{"id":290358,"date":"2023-12-07T15:36:57","date_gmt":"2023-12-07T14:36:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=290358"},"modified":"2023-12-07T15:37:02","modified_gmt":"2023-12-07T14:37:02","slug":"why-wont-those-troglodytes-trust-us-and-how-how-how-can-we-finally-get-through-to-them-number-eleventy-zillion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=290358","title":{"rendered":"Why Won\u2019t those Troglodytes Trust Us and How, How, How! Can We Finally Get Through to THEM?!!! Number Eleventy Zillion"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

More rending of garments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s a lot of bad science papers out there, but this may be a hall of famer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

nature human behavior presents:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It is clearly written by \u201csocial science\u201d \u201cresearchers\u201d whose knowledge of the underlying subject matter is on a level of grade school indoctrination. Well\u2026high school these days. Here is the abstract, emphasis mine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled,<\/em><\/strong> 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<\/em>\u2009=\u20096,816), the effectiveness of six inoculation strategies targeting these factors\u2014scientific consensus, trust in scientists, transparent communication, moralization of climate action, accuracy and positive emotions\u2014to fight real-world disinformation about climate science and mitigation actions. While exposure to disinformation had strong detrimental effects on participants\u2019 climate change beliefs (\u03b4<\/em>\u2009=\u2009\u22120.16), affect towards climate mitigation action (\u03b4<\/em>\u2009=\u2009\u22120.33), ability to detect disinformation (\u03b4<\/em>\u2009=\u2009\u22120.14) and pro-environmental behaviour (\u03b4<\/em>\u2009=\u2009\u22120.24), we found almost no evidence for protective effects of the inoculations <\/em><\/strong>(all \u03b4<\/em>\u2009<\u20090.20). We discuss the implications of these findings and propose ways forward to fight climate disinformation.https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41562-023-01736-0<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That stupid public discourse and all those knuckle-dragging morons who dare, actually dare to doubt our sacred SETTLED SCIENCE\u00ae<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper gives the standard party line, citing the IPPCC, Orekes, and Lewandosky, about sacred truths and evil disinformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The sixth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) unequivocally declared that climate change is real and that humans are driving it1<\/a>,2<\/a><\/sup>. Whereas 97\u201399% of climate scientists agree about the human causation of climate change3<\/a>,4<\/a>,5<\/a><\/sup>, one third of the global population doubts or denies its anthropogenic roots6<\/a>,7<\/a>,8<\/a><\/sup>. This can be traced back to half a century of disinformation by the climate change countermovement, comprising fossil fuel corporations and their front groups, scientists-for-hire and lobbied politicians, who have contested climate science and are now delaying necessary climate mitigation actions9<\/a>,10<\/a>,11<\/a>,12<\/a>,13<\/a>,14<\/a>,15<\/a>,16<\/a>,17<\/a><\/sup>. This multi-million-dollar public relations effort18<\/a>,19<\/a>,20<\/a>,21<\/a>,22<\/a><\/sup> operates mainly via popular communication avenues3<\/a>,23<\/a>,24<\/a><\/sup>, such as traditional25<\/a>,26<\/a>,27<\/a><\/sup> and social media28<\/a>,29<\/a>,30<\/a><\/sup>, to shape climate discourse and political decision-making17<\/a>,29<\/a><\/sup>. Their claims take up legitimate concerns that people express\u2014such as high costs or uncertain efficacy of climate action\u2014but qualify as disinformation because these concerns are intentionally distorted and amplified into misleading claims31<\/a>,32<\/a><\/sup> such as bad-faith questioning of the scientific consensus33<\/a><\/sup>, overemphasizing the socio-financial burden of climate mitigation policies14<\/a>,34<\/a><\/sup> and scaremongering citizens into inaction through climate doomism14<\/a><\/sup>. Unfortunately, climate disinformation can be more persuasive than scientifically accurate information35<\/a>,36<\/a>,37<\/a>,38<\/a><\/sup> (see also ref. 39<\/a><\/sup>).https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41562-023-01736-0<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So, with no understanding of how scientific skepticism actually functions, the authors then launch into their assertions about how and why people think they do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

People process scientific messages not as neutral information processors but rather by weighing the messages against their prior convictions40<\/a>,41<\/a>,42<\/a>,43<\/a>,44<\/a>,45<\/a><\/sup>, against desired outcomes46<\/a>,47<\/a>,48<\/a>,49<\/a><\/sup>, against affective associations50<\/a>,51<\/a><\/sup> and through the lens of their sociocultural and ideological contexts52<\/a>,53<\/a>,54<\/a>,55<\/a><\/sup> (see reviews in refs. 56<\/a>,57<\/a>,58<\/a>,59<\/a>,60<\/a><\/sup>). When these psychological factors are misaligned with scientific information about climate change, antiscience beliefs fester39<\/a>,61<\/a><\/sup> and become resistant to correction57<\/a><\/sup>. Two recent reviews offer distinct yet complementary perspectives on how (dis)information and (anti)science beliefs hinge on different communicational bases and psychological drivers. Philipp-Muller and colleagues61<\/a><\/sup> identified the different communicational bases on which (anti)science beliefs can build: the sources of scientific messages, the scientific messages themselves, the recipients of the scientific messages and the recipients\u2019 epistemic style. In parallel, Ecker and colleagues57<\/a><\/sup> grouped the psychological drivers influencing (dis)information belief formation and revision into cognitive and socio-affective drivers, depending on the psychological pathways they act on to facilitate or hinder belief formation and updating. Overall, both analyses affirmed that people\u2019s capacity and motivation to process information and disinformation\u2014(dis)information henceforth\u2014is conditional to the (mis)alignment of scientific information about climate change with specific communicational and\/or psychological factors57<\/a>,61<\/a><\/sup>.

Here we adapt these factors to construct a comprehensive framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating (Table 1<\/a>). In this framework, the processing of scientific (dis)information is mapped onto its core communicational bases61<\/a><\/sup>: sources, messages and recipients. These communicational bases are the entry points62<\/a><\/sup> where different psychological factors can influence (anti)science belief formation and updating through cognitive or socio-affective pathways57<\/a><\/sup>.https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41562-023-01736-0<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Table 1 Comprehensive framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

From: Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/th>Core communicational bases<\/th><\/tr>
Sources of scientific messages<\/th>Scientific messages themselves<\/th>Recipients of scientific messages<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Psychological drivers<\/strong><\/td>Cognitive pathway<\/td>Driver<\/td>Consideration of scientific sources<\/td>Match\/mismatch with prior beliefs<\/td>(Lack of) analytical thinking and\/or deliberation<\/td><\/tr>
Proposed intervention<\/td>Scientific consensus inoculation<\/td>Transparent communication inoculation<\/td>Accuracy inoculation<\/td><\/tr>
Socio-affective pathway<\/td>Driver<\/td>Trust in scientific sources<\/td>Match\/mismatch with moral convictions<\/td>Emotional state during message processing<\/td><\/tr>
Proposed intervention<\/td>Trust inoculation<\/td>Moralization inoculation<\/td>Positive emotions inoculation<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. The table shows the interplay between the communicational bases and psychological drivers of (anti)science belief formation and updating, and the theory-based psychological inoculations designed to address each entry point. Note that the boundaries between the cognitive and socio-affective pathways are permeable, and the effects of most interventions meant to address one pathway will very probably spill out to the other pathway of scientific (dis)information processing. For example, we consider the transparent communication inoculation to act on the cognitive driver \u2018match\/mismatch with prior beliefs\u2019; however, its effects can spill over towards the socio-affective driver \u2018trust in scientific sources\u2019112<\/a>,113<\/a><\/sup>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Wandering through the citations scattered throughout this paper will probably spawn a future post or two from me, but there\u2019s plenty here for multiple PhD\u2019s is someone wants to research the construction of alternate realities based on academic nonsense as well as the crossover subject of institutional capture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Comedy writers or jargon generators couldn\u2019t do better. Put down your coffee before reading the next quote box.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    In summary, here we integrated previous analyses into a comprehensive framework of the communicational and psychological factors influencing (anti)science belief formation and updating. On the basis of this integrated, theory-driven perspective, we introduce a set of broad-spectrum psychological inoculations to protect against climate disinformation that act on each of the identified entry points and pathways:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n