Background and project goals

Conspiracy theories and misinformation about climate change and climate-friendly policy are spreading (Coan et al., 2021; Winter et al., 2024). Yet, effective measures to counter their negative consequences are scarce. Against this backdrop, we examined the effectiveness of an intervention approach that has been successfully applied in contexts of intergroup conflict and division. So-called paradoxical thinking interventions provide messages that do not simply reject the opposing side’s view (as classical persuasion approaches would do), but are principally in line with their position (Hameiri et al., 2019). However, these messages are presented in an exaggerated, sometimes even absurd manner. Paradoxical leading questions (e.g., “Why do you think that Christmas will be abolished within the next few years due to the increase in refugees?”) have been shown to increase open-mindedness among Germans holding anti-refugee sentiments (Knab & Steffens, 2022) and individuals’ cognitive flexibility more broadly (Knab et al., 2021). Critical for the success of paradoxical thinking interventions is that they challenge the fundamental underlying beliefs, often referred to as “ethos of conflict” (Bar-Tal et al., 2012). Recent findings suggest that there is a general sentiment underlying the rejection of wind farms that is largely sparked by a general conspiracy mentality (Winter et al., 2024). Addressing erroneous beliefs about wind farms with a paradoxical thinking intervention could be a promising approach to reduce wind farm resistance.

The goal of the proposed project was, therefore, to create a paradoxical thinking intervention that addresses beliefs in misinformation and conspiracy theories about wind farms that are prevalent in the population. We predicted that such an intervention would increase openness to opposing viewpoints, acceptance of wind farm-friendly policy and reduce oppositional intentions – especially among those with a strong conspiracy mentality. Taken together, the funded project sought to (1) link paradoxical interventions with research on conspiracy beliefs, (2) establish an “ethos of conspiracies” in the climate context, (3) add new outcomes (i.e., climate policy acceptance) of paradoxical thinking interventions, and (4) estimate longitudinal effects.

Research activities and findings

The grant provided funding for a pre-test and the main experiment (including a follow-up assessment). Based on the results of the pre-test we chose eight rhetorical questions referring to concerns about wind farms for the paradoxical (e.g., “Why do you think that the government deliberately conceals critical information that would strongly undermine the case for expanding wind energy?”) and the neutral condition (e.g., “How do you judge information distribution by the government in regards to wind energy?”) in the main experiment, respectively. The main experiment tested the effects of paradoxical questions on participants’ openness to opposing viewpoints, acceptance of wind farms, and opposition against wind farms depending on their level of conspiracy mentality.

Results indicate interactions between question type and conspiracy mentality for all three dependent variables. However, the direction of these interactions was unexpected. In particular, participants with low levels of conspiracy mentality were less open to consider opposing viewpoints after being confronted with the paradoxical (vs. neutral) questions. Similarly, participants with high levels of conspiracy mentality showed lower support of wind farm-friendly policy and were more willing to engage in oppositional behavior (e.g., protesting) against wind farms after reading paradoxical (vs. neutral) questions. However, the difference to the neutral condition did not persist in a follow-up survey one week later. Notably, the study design does not clarify whether the observed effects resulted from a positive response to the neutral questions or a negative, polarizing response to the paradoxical ones.

Contribution to wider research activities

While these findings diverge from previous work on paradoxical thinking interventions conducted in the intergroup context (e.g., Hameiri et al., 2016; Knab & Steffens, 2022), they provide interesting new insights and avenues for future work. More precisely, one should look at the exact boundary conditions of the failure and success of paradoxical thinking interventions outside the intergroup context and the psychological mechanisms involved. This would not only serve theoretical advancement in the fields of conspiracy beliefs and paradoxical thinking. It would also allow to refine the design of interventions for practical purposes such as political campaigning (Hameiri et al., 2016). The grant recipients plan to further examine these questions in their ongoing collaboration. More generally, the current findings serve as a basis for their future work on the development of interventions to reduce resistance against climate policy and to defuse the role of conspiracy theories and misinformation therein.

References

Bar-Tal, D., Sharvit, K., Halperin, E., & Zafran, A. (2012). Ethos of conflict: The concept and its measurement. Peace and Conflict, 18(1), 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026860
Coan, T. G., Boussalis, C., Cook, J., & Nanko, M. O. (2021). Computer-assisted classification of contrarian claims about climate change. Scientific Reports, 11, 22320. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01714-4
Hameiri, B., Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2019). Paradoxical thinking interventions: A paradigm for societal change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 13(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12053
Hameiri, B., Porat, R., Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2016). Moderating attitudes in times of violence through paradoxical thinking intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(43), 12105–12110. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606182113
Knab, N., & Steffens, M. C. (2022). “Why do you think Christmas will never ever be celebrated again?” A paradoxical thinking intervention’s potential to affect conflict‐related concerns, willingness to compromise, and openness towards refugees. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 500-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2833
Knab, N., Winter, K., & Steffens, M. C. (2021). Flexing the extremes: Increasing cognitive flexibility with a paradoxical leading questions intervention. Social Cognition, 39(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2021.39.2.225
Winter, K., Hornsey, M. J., Pummerer, L., & Sassenberg, K. (2024). Public agreement with misinformation about wind farms. Nature Communications, 15, 8888. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53278-