Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42441846›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

Combined signals of scientific and social consensus best mobilize action on societal challenges even if government and industry oppose.

Anandita Chakraborty Sabherwal, Gregg Sparkman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Anandita Chakraborty SabherwalDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Morrissey College of Arts and Sciences, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467.ORCID 0000-0001-8825-6251
Gregg SparkmanDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Morrissey College of Arts and Sciences, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467.ORCID 0009-0000-9383-874X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When facing real-world societal challenges, people make decisions about how to act based on multiple, often conflicting messages from various influential stakeholders such as governments, scientists, fellow citizens, and private companies. How does the public decide to act amid potentially converging or diverging signals from multiple entities in society? Which entities remain influential even if other groups appear apathetic or stand in opposition? This question becomes especially important in contexts like the United States where the government, industry, scientists, and public sentiment may diverge. In two conjoint experiments spanning over 40,000 evaluations, one behavioral experiment and a digital field study (

Indexed as

ConsensusGovernmentIndustryPublic OpinionHumansScienceUnited Statesinstitutionsscientific consensussocial consensussocial influencesocietal challenges

Identifiers

PMID42441846
PMCPMC13389540

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.