer,&nbsp;Aaron Drummond,&nbsp;Laura E Brumby,&nbsp;Matthew A Palmer","doi":"10.1007/s10584-023-03535-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Public and scientific consensus about climate change do not align. Problematically, higher scientific knowledge has been associated with lower acceptance of climate information among those with more conservative socio-political ideologies. Positive attitudes towards science can attenuate this effect. We investigated the association between <i>endorsement of scientific inquiry</i> (ESI) and decision-making with scientific evidence about climate policies. Participants rated support for 16 climate policies accompanied by weaker or stronger evidence. In study 1 (<i>N</i> = 503), higher ESI was associated with greater discernment between strongly and weakly evidenced climate policies, irrespective of worldview. In studies 2 (<i>N</i> = 402) and 3 (<i>N</i> = 600), an ESI intervention improved discrimination, and, in study 3, increased ESI specifically for hierarchical/individualistic participants. Unlike ESI, the link between scientific knowledge and evaluation of evidence was influenced by worldview. Increasing ESI might improve the evaluation of scientific evidence and increase public support for evidence-based climate policies.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10584-023-03535-y.</p>","PeriodicalId":10372,"journal":{"name":"Climatic Change","volume":"176 6","pages":"69"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10197046/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica E Hughes,&nbsp;James D Sauer,&nbsp;Aaron Drummond,&nbsp;Laura E Brumby,&nbsp;Matthew A Palmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10584-023-03535-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Public and scientific consensus about climate change do not align. Problematically, higher scientific knowledge has been associated with lower acceptance of climate information among those with more conservative socio-political ideologies. Positive attitudes towards science can attenuate this effect. We investigated the association between <i>endorsement of scientific inquiry</i> (ESI) and decision-making with scientific evidence about climate policies. Participants rated support for 16 climate policies accompanied by weaker or stronger evidence. In study 1 (<i>N</i> = 503), higher ESI was associated with greater discernment between strongly and weakly evidenced climate policies, irrespective of worldview. In studies 2 (<i>N</i> = 402) and 3 (<i>N</i> = 600), an ESI intervention improved discrimination, and, in study 3, increased ESI specifically for hierarchical/individualistic participants. Unlike ESI, the link between scientific knowledge and evaluation of evidence was influenced by worldview. Increasing ESI might improve the evaluation of scientific evidence and increase public support for evidence-based climate policies.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10584-023-03535-y.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10372,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Climatic Change\",\"volume\":\"176 6\",\"pages\":\"69\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10197046/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Climatic Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03535-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Climatic Change","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03535-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

公众和科学界对气候变化的共识并不一致。有问题的是,科学知识越高,社会政治意识形态越保守的人对气候信息的接受度越低。对科学的积极态度可以减弱这种影响。我们调查了支持科学调查(ESI)与气候政策科学证据决策之间的关系。参与者对16项气候政策的支持程度进行了评分,同时给出了较弱或较强的证据。在研究1(N = 503),无论世界观如何,更高的ESI与有力和薄弱的气候政策之间的更大区分有关。在研究2中(N = 402)和3(N = 600),ESI干预改善了歧视,并且在研究3中,增加了专门针对等级/个人主义参与者的ESI。与ESI不同,科学知识和证据评估之间的联系受到世界观的影响。增加ESI可能会改善对科学证据的评估,并增加公众对循证气候政策的支持。补充信息:在线版本包含补充材料,可访问10.1007/s10584-023-03535-y。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence.

Public and scientific consensus about climate change do not align. Problematically, higher scientific knowledge has been associated with lower acceptance of climate information among those with more conservative socio-political ideologies. Positive attitudes towards science can attenuate this effect. We investigated the association between endorsement of scientific inquiry (ESI) and decision-making with scientific evidence about climate policies. Participants rated support for 16 climate policies accompanied by weaker or stronger evidence. In study 1 (N = 503), higher ESI was associated with greater discernment between strongly and weakly evidenced climate policies, irrespective of worldview. In studies 2 (N = 402) and 3 (N = 600), an ESI intervention improved discrimination, and, in study 3, increased ESI specifically for hierarchical/individualistic participants. Unlike ESI, the link between scientific knowledge and evaluation of evidence was influenced by worldview. Increasing ESI might improve the evaluation of scientific evidence and increase public support for evidence-based climate policies.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10584-023-03535-y.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Climatic Change
Climatic Change 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.20
自引率
4.20%
发文量
180
审稿时长
7.5 months
期刊介绍: Climatic Change is dedicated to the totality of the problem of climatic variability and change - its descriptions, causes, implications and interactions among these. The purpose of the journal is to provide a means of exchange among those working in different disciplines on problems related to climatic variations. This means that authors have an opportunity to communicate the essence of their studies to people in other climate-related disciplines and to interested non-disciplinarians, as well as to report on research in which the originality is in the combinations of (not necessarily original) work from several disciplines. The journal also includes vigorous editorial and book review sections.
期刊最新文献
Natural resource management and green technological innovation impact on health risks and social development: Evidence from advanced economies Green industrial policy for climate action in the basic materials industry Amplification of compound hot-dry extremes and associated population exposure over East Africa Raising the bar: What determines the ambition level of corporate climate targets? A 561-yr (1461-2022 CE) summer temperature reconstruction for Mid-Atlantic-Northeast USA shows connections to volcanic forcing and atmospheric circulation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1