A new study reveals that even staunch supporters of climate science can be influenced by repeated exposure to climate-skeptical statements. This finding highlights the power of repetition in shaping beliefs, regardless of one’s initial stance on climate change.
The Illusory Truth Effect in Climate Communication
Researchers from The Australian National University and the University of Southern California conducted experiments to explore how repetition affects the perceived truthfulness of climate-related claims. The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, found that a single repetition of a statement was enough to increase its believability among participants.
Lead author Mary Jiang explained, “People find claims of climate skeptics more credible when they have been repeated just once. Surprisingly, this increase in belief as a result of repetition occurs even when people identify as a strong endorser of climate science.”
The study involved two experiments with 52 and 120 participants respectively. At least 90% of participants across both experiments endorsed the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. Participants were exposed to a series of statements, including climate-skeptical claims, climate science facts, and neutral weather-related information. After a 15-minute interval, they reviewed a second set of statements, half of which were repetitions from the first round.
Implications for Climate Communication and Misinformation
The results showed that repetition increased the perceived validity of all claim types, including those that participants later identified as contradicting their own beliefs. This effect held true even for participants who self-identified as “Alarmed” by climate change in the Six Americas Super Short Survey.
Associate Professor Eryn Newman, a co-author of the study, emphasized the broader implications of these findings: “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.”
The researchers warn that giving equal exposure to opposing voices in climate reporting may inadvertently lend credibility to skeptical claims. “While balanced reporting ensures fairness, it does not always paint an accurate or helpful picture and can add fuel to the fire,” Jiang noted.
Why it matters: This study underscores the challenges of combating misinformation in the digital age. As climate change becomes an increasingly pressing issue, understanding how information spreads and influences beliefs is crucial for effective communication and policy-making.
The research team suggests that further studies should explore the effects of repetition on other contentious issues, such as immigration, education, and healthcare. They also recommend investigating how climate skeptics are affected by repeated exposure to claims supporting climate science.
While the findings highlight the risks of spreading false information, they also point to potential strategies for reinforcing scientific consensus. The study found that repeating claims aligned with climate scientists also increased their perceived truthfulness among participants who already agreed with them.
As the world grapples with the urgent need for climate action, this research serves as a reminder of the complex psychological factors at play in shaping public opinion. It calls for careful consideration of how climate information is presented and repeated in media and public discourse.
