Seeing is believing: The systemic filters that shape public climate change beliefs

Climate change is among the most critical global challenges, but international policies to meet the Paris Agreement targets remain inadequate. Despite a strong scientific consensus on climate change and its causes, a "consensus gap" persists between scientists and the public, especially regarding mitigation efforts. This thesis investigates factors contributing to this gap, focusing on how scientific information is filtered through societal paradigms, media, social interactions, and individual worldviews, ultimately shaping public opinion. It aims to identify strategies for bridging this gap and aligning public beliefs with scientific consensus. The Introduction outlines four filters that influence climate change opinions: the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP), media framing, social interactions, and individual worldviews. Each chapter examines one or more of these filters to understand how information is reshaped into beliefs. Chapter 2 reviews the DSP in industrialized societies, highlighting its anthropocentric foundation, which prioritizes economic growth and individualism over environmental health. This mindset fosters a utilitarian view of nature, contributing to ecosystem degradation, climate change, and inequality. The chapter calls for systemic reforms in political, economic, and social systems to transition to a more sustainable, nature-inclusive DSP. Chapter 3 explores the roles of trust in science and media use in shaping climate beliefs through meta-analysis. Both trust and media use are found to positively influence pro-social beliefs, with user-generated media (e.g., social platforms) having a greater impact than traditional media. Personalized and relatable content on such platforms may reduce psychological distance from climate issues. The study recommends expanding research to include non-Eurocentric contexts to validate these findings. Chapter 4 analyzes how U.S. magazines frame accountability for climate change. While texts often hold governments and industries responsible, visuals tend to depict ordinary people and climate impacts, creating mixed messages that confuse audiences. The chapter advocates for more consistent and explicit framing of accountability across media. Chapter 5 examines Gen Z's perceptions of climate change accountability. Findings reveal that businesses are more often blamed for causing climate change, while consumers and society are seen as key to solutions. Social interactions, particularly among those with postmodern or integrative worldviews, enhance belief in scientific consensus. Modern worldviews, however, correlate with less discussion about climate change. Further research across diverse demographics and political contexts is recommended. An Intermezzo compares Dutch and American Gen Z perspectives, noting similar media exposure but differences in climate discussions and perceived self-efficacy. The Discussion critiques the industrialized DSP and its role in perpetuating media misrepresentations and public misperceptions of climate change. It recommends systemic changes to foster sustainable values, improve climate communication, and encourages different research approaches. More research into representations of accountability and expanding studies to newer platforms like TikTok and Instagram can help to better understand the consensus gap and drive meaningful societal change.