Belief-neutral Versus Belief-linked Knowledge as Predictors of Climate-change Opinions

• Published in: SAGE open Vol. 14; no. 2
• Main Authors: Brown, Adrienne R., Hamilton, Lawrence C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01-04-2024; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC; SAGE Publishing
• Subjects: Climate change; Knowledge; trust; environmental knowledge; science; climate change
• ISSN: 2158-2440; 2158-2440
• DOI: 10.1177/21582440241261806

Previous research on climate-relevant knowledge distinguishes between two types: belief-linked (facts which can be guessed based on general climate beliefs) and belief-neutral (facts which require specific knowledge). To better understand these differences, we used data from nationwide US 2016 and 2021 surveys to develop composite indicators of the two types of knowledge. We analyzed demographic predictors of each type, as well as their effect on climate change belief. Further, we examined the issue of trust in science. The findings point to some novel insights. One, not all knowledge is equal; specific, belief-neutral knowledge in particular is less necessary for climate change belief. And two, trust in science is more relevant for fostering climate change belief than either knowledge type. Although this poses certain challenges, given the ideological divide when it comes to scientific trust, it is also useful information for policymakers and science communicators about where to direct energy and resources when engaging with the public.
Plain Language Summary
This study uses US survey data from 2016 and 2021 to examine different types of knowledge people have about the environment and climate change. One type is belief-linked; these are answers that people guess according to preexisting environmental beliefs. The other type is belief-neutral; this requires specific information, and it cannot be guided or guessed based on beliefs. We find that belief-neutral knowledge is not particularly impactful in whether or not people believe in human-caused climate change. Further, having trust in scientific agencies is more important than either knowledge types. Although our measures provide only a snapshot of knowledge and trust, the findings have important implications about how to best engage with the public on issues related to climate change. Increasing trust in science through exposure to scientific practices is likely more useful than just providing the public with more information about the environment.