People’s views on the climate crisis may be influenced by the media, according to a new study. But accurate scientific reporting has only a limited impact on people who already have a fixed political perspective, especially if they oppose climate action.
Researchers who conducted an experiment in the United States to find out how people react to media reports on climate found that people’s views on climate science have indeed changed by reading reports that accurately reflect scientific findings. They were also more inclined to support policies that would address the problem.
But the effect quickly faded, especially when people were exposed to other media outlets questioning climate science, according to a document to be published Friday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Thomas Wood, an associate professor of political science at Ohio State University who led the study, said: “It’s not like the American public doesn’t react to scientifically informed reports when exposed to them. But even factually accurate scientific reports are moving away from people’s reference frame very quickly.
He suggested that one way to increase the impact of accurate scientific reports is to repeat them more often. “It was amazing to us how susceptible the subjects in our study were to what they read [in scientifically accurate reporting] on climate change in our study. But what they learned faded very quickly, “he said. “What we found suggests that people need to hear the same accurate messages about climate change over and over again. If they only hear it once, it goes away very quickly. “
Sign up for the First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BST
Researchers hired 2,898 online participants, who were first asked to read media articles covering the exact science of climate in the fall of 2020.
In the second and third stages of the experiment, one week apart, the same participants were placed in randomized groups who were asked in different ways to read from another scientific article; an opinion that calls into question climate science; an article discussing the guerrilla debate on the climate crisis; or another “placebo” article about something unrelated, like cooking.
In the fourth stage, participants were asked about their attitudes towards politics and their understanding of climate science. After each stage, participants were asked if they believed that climate change was happening and caused by humans. They were also asked if they preferred renewable energy.
After the first phase, some people who were skeptical about climate science reported a change in attitudes and were more inclined to consider government action on climate change and renewable energy. However, by the third and fourth stages, such people had largely returned to their previous positions.
The researchers concluded: “Exposure to scientific content improves factual accuracy, but improvements are short-lived and can no longer be detected by the end of our study. We also find that exposing content that is skeptical of science can neutralize or reverse progress.
“Contrary to expectations, we do not find that exposing news focused on guerrilla conflict reduces actual accuracy. Immediately after the exhibition, the scientific coverage of climate change increased support for government action to tackle climate change, but this effect faded over time.
The impact of reading materials that call into question climate science has had a greater impact on Republicans and those who are already inclined to deny climate science.
The study was conducted in the United States, where science reporting is often strongly politically skewed and where many attitudes seem to reflect a partisan approach to even the basic facts. Most Republicans, for example, say they believe the 2020 presidential election was actually won by Donald Trump, not Joe Biden.
Add Comment