Advertisement

When Facts Lie: The Impact of Misleading Numbers in Climate Change News

  • Marlis StubenvollEmail author
  • Franziska Marquart
Chapter
  • 713 Downloads
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

This study examines how numerical misinformation in the news can lead to a bias in readers’ own judgment on climate change issues after a retraction. Building on theories of the continued influence effect and anchoring, the experimental research investigates the link between inaccurate facts, biased estimations, and the evaluation of climate change policies and risks. The results indicate that presenting participants with a low number on the carbon footprint of commuting traffic induces a bias into their own estimated values. This effect appears regardless of the participants’ level of issue involvement. However, the study finds no subsequent effect of this bias on participants’ policy support or perceived threat of climate change. The results are discussed in light of anchoring and misinformation theories. The paper proposes media literacy as a fruitful avenue to a more accurate understanding of climate change in view of a factually flawed representation of climate change in the news.

Keywords

Climate change Misinformation Continued influence effect Anchoring 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the professors Martin Schönhart, Monika Kobzina, and Ika Darnhofer from the University of Life Sciences, Vienna, who helped distribute the survey and, of course, to the students who took the time to participate.

References

  1. Brüggemann M (2017) Wissenschafts-Kommunikation im Trump-o-zän: Wie wir alle das post-faktische Zeitalter verhindern können [Science Communication in the “Trumpocene”—How we can prevent the post-factual age]. klimafakten.de. Accessed 18 May 2017. https://www.klimafakten.de
  2. Carvalho A (2007) Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change. Public Underst Sci 16(2):223–243.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506066775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cho CH, Martens ML, Kim H, Rodrigue M (2011) Astroturfing global warming: it isn’t always greener on the other side of the fence. J Bus Ethics 104(4):571–587.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0950-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S, Fenton O, Martin K (2014) Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation. Mem Cogn 42:292–304.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0358-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Englich B, Mussweiler T, Strack F (2006) Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32:188–200.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feinholdt A (2016) What is done cannot be undone? The role of misinformation in news framing effects. In: Fight or flight: affective news framing effects. Dissertation, Amsterdam School of Communication Research, pp 115–146Google Scholar
  7. Flood E (2016) ‘Post-truth’ named word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries. The Guardian, 15 November. Accessed 18 Nov 2017. https://www.theguardian.com
  8. Furnham A, Boo HC (2011) A literature review of the anchoring effect. J Socio-Econ 40:35–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garrett RK, Nisbet EC, Lynch EK (2013) Undermining the corrective effects of media-based political fact checking? The role of contextual cues and naïve theory. J Commun 63:617–637.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hart PS (2013) The role of numeracy in moderating the influence of statistics in climate change messages. Public Underst Sci 22(7):785–798.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513482268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Hochschild J, Einstein KL (2015) ‘It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so’: misinformation and democratic politics. Br J Polit Sci 45(3):467–475.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s000712341400043xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacowitz K, Kahneman D (1995) Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 21(11):1161–1166.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672952111004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kenny C (2016) Trump: ‘nobody really knows’ if climate change is real. CNN politics. Accessed 18 May 2017. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/11/politics/
  15. Kuklinski JH, Quirk PJ, Schwieder DW, Rich RF (1998) “Just the facts, ma’am”: political facts and public opinion. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 560:143–154.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716298560001011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Change 77(1):45–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, Schwarz N, Cook J (2012) Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest 13(3):106–131.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lundberg E (2017) How the blogosphere spread and amplified the daily mail’s unsupported allegations of climate data manipulation. Climate feedback. Accessed 18 May 2017. https://medium.com/climate-feedback/
  19. Magistrat der Stadt Wien (2009) Klimaschutzprogramm der Stadt Wien. Fortschreibung 2010–2020 [Climate protection plan of the city of Vienna]. Accessed 19 May 2017. https://www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/klimaschutz/pdf/klip2-lang.pdf
  20. McCright AM, Charters M, Dentzman K, Dietz T (2016) Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Top Cogn Sci 8:76–97.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mussweiler T, Strack F, Pfeiffer T (2000) Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2(9):1142–1150.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nisbet EC, Hart PS, Myers T, Ellithorpe M (2013) Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. J Commun 63(4):766–785.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nyhan B, Reifler J (2010) When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Polit Behav 32(2):303–330.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Putschögl M (2015) Hadern mit dem Gürtelspeck [Quarrels with the commuting belt]. Der Standard. 30 May, p 9Google Scholar
  25. Sagarin BJ, Cialdini RB, Rice WE, Serna SB (2002) Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: the motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 83(3):526–541.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schul Y, Mayo R (2014) Discounting information: when false information is preserved and when it is not. In: Rapp DN, Braasch JLG (eds) Processing inaccurate information: theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. The MIT Press, London, pp 203–221Google Scholar
  27. Seifert CM (2014) The continued influence effect: the persistence of misinformation in memory and reasoning following correction. In: Rapp DN, Braasch JLG (eds) Processing inaccurate information: theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. The MIT Press, London, pp 39–71Google Scholar
  28. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5(2):207–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Rosenthal S, Maibach E (2017) Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Glob Chall 1(2).  https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wegener DT, Petty RE, Detweiler-Bedell B, Jarvis WBG (2001) Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. J Exp Soc Psychol 37(1):62–69.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zuwerink Jacks J, Cameron KA (2003) Strategies for resisting persuasion. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 25(2):145–161.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2502_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of CommunicationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Amsterdam School of Communication ResearchUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations