In our modern digital world, the spread of misinformation is a serious issue, with recent research from The Australian National University (ANU) revealing that simply repeating a climate-skeptical statement can make it seem more credible, even to strong supporters of climate change.
The study aimed to find out if seeing a climate-skeptical statement repeatedly from one source makes people believe it more, regardless of their personal beliefs about climate change.
Mary Jiang, a PhD student at ANU and the lead author of the study, noted that while participants generally preferred claims supported by climate scientists over those promoting skepticism or denial, the impact of repetition remains troubling.
“Over 90% of those involved in the study are supporters of climate science. They regarded statements backing climate science as more truthful compared to those aligned with skepticism, but both kinds of statements were perceived as more truthful when repeated,” she explained.
“This boost in perceived truth from repetition happened even among those who cared deeply about climate change and could recognize that the claims they heard supported a skeptical viewpoint.”
Jiang highlighted that climate-skeptical statements might be presented alongside scientific evidence under the guise of ‘balanced’ reporting.
“Presenting opposing views equally gives the impression that the evidence and number of proponents for each perspective are also balanced. However, nearly all climate scientists agree on the existence of human-induced climate change,” Jiang stated.
“While it’s important to ensure fairness in reporting, this approach can misrepresent the truth and exacerbate the problem.”
Given that recent data shows that 89% of people globally desire increased political action on climate change, the researchers caution against the subtle danger of repetition that can lend undue credibility to climate-skeptical arguments, potentially increasing the risk of misinformation for everyone.
“Even when participants classified claims themselves, indicating they recognized them as skeptical, those who endorsed climate science still found recurring skeptical claims to be more truthful,” Jiang mentioned.
“Our findings demonstrate that even when individuals oppose a repeated claim, consistent exposure from one source can lead them to accept it more readily.”
Co-author and ANU Associate Professor Eryn Newman stated that the results highlight our susceptibility to mere repetition.
“Familiarity is not a reliable indicator of truth, especially in online spaces where bots and other mechanisms can rapidly disseminate false or misleading information,” she pointed out.
“When reviewing existing literature, being more intelligent or critical isn’t a safeguard against changes in belief stemming from repetition.”
“This reflects the crucial role the quality of our information environment plays.”
On a positive note, the researchers say,
“Participants viewed claims supporting climate science as more truthful when they were repeated, suggesting that reinforcing scientifically backed claims is helpful, even among those who already believe in them,” Jiang added.
Further investigation is necessary to determine if repeating counter-attitudinal information affects other groups, such as climate skeptics, who were not adequately represented in this study. The team also aims to explore whether the repetition of misleading claims can sway individuals with mixed beliefs on topics like immigration, education, and healthcare.
“Ultimately, we must be careful about repeating false information. Instead, we should focus on reiterating what is true to build its familiarity,” Associate Professor Newman advised.
The research team also includes specialists from the University of Southern California and the University of Melbourne.
