Overcoming Confirmation Bias in Misinformation Correction: Effects of Processing Motive and Jargon on Climate Change Policy Support

Abstract

A 2 (jargon vs. no jargon) × 3 (motive: control vs. accuracy vs. impression) between-subjects experiment examined the impact of jargon and processing motive in correcting climate change misinformation and promoting policy support. The results revealed a positive effect of jargon use when participants were asked to focus on accuracy during information processing. This effect was mediated by reduced anger, increased systematic processing, and enhanced perceptions of message credibility. However, jargon had a negative effect when no specific motive was induced, and it did not make a difference in correction outcomes when participants were asked to focus on making positive social impressions. These findings provide theoretical implications for information processing and practical insights for addressing misinformation in the context of climate change.

Disinformation elicits learning biases

“…This could imply an amplified confirmation bias on social media, where content from sources of uncertain credibility, such as unknown or unverified users, is more easily interpreted in a self-serving manner, disproportionately reinforcing existing beliefs 51 . In turn, this could contribute to an exacerbation of the negative social outcomes previously linked to confirmation bias such as polarization 52,53 , the formation of 'echo chambers' 54 , and the persistence of misbelief regarding contemporary issues of importance such as vaccination 55,56 and climate change [57][58][59][60] .…”