While much research has revealed the prevalence of climate change misinformation on social media, there is no conclusive evidence about its impact on cultivating public misperceptions. Even less work has been done to examine how social media use may condition the relationships between cognitive orientations, such as epistemic and science populism beliefs, and climate change misperceptions. This study fills this gap by analyzing data from a national representative survey of 1405 US adults. Results confirmed the relationships between cognitive orientations and climate change misperceptions. While neither mainstream nor alternative social media use had a direct impact, both types of social media use conditioned the relationships between cognitive orientations and climate change misperceptions. This study’s findings suggest that social media use’s adverse impact on climate change misperceptions may have been overstated.
AllgaierJ (2019) Science and environmental communication on YouTube: Strategically distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Frontiers in Communication4: 36.
2.
AllingtonDDuffyBWesselySDhavanNRubinJ (2021) Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychological Medicine51(10): 1763–1769.
3.
AltaySBerricheMAcerbiA (2023) Misinformation on misinformation: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Social Media + Society9(1): 150412.
BaschCHYalamanchiliBFeraJ (2022) #Climate change on TikTok: A content analysis of videos. Journal of Community Health47(1): 163–167.
6.
BermanS (2021) The causes of populism in the west. Annual Review of Political Science24: 71–88.
7.
BogertJMBucznyJHarveyJAEllersJ (2024) The effect of trust in science and media use on public belief in anthropogenic climate change: A meta-analysis. Environmental Communication18(4): 484–509.
8.
CalibeoDLHindmarshR (2022) From fake news to echo-chambers: On the limitations of new media for environmental activism in Australia, and “activist-responsive adaptation.”Environmental Communication16(4): 490–504.
9.
ChenL (2024) Combatting climate change misinformation: Current strategies and future directions. Environmental Communication18(1–2): 184–190.
10.
ChockalingamVWuVBerlinskiNChandraZHuAJonesE, et al. (2021) The limited effects of partisan and consensus messaging in correcting science misperceptions. Research & Politics8(2): 1014980.
11.
DamstraADVliegenthartRBoomgaardenHGlüerKLindgrenEStrömbäckJ, et al. (2023) Knowledge and the news: An investigation of the relation between news use, news avoidance, and the presence of (mis)beliefs. The International Journal of Press/politics28(1): 29–48.
12.
de NadalL (2024) From denial to the culture wars: A study of climate misinformation on YouTube. Environmental Communication18(8): 1186–1203.
13.
DiehlTHuberBGil de ZunigaHLiuJ (2021) Social media and beliefs about climate change: A cross-national analysis of news use, political ideology, and trust in science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research33(2): 197–213.
14.
DruckmanJNMcGrathMC (2019) The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change9(2): 111–119.
15.
DuboisEBlankG (2018) The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media, information. Communication & Society21(5): 729–745.
16.
EjazWAltaySFletcherRNielsenRK (2024) Trust is key: Determinants of false beliefs about climate change in eight countries. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 17 May. DOI: 10.1177/14614448241250302.
17.
ErisenCGuidiMMartiniSToprakkiranSIserniaPLittvayL (2021) Psychological correlates of populist attitudes. Political Psychology42(S1): 149–171.
18.
FalkenbergMGaleazziATorricelliMDi MarcoNLarosaFSasM, et al. (2022) Growing polarization around climate change on social media. Nature Climate Change12(12): 1114–1121.
19.
GarrettRK (2019) Social media’s contribution to political misperceptions in U.S. Presidential elections. PLoS ONE14(3): e0213500.
20.
GarrettRKWeeksBE (2017) Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation. PLoS ONE12(9): e0184733.
21.
GrinbergNJosephKFriedlandLSwire-ThompsonBLazerD (2019) Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science363(6425): 374–378.
22.
GuessANaglerJTuckerJ (2019) Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances5(1): eaau4586.
23.
HawkinsIChinnS (2024) Populist views of science: How social media, political affiliation, and Alt-Right support affect scientific attitudes in the United States. Information, Communication & Society27(3): 520–537.
24.
HuberBLepeniesRQuesada BaenaLAllgaierJ (2022a) Beyond individualized responsibility attributions? How eco influencers communicate sustainability on TikTok. Environmental Communication16(6): 713–722.
25.
HuberRAGreussingEEberlJ-M (2022b) From populism to climate scepticism: The role of institutional trust and attitudes towards science. Environmental Politics31(7): 1115–1138.
26.
HungerSPaxtonF (2022) What’s in a buzzword? A systematic review of the state of populism research in political science. Political Science Research and Methods10(3): 617–633.
27.
JohnsonVButterfussRHarschRKendeouP (2025) Patterns of belief and trust in climate change information. Journal of Research in Science Teaching62(3): 655–683.
28.
KahanDPetersEWittlinMSlovicPOuelletteLLBramanD, et al. (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change2(10): 732–735.
29.
KiessJ (2023) Euroscepticism and local far-right mobilization via Telegram in light of the fundamental transformation of the public sphere. Political Studies Review. Epub ahead of print 9 August. DOI: 10.1177/14789299231190731.
30.
KozyrevaALewandowskySHertwigR (2020) Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest21(3): 103–156.
31.
KrangeOKaltenbornBPHultmanM (2021) “Don’t confuse me with facts”: How right wing populism affects trust in agencies advocating anthropogenic climate change as a reality. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications8(1): 1–9.
32.
LeeTJohnsonTJWeaverDH (2023) Navigating the coronavirus infodemic: Exploring the impact of need for orientation, epistemic beliefs and type of media use on knowledge and misperception about COVID-19. Mass Communication and Society26(4): 593–618.
LiuBFKimJ (2021) Social media and climate change dialogue: A review of the research and guidance for science communicators. Communicating Climate Change: Making Environmental Messaging1: 97–115.
35.
LockwoodM (2018) Right-wing populism and the climate change agenda: Exploring the linkages. Environmental Politics27(4): 712–732.
36.
Lubicz-ZaorskiCNewlandsMPetrayT (2024) Fuelling the climate and science “denial machine” on social media: A case study of the Great Barrier Reef’s 2021 “in danger” recommendation on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. Public Understanding of Science33(3): 270–289.
37.
LynasMHoultonBZPerryS (2021) Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters16(11): 114005.
38.
MedeNGSchaferMS (2020) Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science29(5): 473–491.
39.
MedeNGSchäferMSMetagJ (2023) Cognitio populi—Vox populi: Implications of science-related populism for communication behavior. Communications. Epub ahead of print 4 May. DOI: 10.1515/commun-2022-0059.
40.
MedeNGSchaferMSMetagJKlingerK (2022) Who supports science-related populism? A nationally representative survey on the prevalence and explanatory factors of populist attitudes toward science in Switzerland. PLoS ONE17(8): e0271204.
41.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJMenaPJiangSWilsonC (2021) From dark to light: The many shades of sharing misinformation online. Media and Communication9(1): 134–143.
42.
MitchelsteinEMatassiMBoczkowskiPJ (2020) Minimal effects, maximum panic: Social media and democracy in Latin America. Social Media + Society6(4): 984452.
43.
MüllerPBachRL (2023) Populist alternative news use and its role for elections: Web-tracking and survey evidence from two campaign periods. New Media & Society25(10): 2663–2683.
44.
National Research Council (2010) Advancing the Science of Climate Change: America’s Climate Choices. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
45.
NewmanTPNisbetECNisbetMC (2018) Climate change, cultural cognition, and media effects: Worldviews drive news selectivity, biased processing, and polarized attitudes. Public Understanding of Science27(8): 985–1002.
46.
OphirYWalterDJamiesonPEJamiesonKH (2024) The politicization of climate science: Media consumption, perceptions of science and scientists, and support for policy. Journal of Health Communication29(Suppl. 1): 18–27.
47.
PennycookGCannonTDRandDG (2018) Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General147(12): 1865–1880.
48.
PeuckerMFisherTJ (2023) Mainstream media use for far-right mobilisation on the alt-tech online platform Gab. Media, Culture & Society45(2): 354–372.
49.
R Core Team (2022) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/
50.
RogersR (2020) Deplatforming: Following extreme Internet celebrities to Telegram and alternative social media. European Journal of Communication35(3): 213–229.
SamantrayAPinP (2019) Credibility of climate change denial in social media. Palgrave Communications5(1): 1–8.
53.
SarathchandraDHaltinnerK (2023) How media, information sources, and trust shape climate change denial or doubt. Social Currents10(6): 583–602.
54.
ShaughnessyBDuBosarEHutchensMJMannI (2024) An attack on free speech? Examining content moderation, (de-), and (re-) platforming on American right-wing alternative social media. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 5 February. DOI: 10.1177/14614448241228850.
55.
ShiJVisschersVHMSiegristMArvaiJ (2016) Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed. Nature Climate Change6(8): 759–762.
56.
ShiwakotiSThapaSRauniyarKShahABhandariANaseemU (2024) Analyzing the dynamics of climate change discourse on Twitter: A new annotated corpus and multi-aspect classification. In: Proceedings of the 2024 joint international conference on computational linguistics, language resources and evaluation LREC-COLING 2024 (LREC-COLING 2024) (eds CalzolariNKanM-YHosteetalV). Torino, May, pp. 984–994. ELRA and ICCL. Available at: https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.88 (accessed 30 May 2024).
57.
SpältiAKLyonsBStoeckelFStöckliSSzewachPMérolaV, et al. (2023) Partisanship and anti-elite worldviews as correlates of science and health beliefs in the multi-party system of Spain. Public Understanding of Science32: 761–780.
58.
SteculaDAPickupM (2021) How populism and conservative media fuel conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 and what it means for COVID-19 behaviors. Research & Politics8(1): 1993979.
59.
StierSKirkizhNFroioCSchroederR (2020) Populist attitudes and selective exposure to online news: A cross-country analysis combining web tracking and surveys. The International Journal of Press/Politics25(3): 426–446.
StubenvollMMatthesJ (2022) Four paths to misperceptions: A panel study on resistance against journalistic evidence. Media Psychology25(2): 318–341.
62.
TaddickenMWolffL (2023) Climate change-related counter-attitudinal fake news exposure and its effects on search and selection behavior. Environmental Communication17(7): 720–739.
TreenKWilliamsHO’NeillSCoanTG (2022) Discussion of climate change on Reddit: Polarized discourse or deliberative debate?Environmental Communication16(5): 680–698.
66.
ValenzuelaSMuñizCSantosM (2024) Social media and belief in misinformation in Mexico: A case of maximal panic, minimal effects?The International Journal of Press/politics29(3): 667–688.
67.
van der LindenSLeiserowitzAFeinbergGDMaibachEW (2014) The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE10(2): e0118489.
68.
WagnerMCBoczkowskiPJ (2019) The reception of fake news: The interpretations and practices that shape the consumption of perceived misinformation. Digital Journalism7(7): 870–885.
69.
WilliamsHTPMcMurrayJRKurzTLambertFH (2015) Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change32: 126–138.
70.
WuYKuruOCampbellSWBaruhL (2023) Explaining health misinformation belief through news, social, and alternative health media use: The moderating roles of need for cognition and faith in intuition. Health Communication38(7): 1416–1429.
YanPSchroederRStierS (2022) Is there a link between climate change scepticism and populism? An analysis of web tracking and survey data from Europe and the US. Information, Communication & Society25(10): 1400–1439.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
