Table 3 Science deniers Science deniers...

Table 3

Science deniers

Science deniers
Text passage	Category	Main category
Science deniers publicly oppose scientific results and spread misinformation	SD oppose science	Characteristics of SD
Science deniers […] spread misinformation	SD spread misinformation
Creating the appearance of scientific uncertainty about issues for which the solution may threaten these interests is therefore critical to this […] infrastructure	Create doubts and uncertainty is essential for SD
[…] people do not adopt the scientific process, weighing up the evidence before reaching a conclusion	SD do not recognize scientific evidence
[…] they often operate like cognitive lawyers, engaging in a biased and selective search for information, with a view to reinforcing their preexisting attitude. In this process of motivated reasoning, evidence is sampled and critiqued selectively in order to reinforce what one wants to believe	SD search for information that reinforce their attitude
Science deniers accept evidence only if it confirms their prior beliefs – that usually contradict the scientific consensus	SD accept scientific evidence only if it matches their belief
In particular, these segments were less likely to believe climate science	SD do not believe in climate science
Denialism is typically driven by ideology, politics, or religious belief	Reasons for denialism
Public attitudes about climate change can be successfully “inoculated” against misinformation by exposing people to a dose of refuted arguments before they hear them	Public inoculation	Debunking strategies
Neutralize potential misinformation before it is encoded, a technique colloquially known as “prebunking”	Prebunking
We […] propose a coordinated set of strategies across four interconnected areas: public inoculation, legal strategies, political mechanisms and financial transparency	Set of debunking strategies
Technique rebuttal (uncovering the techniques of science denial). […] Unmasking these techniques will educate the audience about why arguments of denial are appealing but incorrect	Uncover techniques
The public should be inoculated against the sources of scientific misinformation as well, by drawing more explicit attention to exactly who is behind these messages	Uncover source
[…] drawing more explicit attention to exactly who is behind these messages — that is, the financial contributions and economic motivations behind the bad-faith information they will encounter	Uncover economic interests
Advocates for science can respond to misinformation by supporting the scientific standpoint with scientific facts, that is, topic rebuttal	Topic rebuttal
[…] corrections are effective only when at least two conditions are met: first, they must not directly challenge people's worldviews […]	Rectify without questioning SD worldviews
Inoculation […] succeeds when the patient is not already sick	Inoculation only effective before exposure	Limitations of existing approaches
Backfire effects are most likely to be found among audiences whose prior beliefs or political ideologies are threatened by the advocate. For example, attempts to correct misconceptions about vaccination in an audience with low confidence in the safety of vaccination can ironically reinforce the misconception	Backfire effects
Misinformation often continues to influence people's thinking even after they receive and accept a correction – this is known as the “continued influence effect”	Rectification is never fully effective
[…] a mere provision of facts has been criticized as insufficient to reduce the influence of misinformation because […] it lacks the important explanation of why the misinformation is wrong	Information transfer is not enough
It is not enough simply to communicate to the public over and again the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change	Repetition of scientific truths is not enough
[…] narratives can also perpetuate misinformation and inaccuracies about science or about scientists themselves	Storytelling can reinforce SD's arguments
Researchers have begun to tease apart factors that influence the cultural cognitive process of interpreting scientific information, noting the importance of individuals' religiosity; political affiliation; beliefs about the role scientists should play in policy-making; beliefs about the relative independence of science from economic and political interests; levels of trust in venues that disseminate science information (such as news media, government, science TV); and geographical context	Response depends on various factors
Narratives have the ability to introduce novel information, defamiliarize existing information and provide models for new behavior often without the same level of cognitive resistance facing other types of persuasion	Storytelling	Suggested communication strategies
[…] framing as a technique for tailoring climate change communication to engage diverse publics	Framing
Metaphors ‘as a bridge between experience and scientific concepts’ are essential to understanding climate change	Metaphors
In order for climate science information to be fully absorbed by audiences, it must be actively communicated with appropriate language, metaphor and analogy; combined with narrative storytelling; made vivid through visual imagery and experiential scenarios; balanced with scientific information; and delivered by trusted messengers in group settings	Set of communication strategies
[…] situating climate change in terms of an individual's present locality will render the issue more salient and more likely to promote emotional and cognitive engagement with the issue	Link to local issues
stakeholder orientation has to be seen as part of sustainability […] attempts to formulate a unified narrative are unlikely to yield a solution to climate change communication dilemmas	Stakeholder orientation

Science deniers
Text passage	Category	Main category
Science deniers publicly oppose scientific results and spread misinformation	SD oppose science	Characteristics of SD
Science deniers […] spread misinformation	SD spread misinformation
Creating the appearance of scientific uncertainty about issues for which the solution may threaten these interests is therefore critical to this […] infrastructure	Create doubts and uncertainty is essential for SD
[…] people do not adopt the scientific process, weighing up the evidence before reaching a conclusion	SD do not recognize scientific evidence
[…] they often operate like cognitive lawyers, engaging in a biased and selective search for information, with a view to reinforcing their preexisting attitude. In this process of motivated reasoning, evidence is sampled and critiqued selectively in order to reinforce what one wants to believe	SD search for information that reinforce their attitude
Science deniers accept evidence only if it confirms their prior beliefs – that usually contradict the scientific consensus	SD accept scientific evidence only if it matches their belief
In particular, these segments were less likely to believe climate science	SD do not believe in climate science
Denialism is typically driven by ideology, politics, or religious belief	Reasons for denialism
Public attitudes about climate change can be successfully “inoculated” against misinformation by exposing people to a dose of refuted arguments before they hear them	Public inoculation	Debunking strategies
Neutralize potential misinformation before it is encoded, a technique colloquially known as “prebunking”	Prebunking
We […] propose a coordinated set of strategies across four interconnected areas: public inoculation, legal strategies, political mechanisms and financial transparency	Set of debunking strategies
Technique rebuttal (uncovering the techniques of science denial). […] Unmasking these techniques will educate the audience about why arguments of denial are appealing but incorrect	Uncover techniques
The public should be inoculated against the sources of scientific misinformation as well, by drawing more explicit attention to exactly who is behind these messages	Uncover source
[…] drawing more explicit attention to exactly who is behind these messages — that is, the financial contributions and economic motivations behind the bad-faith information they will encounter	Uncover economic interests
Advocates for science can respond to misinformation by supporting the scientific standpoint with scientific facts, that is, topic rebuttal	Topic rebuttal
[…] corrections are effective only when at least two conditions are met: first, they must not directly challenge people's worldviews […]	Rectify without questioning SD worldviews
Inoculation […] succeeds when the patient is not already sick	Inoculation only effective before exposure	Limitations of existing approaches
Backfire effects are most likely to be found among audiences whose prior beliefs or political ideologies are threatened by the advocate. For example, attempts to correct misconceptions about vaccination in an audience with low confidence in the safety of vaccination can ironically reinforce the misconception	Backfire effects
Misinformation often continues to influence people's thinking even after they receive and accept a correction – this is known as the “continued influence effect”	Rectification is never fully effective
[…] a mere provision of facts has been criticized as insufficient to reduce the influence of misinformation because […] it lacks the important explanation of why the misinformation is wrong	Information transfer is not enough
It is not enough simply to communicate to the public over and again the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change	Repetition of scientific truths is not enough
[…] narratives can also perpetuate misinformation and inaccuracies about science or about scientists themselves	Storytelling can reinforce SD's arguments
Researchers have begun to tease apart factors that influence the cultural cognitive process of interpreting scientific information, noting the importance of individuals' religiosity; political affiliation; beliefs about the role scientists should play in policy-making; beliefs about the relative independence of science from economic and political interests; levels of trust in venues that disseminate science information (such as news media, government, science TV); and geographical context	Response depends on various factors
Narratives have the ability to introduce novel information, defamiliarize existing information and provide models for new behavior often without the same level of cognitive resistance facing other types of persuasion	Storytelling	Suggested communication strategies
[…] framing as a technique for tailoring climate change communication to engage diverse publics	Framing
Metaphors ‘as a bridge between experience and scientific concepts’ are essential to understanding climate change	Metaphors
In order for climate science information to be fully absorbed by audiences, it must be actively communicated with appropriate language, metaphor and analogy; combined with narrative storytelling; made vivid through visual imagery and experiential scenarios; balanced with scientific information; and delivered by trusted messengers in group settings	Set of communication strategies
[…] situating climate change in terms of an individual's present locality will render the issue more salient and more likely to promote emotional and cognitive engagement with the issue	Link to local issues
stakeholder orientation has to be seen as part of sustainability […] attempts to formulate a unified narrative are unlikely to yield a solution to climate change communication dilemmas	Stakeholder orientation

Source(s): Authors’ own creation

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable