"Counting votes" in public responses to scientific disputes.

摘要: Publicized disputes between groups of scientists may force lay choices about groups' credibility. One possible, little studied, credibility cue is vote-counting (proportions on either side): for example, "97%" climate believe in anthropogenic change. An online sample 2600 Americans read a mock article scientific dispute, 13 (proportions: 100%-0%, 99%-1%, … 50%-50%, 1%-99%, 0%-100% Positions A and B, respectively) × 8 (scenarios: dietary salt, dark matter) between-person experiment. Respondents reported reactions to the attitudes toward topic, views science. Proportional information indirectly affected judged agreement but less so topic or science responses, controlling scenarios moderators, whether by actual proportions differing contrasts "consensus" versus "near-consensus." Given empirical research with conflicting findings, even these low effect sizes warrant further how might help laypeople deal disputes.