This post explains the primary findings of the PLOS ONE Delphi study on a climate change acceptance definition and shows how AI-enabled qualitative research can accelerate instrument development and classroom diagnostics. The primary keyword for this piece is "climate change acceptance definition" and the audience is qualitative researchers, education researchers, and university science instructors who measure beliefs in open-ended data. According to the PLOS ONE study, researchers used a mixed-methods Delphi process to produce two defensible definitions of acceptance for undergraduate science students, and this post maps those results to practical steps for thematic and cross-segment analysis.
Key Takeaways
According to the PLOS ONE study (Duke & Holt, 2026), a four-round Delphi process produced two consensus definitions of a climate change acceptance definition for U.S. undergraduate science students: an "Anthropogenic" definition and an "Anthropogenic + Mechanistic" definition. PLOS ONE
- In their scoping review conducted between October 2023 and February 2024, Duke and Holt identified 523 published articles and extracted 3, 089 measurement items, of which 2, 402 were unique, establishing a 14-construct preliminary framework.
- Between April 2024 and July 2025, the Delphi data collection engaged educators and students and included four rounds with a cumulative expert and stakeholder panel of about 210 participants, yielding two stable definitions by August 25, 2026.
- Round-level consensus shifted: in Round 2 (February 2025 data) 50.9% (n = 29) of participants preferred the Anthropogenic + Mechanistic wording, in Round 3 69% (n = 18) selected that same broader definition, and in Round 4 a majority (64%, n = 70) selected the simpler Anthropogenic definition.
What happened and how the Delphi produced definitions
What happened: According to the PLOS ONE study by Duke and Holt (published August 25, 2026), the team combined a scoping review, a pilot student survey, and four iterative rounds of educator interviews and surveys to generate and refine candidate definitions.
According to the PLOS ONE study, the scoping review (October 2023 to February 2024) found 523 relevant articles and produced a preliminary set of 14 constructs and 3, 089 measurement items, which the authors reduced to candidate definitions for round-based testing.
According to the PLOS ONE study, rounds of data collection recruited educators and stakeholders from biology, chemistry, and earth and atmospheric sciences using purposive sampling, with Round 2 having 58 participants, Round 3 having 26 participants, and Round 4 having 111 participants, and the team used percent agreement and stability of qualitative rationales to judge consensus.
According to the PLOS ONE study, the final outcome was two defensible definitions: the Anthropogenic Definition ("Climate change is happening and human behaviors are causing it") and the Anthropogenic + Mechanistic Definition ("Climate change is happening, average temperatures and greenhouse gases are increasing globally, and human behaviors are causing it").
Findings Snapshot
| Date | Metric | Value | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2023–Feb 2024 | Articles reviewed | 523 articles | Built a 14-construct framework to inform candidate definitions |
| Scoping review result (reported 2026) | Measurement items extracted | 3, 089 items (2, 402 unique) | Demonstrates wide instrument heterogeneity and need for definition |
| Apr 2024–Jul 2025 | Delphi participants recruited | ≈210 experts and stakeholders across 4 rounds | Provided multi-round stability and qualitative rationales for definition choice |
| Round 4 (Jul 2025 conference) | Top preference | 64% (n = 70) favored Anthropogenic definition | Indicates practical preference for a concise classroom-measurement target |
Implications for university science instructors and education researchers
The direct implication: According to the PLOS ONE study, instructors must choose which definition matches their assessment goals because measurement outcomes differ depending on whether acceptance includes mechanistic knowledge.
According to the PLOS ONE study, the Anthropogenic definition is a defensible baseline for first-year or cross-disciplinary assessments because it requires belief in occurrence and human causation without presupposing mechanistic knowledge.
According to the PLOS ONE study, the Anthropogenic + Mechanistic definition is defensible for advanced undergraduate assessment or course-end targets because it explicitly requires understanding of mechanisms (temperature trends and greenhouse gases) alongside human causation.
Practical recommendation: education researchers should re-evaluate existing survey instruments (many of which were developed before August 25, 2026) for construct alignment with these two definitions before aggregating or comparing study results.
How Evidano Helps: apply AI-enabled qualitative research to definition-driven measurement
Problem: inconsistent constructs across instruments
Answer: Instrument heterogeneity makes synthesis unreliable unless researchers align measures to a clear definition first.
According to the PLOS ONE study, the literature contained thousands of items and no shared definition, which risks comparing non-equivalent outcomes across studies.
Solution: automated construct mapping and thematic synthesis
Evidano is an AI-powered qualitative data analysis platform that helps researchers analyze interviews, open-ended surveys, and documents.
Evidano can ingest the 3, 089 items and 523-article codebook-like corpus described in the PLOS ONE scoping review and: 1) produce thematic clustering of items into the 14 constructs identified in October 2023–February 2024, 2) compute frequency and co-occurrence matrices to show which survey items map to the Anthropogenic versus Anthropogenic + Mechanistic definitions, and 3) export cross-segment reports for instructors comparing novice and senior cohorts.
Use Evidano features to speed validation: see the Evidano features page for relevant tools including thematic coding, cross-segment analysis, and transcription-ready import.
Example workflow for education researchers
Answer: A replicable workflow pairs the PLOS ONE definitions with AI-driven coding to test instrument validity and learning progression effects.
Step 1: upload candidate survey instruments and interview transcripts to Evidano, Step 2: run thematic clustering constrained by the PLOS ONE 14 constructs, Step 3: produce an evidence table that flags items mapping to Anthropogenic versus Anthropogenic + Mechanistic definitions, and Step 4: generate visualizations to present to curriculum committees.
FAQ: climate change acceptance definition
What are the two consensus definitions of climate change acceptance identified in the Delphi study?
Answer: The study identified an Anthropogenic Definition and an Anthropogenic + Mechanistic Definition as two consensus options.
According to the PLOS ONE study (Duke & Holt, 2026), the Anthropogenic Definition reads "Climate change is happening and human behaviors are causing it, " while the Anthropogenic + Mechanistic Definition reads "Climate change is happening, average temperatures and greenhouse gases are increasing globally, and human behaviors are causing it."
Which definition should I use for freshman-level assessment?
Answer: Use the Anthropogenic Definition for baseline or freshman-level assessments.
According to the PLOS ONE study, many educators selected the simpler Anthropogenic Definition when considering first-semester students because it does not presuppose prior mechanistic knowledge.
Does including mechanisms change measured acceptance scores?
Answer: Including mechanisms can change measured acceptance and conflates knowledge with acceptance in some cases.
According to the PLOS ONE study, several educators conflated knowledge and acceptance when preferring the Anthropogenic + Mechanistic Definition, and the Delphi rounds showed oscillating consensus across rounds, implying measurement shifts depending on definition choice.
How can AI help validate existing climate acceptance instruments?
Answer: AI-enabled qualitative tools can map instrument items to the two consensus definitions and quantify construct coverage.
Evidano and similar platforms can automatically code thousands of items, run frequency and co-occurrence analyses, and produce cross-cohort comparisons so researchers can select or adapt instruments in line with the PLOS ONE definitions.
Conclusion & Next Steps
The PLOS ONE Delphi study (Duke & Holt, published August 25, 2026) narrowed a previously inconsistent field into two defensible climate change acceptance definitions for undergraduate science students, and those definitions should guide instrument selection and curriculum targets.
Education researchers and instructors should align their surveys and interview coding schemes to the chosen definition before comparing results across studies or making curricular decisions.
If you want to operationalize these definitions quickly, use AI-assisted thematic mapping and cross-segment analysis: see Evidano features to learn more and Try Evidano for free.
Topics
- climate change acceptance definition
- defining climate change acceptance
- Delphi study climate acceptance
- AI qualitative analysis climate education
Keep reading
- Commentary on NewsTwo Consensus Definitions: climate change acceptance definitionSummarizes the PLOS One Delphi study (published Aug 25, 2026) that produced two climate change acceptance definitions and shows AI-enabled qualitative methods to measure them.
- Commentary on NewsTwo Definitions: Climate Change Acceptance for UndergradsHow a PLoS One Delphi study (Aug 25, 2026) defined climate change acceptance for undergraduate science students, and how AI-enabled qualitative analysis applies it.
- Commentary on NewsConsensus definitions: climate change acceptance definitionPLoS One (Aug 25, 2026) presents two consensus climate change acceptance definitions for undergraduates; see stats and how AI qualitative analysis accelerates survey design.