The Role of Scientists in Correcting Misinformation: Political Framing and Source Characteristics

Abstract

Presenters: Claudia Acciai, Natalie Schroyens, Friedonlin Merhout, Mathias Wullum Nielsen The spread of misinformation on topics like climate change underscores the need for scientific expertise to correct public misconceptions. Trust in scientists and their messages is vital for science's role in shaping public opinion and tackling societal challenges. However, the growing politicization of science poses barriers to effective science communication. Prior research indicates that media consumers are more inclined to accept scientific information that aligns with their existing beliefs, with partisans showing particular receptivity to messages that resonate with their priors. Beyond these ‘message effects’, the perception of the message's source can also play a role in its effectiveness. However, research on this issue remains scarce. We add to previous scholarship on misinformation and public perceptions of science by examining the interplay between source characteristics and message framing in shaping the credibility and effectiveness of scientists' corrections of misinformation, integrating insights from scholarship on political framing and demographic status cues. Specifically, we focus on the impact of the scientists’ race (source effect), the political framing of their corrections (message effect), and the combined influence of these factors, in a survey experiment with 4,000 US Republican voters, targeting misinformation about green energy. This focus is motivated by the known skepticism among Republican voters toward green energy, a divisive issue, that stalls the transition from fossil fuels away. Moreover, the reduced trust in climate science among Republicans, partly due to politicized climate discourse, highlights the need for targeted communication strategies effectively engaging this group. We use a between-subjects experimental design, randomly assigning participants across six conditions (full-factorial 2x3 design). Participants are presented with a news article containing misinformation consistent with Republican viewpoints on either wind energy or electric vehicles, along with a correction from a scientific expert. We vary the expert's race and the political resonance of the frame of their correction. Additionally, a control group receives an article with misinformation but no correction, allowing us to evaluate the uncorrected misinformation's perceived credibility. By focusing on the micro-level mechanisms shaping the perceived credibility of corrections, our study contributes to a broader understanding of how the spread of misinformation might be halted.