“Inoculating” people against misinformation may give scientific facts a shot at survival.
In the battle between facts and fake news, facts are at a disadvantage. Researchers have found that facts alone rarely dislodge misperceptions, and in some cases even strengthen mistaken beliefs.
That’s just as true for climate change as it is for any other politically polarized issue in the US. The theory of identity-protective cognition,
developed by Yale Law professor Dan Kahan, holds that we subconsciously
resist any facts that threaten our defining values — and better
reasoning skills may make us even better at resisting. People who are
more scientifically literate, for instance, are even more divided about
the risks of climate change than those who are less scientifically
literate.
Deliberate campaigns against climate change science — like the one launched by the American Petroleum Institute in the late 1990s
that’s been much imitated since — have taken advantage of this
tendency, encouraging resistance to the facts by exaggerating the
uncertainty inherent in the science.
But two recent, preliminary studies suggest there’s hope
for the facts about climate change. Borrowing from the medical lexicon,
these studies show that it may be possible to metaphorically “inoculate”
people against misinformation about climate change, and by doing so
give the facts a boost. What’s more, these researchers suggest,
strategic inoculation could create a level of “herd immunity” and
undercut the overall effects of fake news.
“Nobody likes to be misled, no matter their politics”
Psychologists have known for decades that people are more
resistant to misinformation if they’re warned about it beforehand.
Teens who are warned about the dangers of smoking are less likely to
succumb to their friends’ arguments in favor of it; people who are
warned about pro-sugar campaigns by soda companies are less likely to
fall for them. These “inoculation messages” can even work retroactively,
changing the minds of those who have already been influenced by
misinformation.
John Cook, a cognitive scientist at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University in Virginia, recently tested the strength of inoculation messages against the notorious Oregon Petition, which uses fake experts to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change.
In the journal PLOS One,
Cook and his colleagues reported that when about 100 study participants
were presented with the misinformation alone, their views did further
polarize along political lines. But when another group of participants
were first warned about a general strategy used in misinformation
campaigns — in this case, they were told that fake experts had often
been used by the tobacco industry to question the scientific consensus
about the effects of tobacco on health, and were shown an ad with the
text “20,679 physicians say ‘Luckies are less irritating’” — the
polarizing effect of the misinformation was completely neutralized.
“Nobody likes to be misled, no matter their politics,”
says Cook. He suggests that inoculation messages may serve to put
listeners on alert for trickery, making them more likely to scrutinize
the information they receive.
Cook’s research complements findings by Sander van der
Linden, a psychology professor at Cambridge, who has also tested the
strength of inoculation messages against the Oregon Petition. In a study published in the journal Global Challenges
earlier this year, van der Linden and his colleagues presented more
than 2,000 participants of varying political beliefs with one of two
inoculation messages. The first, shorter message stated that “some
politically motivated groups use misleading tactics to try to convince
the public that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists.”
Participants were then told that among climate scientists, there is
virtually no disagreement that humans are causing climate change. The
longer message specifically debunked the Oregon Petition before
informing participants about the scientific consensus.
Both messages were equally effective across the political
spectrum; the shorter message protected the effects of the scientific
consensus on participants by one-third, while the longer one protected
by about two-thirds. Inoculation, in other words, doesn’t insulate the
facts from damage, but it does give them a shot at survival.
Come hither, climate skeptic, and listen to this tall tale.
Start with the facts, then debunk the myth
Both Cook and van der Linden say that while we do tend to
resist facts that challenge our defining values, that defensive
reaction can be circumvented. Previous studies by van der Linden and
others show that the scientific consensus on the magnitude and causes of
climate change can serve as what van der Linden calls a “gateway
belief,” in that its acceptance can be a first step toward a more
comprehensive change of views.
“Consensus messages don’t ask people to change their
beliefs — they ask them to change their opinion about what other people
believe, so they’re not a direct threat to their identity,” says van der
Linden. “We’ve found that they’re one way to get people more aligned on
the side of climate science.” Because consensus opinions from a
respected group tend to be accepted as much if not more readily by
conservatives than liberals, he says, they appear to decrease rather
than increase polarization.
For Cook, who founded the Skeptical Science
blog 10 years ago and is still actively combating misinformation about
climate change, the results of the inoculation studies are immediately
applicable. He used to try to avoid mentioning the misinformation when
trying to debunk it, but now he confronts the fakery with an inoculation
message. “You can’t talk around it; otherwise it persists,” he says.
“What’s important is to lead with the facts — the facts are the headline
— then introduce the myth, and then explain why it’s wrong.”
Earlier this month, Cook deployed this strategy in a response to a National Review article
that used his own work to question the scientific consensus on climate
change. “There is a consensus of evidence that human activity is causing
all of recent global warming. Not some of it. Not even most of it. All
of it,” his 1,000-word critique begins. Not until the sixth paragraph
does he begin the inoculation: “Unfortunately, it’s all-too-easy to
mislead people into thinking that experts disagree on human-caused
global warming,” he writes. “If you want to work out whether you’re
getting taken in with the fake-expert strategy, take a closer look at
the ‘experts’ who are being cited.”
He then outlines the typical strategies used by climate
deniers, such as the use of fake experts, logical fallacies, and
conspiracy theories to undermine the scientific consensus, before moving
on to a critique of the original article.
Of course, we can’t always deploy such lengthy and
detailed debunkings. But Cook points out that even very brief, general
warnings about science denialism strategies appear to have a significant
inoculation effect — suggesting that they may work as wide-spectrum
“vaccines” against many kinds of misinformation. He’s also heartened by
the possibility that inoculation messages could create a kind of herd
immunity: Other researchers have found that when people receive
inoculation messages against public health misinformation, they spread
their immunity to misinformation through conversation.
In the US in particular, climate change has become so
politicized that what Cook calls “climate silence” is often observed in
polite company. “It’s become this taboo topic that people are reluctant
to talk about,” he says. “But when people understand both sides of a
controversial topic, they’re more confident in talking about it. So
inoculation can encourage people to break climate silence.”
“Teaching the controversy” isn’t such a bad idea — as long as you distinguish fact from fiction
While even brief inoculation messages can have lasting
effects, permanent immunity requires repeated treatments — preferably
starting with kids. Former climate denialists who have “converted” to
support of the scientific consensus, such as Jerry Taylor of the
Niskanen Center, often point to an informal inoculation message as the
beginning of their reconsideration of the issue, but say their transformation took years to accomplish.
When Cook started Skeptical Science in 2007, he thought
that climate denialism — and his blog — would disappear within a few
years. Now he’s convinced that inoculation messaging needs to be used
more widely and systematically in education, and he’s incorporated it
into his own university and online courses.
One unexpected benefit, he reports, is that addressing the
misinformation alongside the facts doesn’t confuse, but instead adds
interest.
“Because inoculation presents both the facts and the
myths, it creates this conflict — students want to know how these two
things can exist together,” he says. “So you have to resolve it, and
that turns into a compelling story.”
Inoculating Republican leaders and Republican voters
against the climate misinformation in their own party platform would
surely take time, especially since so many are constantly exposed to new
misinformation. But Cook is encouraged, both by his results and by his
personal experience: When the right message is combined with the right
messenger — one who shares the values of his or her audience — the facts
have a fighting chance.