PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 5, 2017PLoS ONE985 citationsOpen Access

Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence

View Full Paper
JCJohn CookSLStephan LewandowskyUEUllrich K. H. Ecker

Key Points

  • To evaluate the impact of climate change misinformation and test pre-emptive inoculation interventions designed to neutralize the influence of misleading argumentation.
  • Conducted an experimental study assessing public responses to false-balance media coverage and misinformation regarding scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
  • Tested two pre-emptive inoculation interventions: one detailing flawed argumentative techniques and another emphasizing the true level of scientific consensus.
  • False-balance media coverage significantly reduced perceived scientific consensus, exerting a stronger negative effect on individuals supporting free-market ideology.
  • Misinformation regarding climate consensus polarized beliefs, decreasing anthropogenic global warming acceptance among high free-market supporters while increasing it among low supporters.
  • Pre-emptive inoculations explaining deceptive argument strategies or clarifying scientific consensus effectively neutralized the adverse and polarizing effects of misinformation.

Abstract

Misinformation can undermine a well-functioning democracy. For example, public misconceptions about climate change can lead to lowered acceptance of the reality of climate change and lowered support for mitigation policies. This study experimentally explored the impact of misinformation about climate change and tested several pre-emptive interventions designed to reduce the influence of misinformation. We found that false-balance media coverage (giving contrarian views equal voice with climate scientists) lowered perceived consensus overall, although the effect was greater among free-market supporters. Likewise, misinformation that confuses people about the level of scientific agreement regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) had a polarizing effect, with free-market supporters reducing their acceptance of AGW and those with low free-market support increasing their acceptance of AGW. However, we found that inoculating messages that (1) explain the flawed argumentation technique used in the misinformation or that (2) highlight the scientific consensus on climate change were effective in neutralizing those adverse effects of misinformation. We recommend that climate communication messages should take into account ways in which scientific content can be distorted, and include pre-emptive inoculation messages.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Cook et al. (2017) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6964ec19ef23e73195d616d1https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper