Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change
Abstract
Effectively addressing climate change requires significant changes in individual and collective human behavior and decision‐making. Yet, in light of the increasing politicization of (climate) science, and the attempts of vested‐interest groups to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change through organized “disinformation campaigns,” identifying ways to effectively engage with the public about the issue across the political spectrum has proven difficult. A growing body of research suggests that one promising way to counteract the politicization of science is to convey the high level of normative agreement (“consensus”) among experts about the reality of human‐caused climate change. Yet, much prior research examining public opinion dynamics in the context of climate change has done so under conditions with limited external validity. Moreover, no research to date has examined how to protect the public from the spread of influential misinformation about climate change. The current research bridges this divide by exploring how people evaluate and process consensus cues in a polarized information environment. Furthermore, evidence is provided that it is possible to pre‐emptively protect (“inoculate”) public attitudes about climate change against real‐world misinformation.
Number of times cited: 22
- Galen Treuer, Kenneth Broad and Robert Meyer, Using simulations to forecast homeowner response to sea level rise in South Florida: Will they stay or will they go?, Global Environmental Change, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.10.008, 48, (108-118), (2018).
- Keiichi Kobayashi, Effects of conflicting scientific arguments on belief change: Argument evaluation and expert consensus perception as mediators, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48, 4, (177-187), (2018).
- Toby Bolsen, Justin Kingsland and Risa Palm, The impact of frames highlighting coastal flooding in the USA on climate change beliefs, Climatic Change, (2018).
- John Cook, Peter Ellerton and David Kinkead, Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors, Environmental Research Letters, 13, 2, (024018), (2018).
- Nicholas W. Jankowski, Researching Fake News: A Selective Examination of Empirical Studies, Javnost - The Public, (1), (2018).
- Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K.H. Ecker and John Cook, Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008, (2017).
- Hannah Schmid-Petri, Politicization of science: how climate change skeptics use experts and scientific evidence in their online communication, Climatic Change, 10.1007/s10584-017-2112-z, 145, 3-4, (523-537), (2017).
- Emily K. Vraga and Leticia Bode, Leveraging Institutions, Educators, and Networks to Correct Misinformation: A Commentary on Lewandosky, Ecker, and Cook, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.008, 6, 4, (382-388), (2017).
- Jennifer Sills, Sander van der Linden, Edward Maibach, John Cook, Anthony Leiserowitz and Stephan Lewandowsky, Inoculating against misinformation, Science, 10.1126/science.aar4533, 358, 6367, (1141.2-1142), (2017).
- Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook and Ullrich K.H. Ecker, Letting the Gorilla Emerge From the Mist: Getting Past Post-Truth, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.11.002, 6, 4, (418-424), (2017).
- Isabel M. Smith and Noni E. MacDonald, Countering evidence denial and the promotion of pseudoscience in autism spectrum disorder, Autism Research, 10, 8, (1334-1337), (2017).
- Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Steven J. Heine, Robbie M. Sutton and Frenk van Harreveld, Attitudes Towards Science, , 10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.08.001, (2017).
- Peter Fernandez, The technology behind fake news, Library Hi Tech News, 10.1108/LHTN-07-2017-0054, 34, 7, (1-5), (2017).
- Eve Dubé and Noni E. MacDonald, Vaccination resilience: Building and sustaining confidence in and demand for vaccination, Vaccine, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.06.015, 35, 32, (3907-3909), (2017).
- Andrew G. Skuce, John Cook, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Ken Rice, Sarah A. Green, Peter Jacobs and Dana Nuccitelli, Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 10.1177/0270467617702781, 36, 3, (150-156), (2017).
- Sven Ove Hansson, Dealing with climate science denialism: experiences from confrontations with other forms of pseudoscience, Climate Policy, 10.1080/14693062.2017.1415197, (1-9), (2018).
- Rebecca Lindsey, David Herring and Emily Greenhalgh, Response by Lindsey, Herring, and Greenhalgh to “A Missed Opportunity?: NOAA’s Use of Social Media to Communicate Climate Science”, Environmental Communication, 10.1080/17524032.2017.1394659, (1-3), (2018).
- Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Why rebuttals may not work: the psychology of misinformation, Media Asia, 10.1080/01296612.2017.1384145, (1-9), (2017).
- John Cook, Response by Cook to “Beyond Counting Climate Consensus”, Environmental Communication, 10.1080/17524032.2017.1377095, (1-3), (2017).
- Cornelia Betsch, Advocating for vaccination in a climate of science denial, Nature Microbiology, 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.106, 2, 7, (17106), (2017).
- Asli Sezen-Barrie, Nicole Shea and Jenna Hope Borman, Probing into the sources of ignorance: science teachers’ practices of constructing arguments or rebuttals to denialism of climate change, Environmental Education Research, 10.1080/13504622.2017.1330949, (0-21), (2017).
- Noni E MacDonald, Robb Butler and Eve Dubé, Addressing barriers to vaccine acceptance: an overview, Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 10.1080/21645515.2017.1394533, (00-00), (2017).
