Most people are concerned about the climate—yet many believs they are alone in this feeling. Two new studies show how systematically we misjudge what others think and do. However, correcting this misperception does little to change actual behaviour. But what can climate communication achieve instead?
This post is part of the series “Studies of the month” in cooperation with klimafakten.de, where this post can be read in German. In the series, members of the climate communication lab (PI: Prof. Dr. Michael Brüggemann) share their expertise on noteworthy recent studies.
Which questions do the studies address?
Both studies discussed here deal with the socio-psychological phenomenon of “pluralistic ignorance” (sometimes the term “perception gap” is also used). Many people underestimate how widespread opinions really are within a group—for example, how many others are likewise concerned about climate change.
The impression arises that one is alone with these concerns—and therefore, we often prefer to remain silent. The silence of others, in turn, confirms this exact impression. In certain contexts, such a bias can lead individual decisions and actions to be guided by a false picture of the majority.
Sandra Geiger et al. (2025) use a large international dataset to investigate how widespread pluralistic ignorance is worldwide regarding climate change and climate policy attitudes. In addition, the authors test whether educational information about the actual consensus within a country strengthens support for climate policy or individual climate-friendly behaviour.
Kevin Tiede et al. (2026) turn the tables and analyse misperceptions regarding climate-friendly actions that few people actually engage in. For instance, they examine how many people actually support a constitutional complaint on climate protection or donate to climate protection organisations—and how high the population estimates this participation to be.
What methodology was used, and why is it reliable?
Both publications discuss methodologically sound psychological surveys and experiments. A key quality factor of both studies is that the surveys and analysis procedures were pre-registered in advance. By bindingly depositing the research plan, it is guaranteed that statistically non-significant or “negative” results are also published transparently and do not disappear into private archives. Overall, this pre-registration of studies significantly increases the scientific reliability of the conclusions drawn.
What are the key findings, and why are they relevant for climate communication?
Research findings show that misperceptions about the attitudes and actions of others are widespread, but mere educational information about them hits clear limits:
Sandra Geiger et al. (2025) demonstrate that the stance of the climate-skeptical minority is systematically overestimated internationally: “People across all 11 [studied] countries substantially overestimated the prevalence of this current minority opinion” (p. 436).
According to Geiger et al., however, presenting the actual majority figures has almost no impact on one’s own attitude or personal willingness to act. It merely shows a small positive effect on the willingness to publicly share one’s own climate-friendly stance.
Dr. Anne Reif (University of Hamburg) contextualises this finding: “This aligns with the communication science theory on the ‘spiral of silence’: people who do not see their opinion represented publicly are also less likely to express it externally”—which, in turn, leads to it being less visible.
Kevin Tiede et al. (2026), in turn, show that even rarely occurring actions—such as donating money for climate protection—are heavily overestimated. While in reality only a few people actually donate for climate protection purposes (around four percent in the study), many respondents falsely believe that others do so relatively often (participants estimate this figure at 23 percent).
Tiede et al. explain this misperception through the psychological concept of “regression to the mean”: when estimating percentages, people tend to overestimate small shares and underestimate large shares. But here, too, the rule holds: communicating the actual percentages (including the smaller ones) does not alter one’s own actions. Thus, someone who learns that merely four percent of the population donates does not donate automatically less frequently themselves as a result.
What can be concretely derived from the studies for practical application?
Purely corrective communication regarding actual majority proportions thus unfolds hardly any effect on one’s own actions—even when people correct their mathematical perception. And although behavioral intentions can change, the problem of the so-called “intention-behavior gap” remains: the gap between intention and action does not shrink.
Dr. Mike Farjam (University of Hamburg) emphasizes: “People are motivated to act by a wide variety of factors. Knowledge about social norms is merely one among many, and therefore it is not to be expected that addressing only this lever would change much.”
Repeated exposure may still move people
Does it make no sense at all, then, to continue communicating about the actual majority proportions regarding the belief in climate change? The studies discussed here seem to show clearly that it is difficult to motivate people to do more themselves using this approach.
Prof. Michael Brüggemann from the University of Hamburg warns, however, against prematurely declaring messages about public opinion to be meaningless: “Many media effects are very small at first and seem close to zero in individual experiments. But if people repeatedly receive the same or similar messages over longer periods, that can indeed lead to changes. In some cases, we simply lack the necessary data here to truly verify these potential changes.”
It can therefore certainly make sense in the long term to educate about majority proportions. And even if these messages do not directly influence actions, they may form the foundation for further news or other incentives that can lead directly to more action.
Alternative communication strategies
The authors of both studies also offer alternatives that can be used to effectively close the gap between knowledge, attitude, and action. Tiede et al. propose a series of concrete, evidence-based strategies:
Facilitating climate-friendly behavior: Reducing barriers by making climate-friendly options as easy and convenient as possible, as well as providing financial support (for example: good cycling infrastructure and public transport).
Strengthening political support: Increasing acceptance for political measures through fair design, transparent explanations, and highlighting effectiveness and concrete additional benefits (co-benefits).
Promoting willingness to donate: When raising funds or donations, specifically highlighting the concrete impact and influence the financial contribution unfolds.
In all of these strategies, (climate) communication once again has a role to play: for example, by conveying the simplicity of climate-friendly options or explaining why a political measure is fair.
Further Reading
Sandra Geiger, Köhler, J. K., Delabrida, Z. N. C., Garduño-Realivazquez, K. A., Haugestad, C. A. P., Imada, H., Iyer, A., Maharja, C., Mann, D. C., Marczak, M., Melville, O., Nijssen, S. R. R., Powdthavee, N., Praptiwi, R. A., Ranade, G., Rosa, C. D., Vitale, V., Winkowska, M., Zhang, L., & White, M. P. (2025). What We Think Others Think and Do About Climate Change: A Multicountry Test of Pluralistic Ignorance and Public-Consensus Messaging. Psychological Science, 36(6), 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251335585
Tiede, K. E., Maur, K., & Betsch, C. (2026). People systematically under- and overestimate public engagement in climate action. Nature Climate Change, 16(7), 774–780. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02668-z