The interplay between Progressivism and Logical Fallacy: Implications for Climate Change Communications

Summary:  View help for Summary The spread of fake news and the influence of moral reasoning on public opinion present significant challenges in climate change communication. This study examines how the ideological underpinnings of conservatism and liberalism, combined with logical fallacies and fake news, shape public perceptions of climate change. Using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ), and a quantitative online survey of 288 participants, we assess whether individuals identified as liberal or conservative are more prone to accept flawed reasoning.  Results show that conservatives are significantly more susceptible to emotional manipulation, appeals to authority, and oversimplified arguments, which align with the fallacies such as Argumentum ad hominem, Straw Man, and Tu quoque, Liberals, while less vulnerable to fallacies overall, are particularly influenced by emotional appeals and begging the question, which are aligned with their moral dimensions of harm and fairness.  The findings offer new insights into the intersection of moral psychology, political ideology, and misinformation, with practical implications for designing ideologically tailored climate change messages.

Subject Terms:  View help for Subject Terms Envrionmental Communication