Repetition of Climate-Skeptic Claims Can Undermine Even Strong Climate Advocates

New research reveals that climate change skepticism can be powerful enough to sway even the biggest believers in climate science. The study from The Australian National University (ANU), which also included experts from the University of Southern California and the University of Melbourne, notes that the “threat of misinformation runs rampant in our digital age, where a single repetition of a climate-sceptical claim seems more true even to the staunchest of climate change endorsers.”

To figure this out, researchers examined whether hearing a climate-skeptic claim multiple times from the same source makes people more likely to believe it, even if it contradicts their own views on climate change.

According to Mary Jiang, an ANU PhD student who is the study’s lead author, noted that while participants were generally more inclined to trust claims supported by climate scientists over those from climate skeptics or deniers, the impact of repetition can still be significant and troubling.

"More than 90 per cent of the study participants endorse climate science. While participants perceived claims aligned with climate scientists to be more truthful than claims aligned with climate scepticism, both types of claims seemed truer when repeated," she said. "This increase in perceived truth after repetition occurred even for groups highly concerned about climate change, and when people could later identify that the claim supports the other side."

Jiang also warned that while climate skepticism is not based in reality, it can be presented alongside scientific facts out of a misconception of what constitutes “balanced reporting.”

She added:

"Giving equal exposure to opposing voices makes it sound like the evidence and number of people in favour of each view is also equal. But most, if not all, climate scientists agree on human-induced climate change. While balanced reporting ensures fairness, it does not always paint an accurate or helpful picture and can add fuel to the fire."

The study was published against the backdrop of a worldwide push for climate action, with 89% of people in favor of more concrete solutions, according to recent figures. The effects of repetition can be “insidious” and breathe life into misinformation that impacts us all.

"A feeling of familiarity is not a reliable cue to truth in digital environments where bots and other mechanisms can lead to a broad spread of false or misleading claims," said ANU Associate Professor Eryn Newman, a study co-author. Newman pointed out that broader literature indicates that “being smarter or more critical in the analysis of information does not seem to protect people from shifts in belief because of repetition.”

Jiang did say that those who participated in the study “rated claims that were aligned with climate scientists as more true when they were repeated than when they were not, implying that it is beneficial to repeat claims that have scientific consensus, even when recipients are already in agreement with it,” so the study results aren’t as morose as they might sound.

However, more research is necessary to understand if repeating counter-attitudinal information has the same impact on other groups, like climate skeptics who were less represented in the study. The researchers also aim to explore whether repeating misleading claims can affect people with mixed views on topics such as immigration, education, and healthcare.