ArticleNature human behaviour2024
Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sampling and processing of climate change information and disinformation across three diverse countries.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Fighting fire with fire: Prebunking with the use of a plausible meta-conspiracy framing.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Blueprint of a smokescreen: Introducing the validated climate disinformation corpus for behavioural research on combating climate disinformation.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Social connectedness as a pathway towards climate resilience: exploring climate change scepticism with machine learning approaches and mediation regression models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Social and experiential factors linked to concern about climate-related health harm in the United States.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Reply to: Corrections are effective for science misinformation.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Prebunking and credible source corrections increase election credibility: Evidence from the US and Brazil.Science advances · 2025Article
- Gender and ideological orientation moderate the influence of climate misinformation on pro-environmental behavioural intentions.The British journal of social psychology · 2025Article
- Political ideology and trust in scientists in the USA.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- China's social fake news database release with brain structural, functional, and behavioural measures.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Public agreement with misinformation about wind farms.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Investigating the role of source and source trust in prebunks and debunks of misinformation in online experiments across four EU countries.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Assessing inoculation's effectiveness in motivating resistance to conspiracy propaganda in Finnish and United States samples.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled, climate disinformation still challenges the scientific evidence in public discourse. Here we present a comprehensive theoretical framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating to account for the psychological factors that influence the acceptance or rejection of scientific messages. We experimentally investigated, across 12 countries (N = 6,816), the effectiveness of six inoculation strategies targeting these factors-scientific consensus, trust in scientists, transparent communication, moralization of climate action, accuracy and positive emotions-to fight real-world disinformation about climate science and mitigation actions. While exposure to disinformation had strong detrimental effects on participants' climate change beliefs (δ = -0.16), affect towards climate mitigation action (δ = -0.33), ability to detect disinformation (δ = -0.14) and pro-environmental behaviour (δ = -0.24), we found almost no evidence for protective effects of the inoculations (all δ < 0.20). We discuss the implications of these findings and propose ways forward to fight climate disinformation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.