The vast majority of scientists reiterate, now coinciding with COP-28, that our planet is experiencing exceptional climate change mainly due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, but, despite this, hoaxes and fake news continue to spread. created and disseminated by people who fall into the so-called climate change denialism.
Surveys indicate that the majority of citizens are concerned about climate change, recognize the work of specialized scientists and support the fight against global warming, but deniers continue to grow and make themselves felt, for example, through social networks in Internet. The insults received by experts from the State Meteorological Agency are a recent example of this neologism that the RAE dictionary defines as "an attitude that consists of the denial of certain relevant historical or natural realities and facts."
Among the causes of this climate denialism are social discontent, distrust of politicians, institutions and public entities, including scientists; as well as "misinformation spread by certain vested interests," according to a new study on this topic led by experts from the University of Geneva (Switzerland).
To analyze the phenomenon of climate denialism and avoid the use of falsehoods that hinder social understanding of the problem, the authors of this new research have developed and tested six psychological interventions on almost 7,000 participants from twelve countries. The research, published in the journal Nature Human Behavior, highlights the extremely persuasive nature of misinformation and the need to strengthen efforts to confront it rationally.
"Fighting misinformation about climate change is a great challenge for society," highlights the University of Geneva in a note presenting the results of the new study. Although there is a scientific consensus on human responsibility for current climate change - in explanations reaffirmed, for example, by the sixth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - for decades, in some countries up to a third of the population still doubts or question this situation. "This phenomenon can be explained by the misinformation spread by certain companies and lobbies over the last 50 years," reiterates the Swiss university.
"These messages, for example, can take the form of an unfounded questioning of the scientific consensus or an overestimation of the socio-financial burden of climate policies," explains Tobia Spampatti, doctoral student and teaching and research assistant at Consumer Decision and Laboratory of Sustainable Behavior (CDSB Lab) at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences and at the Swiss Center for Affective Sciences of the University of Geneva (UNIGE).
The phenomenon of misinformation, in all its variants, weakens the support of a part of the population for climate policies, indicate the authors of the study, trying to remember that it is not just an anecdotal issue.
To try to ensure that scientifically verified data clearly reaches the entire population, Tobia Spampatti and the rest of the UNIGE team developed a theoretical framework to describe the formation and updating of anti-scientific information. This framework, built from previous theoretical approaches on the psychology of disinformation (a proposal by the team led by Philippe Mueller, in a study published in 2022), takes into account the source of the message, its content, its recipients and the factors psychological factors that can influence their processing. This theoretical framework aims to identify entry points for misinformation to access a person's psyche and can be used to intervene and block, or encourage, people from accepting information.
''As individuals, we do not process scientific messages as neutral recipients of information, but rather by weighing them against our prior beliefs, desired outcomes, emotional attachments, and sociocultural and ideological backgrounds. Depending on the configuration of these psychological factors, anti-scientific beliefs can be amplified and become resistant to correction," explains Tobia Spampatti, first author of the now published study.
Based on this, the researchers developed six psychological intervention strategies aimed at preventing climate misinformation from affecting people's climate-related beliefs and behaviors. The hypothesis was tested on 6,816 participants in twelve different countries. Each strategy was linked to a particular theme (scientific consensus, trust in climate scientists, transparent communication, moralization of climate action, accuracy, positive emotions towards climate action). The participants were divided into eight groups: six subjected to one of these strategies, one to misinformation without prevention and a control group.
The "Trust in Climate Scientists" group, for example, received verified information demonstrating the credibility of IPCC scientists. Meanwhile, the “transparent communication” group was presented with information on the advantages and disadvantages of climate mitigation actions. Each group was then exposed to twenty pieces of false or biased information, ten about climate science and ten about climate policy. Finally, UNIGE scientists measured the impacts after these preventive interventions by asking participants about their feelings regarding climate mitigation actions.
''We found that the protective effect of our strategies is small and disappears after the second exposure to misinformation. The climate misinformation used in this study negatively influences people's belief in climate change and their sustainable behavior," says Tobias Brosch, associate professor in the CDSB laboratory of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences and in the Center Swiss of Affective Sciences at UNIGE, and co-author of the study. The study shows that some people are easily convinced by messages without any scientific basis, perhaps because it reinforces their critical feeling against institutions (including scientists) or because denialist messages are simpler and more direct. In any case, 'misinformation is extremely persuasive, apparently more so than scientific information.' "Only the most convinced group of people, who were asked to think deeply about the accuracy of the information they found online, showed a slight advantage" over those who get carried away by denialist messages.
''Research in this field is still in its infancy. Therefore, we will continue our work and look for more effective forms of intervention. It is increasingly urgent to combat this phenomenon, which delays the application of certain urgent climate change mitigation measures,'' concludes Tobia Spampatti.
