What the evidence shows

This peer-reviewed study documents a striking case of "pluralistic ignorance" — a shared misperception of what others believe — around US climate policy. The authors set out to test whether Americans accurately perceive how many of their fellow citizens are concerned about climate change and support major mitigation policies, using a large, representative sample rather than the smaller convenience samples that had suggested this pattern in prior research.

The paper's central contribution is empirical precision at national scale: it shows that supermajority support for climate concern and climate policy (66–80%) is almost universally underestimated, with the average American guessing the true level to be roughly half that (37–43%) — an inversion the authors term a "false social reality," since most people believe support is a minority position when it is in fact a strong majority one. The study also probes for likely contributing mechanisms — false consensus effects, exposure to local political norms, and news media consumption — through exploratory (correlational, not causal) analysis.

The paper is positioned as having practical stakes: if advocates and ordinary citizens underestimate how popular climate action is, this misperception could itself suppress climate conversation, weaken political mobilization, and help explain the historical gap between public support and enacted US climate policy.

Key Findings

• Massive, near-universal underestimation of support: 80–90% of Americans underestimate national concern about climate change and support for climate mitigation policies; the true support levels (66–80%) are inverted in public perception to an estimated 37–43%.

• Partisan asymmetry, but universal underestimation: Republicans underestimate support by a larger margin than Democrats (consistent with a false consensus effect), but even Democrats and Independents estimate national support at well under 50%, despite true support exceeding 66% for every policy tested.

• The effect holds across every state and every demographic tested — no state's average estimate came within 20 percentage points of the true level, and no demographic group (including political orientation, race, education, and urban/rural residence) reached accurate estimates.

Stand-out data points

• 66–80% vs. 37–43%: true national support for climate concern and major climate policies, versus the average American's estimate of that same support — roughly a 2-to-1 inversion of perceived versus actual majority opinion.

• d = 0.91–1.48: effect sizes for the gap between real and perceived policy support across the four national policies — a very large statistical margin, underscoring that this is not a marginal or noisy effect.

Examples of how Understories uses this research

• Credibility High: large representative sample (N=6,119), peer-reviewed, published in a top general-science journal, transparent methodology, benchmarked against an established polling body (YPCCC).

• Emotional resonance Speaks to isolation and discouragement among climate-concerned audiences ("you are not alone") — useful for scoring messages that aim to counter feelings of futility or minority status.

• Hope Doom Balance Directly useful for correcting doom-leaning narratives that imply public apathy or opposition; strong evidence base for messages that reframe climate support as a supermajority position rather than an uphill battle.

• Autonomy The findings are specific, numeric, and traceable to a peer-reviewed source with open methodology and open-access data, supporting fully citable, transparent recommendations (e.g., citing the exact percentage gap for a specific policy).

• Beneficence This research offers a low-risk, high-value lever for advocates: correcting a factual misperception (rather than manipulating emotion) that plausibly increases willingness to voice support and organize.

— non-exhaustive.

Key quote

"We find a form of pluralistic ignorance that we describe as a false social reality: a near universal perception of public opinion that is the opposite of true public sentiment."

© The Author(s) 2022. Open access — Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Last update: 5 August 2026

—-

Want to stay ahead of the curve? Join the Reading List.

Fortnightly, I’ll share short explainers, key findings, and data points from selected reports as they go live, plus exclusive content.