Swiss Centre for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Feb;8(2):380-398. doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01736-0. Epub 2023 Nov 30.
Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled, climate disinformation still challenges the scientific evidence in public discourse. Here we present a comprehensive theoretical framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating to account for the psychological factors that influence the acceptance or rejection of scientific messages. We experimentally investigated, across 12 countries (N = 6,816), the effectiveness of six inoculation strategies targeting these factors-scientific consensus, trust in scientists, transparent communication, moralization of climate action, accuracy and positive emotions-to fight real-world disinformation about climate science and mitigation actions. While exposure to disinformation had strong detrimental effects on participants' climate change beliefs (δ = -0.16), affect towards climate mitigation action (δ = -0.33), ability to detect disinformation (δ = -0.14) and pro-environmental behaviour (δ = -0.24), we found almost no evidence for protective effects of the inoculations (all δ < 0.20). We discuss the implications of these findings and propose ways forward to fight climate disinformation.
几十年后，关于气候变化的人为原因的科学争论得到了解决，但气候虚假信息仍然在公共话语中对科学证据提出质疑。在这里，我们提出了一个全面的（反）科学信仰形成和更新的理论框架，以解释影响人们接受或拒绝科学信息的心理因素。我们在 12 个国家（N=6816）进行了实验，研究了针对这些因素的六种接种策略的有效性——科学共识、对科学家的信任、透明沟通、气候行动的道德化、准确性和积极情绪——以对抗关于气候科学和缓解行动的真实世界虚假信息。尽管接触虚假信息对参与者的气候变化信念（δ=-0.16）、对气候缓解行动的态度（δ=-0.33）、识别虚假信息的能力（δ=-0.14）和环保行为（δ=-0.24）产生了强烈的不利影响，但我们几乎没有发现接种的保护作用的证据（所有 δ<0.20）。我们讨论了这些发现的意义，并提出了打击气候虚假信息的方法。
