Public agreement with misinformation about wind farms

The global shift towards renewable energy necessitates a dramatic increase in wind energy infrastructure. Meeting net-zero targets requires substantial investment and widespread public acceptance. However, public resistance to wind farms, fueled by misinformation campaigns, poses a significant obstacle to this energy transition. While legitimate local concerns about visual impact or property values exist, this study focuses on the broader public's acceptance of misinformation regarding wind farms. Scientific misinformation, in this context, is defined as publicly available information contradicting established scientific consensus and expert claims, even if containing elements of truth or being unfalsifiable. Contrarian claims examined include allegations of conspiracies to hide risks, negative health impacts, ineffectiveness, and environmental damage. The authors highlight parallels between misinformation campaigns surrounding wind farms and those targeting vaccinations and climate change, involving vested interests, amplified by public figures and spread through social media, strongly linked to conspiracist worldviews. The lack of large-scale empirical research on this topic motivates the current investigation, aiming to gauge the prevalence of agreement with wind farm misinformation and to identify psychological factors influencing this agreement to inform effective counter-measures.

Existing literature extensively documents the influence of misinformation on public perception of various scientific issues, including acid rain, tobacco health impacts, and climate change. These campaigns, often orchestrated by vested interests with the backing of think tanks and political leaders, intentionally obscure the scientific consensus. Similar campaigns are emerging concerning wind farms, with anti-wind farm lobby groups gaining increasing media attention. This misinformation is amplified by political figures and spread via social media, influencing public perception of risks and trust in institutions. Previous research has linked conspiracy mentality to opposition to wind farms, but large-scale, systematic empirical data are lacking. While some studies suggest information-based campaigns can reduce anti-science beliefs, others show that resistance is often linked to values and worldviews rather than information deficits. High correlations between seemingly unrelated contrarian claims indicate a "monological pattern," suggesting a cognitively closed belief system reinforced by underlying worldviews.

Two studies were conducted, involving nationally representative samples from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, recruited through Cint. Study 1 (N=3000) assessed agreement with 16 contrarian claims about wind farms using a 1-5 Likert scale. Participants were also assessed on their worldviews (environmental self-identity, political orientation, New Ecological Paradigm (NEP), conspiracy mentality) and epistemological factors (education, science knowledge). Study 2 (N=3008) replicated Study 1 with several modifications: the claims were refined to be unequivocally false or implausible, true claims were added to control for response bias, and measures of downstream consequences (intention to protest, policy support) were included. Factor analysis was employed to examine the structure of agreement with contrarian and true claims. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the predictive power of worldview and epistemological variables on agreement with contrarian claims.

Study 1 found substantial agreement with contrarian claims across all three countries. Agreement across diverse claims was highly correlated, supporting the existence of a unified belief system opposing wind farms. Conspiracy mentality was the strongest predictor of agreement, followed by NEP and science knowledge. Study 2 replicated these findings with a refined set of claims and the addition of outcome measures. Again, conspiracy mentality emerged as the most potent predictor, significantly explaining more variance than epistemological factors. A confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that participants distinguished between contrarian and true claims. Importantly, agreement with contrarian claims strongly predicted greater intention to protest against wind farms and lower support for pro-wind energy policies. Conversely, agreement with true claims positively predicted policy support. The percentage of respondents agreeing with half or more of the contrarian claims was: 27.7% in the United States, 21.1% in the United Kingdom, and 30.4% in Australia.

The findings strongly indicate that a significant portion of the public in the studied countries accepts misinformation about wind farms, forming a coherent belief system driven primarily by worldviews, particularly a conspiracist worldview. This is in contrast to the limited influence of epistemological factors such as education and science knowledge. The strong association between agreement with misinformation and real-world consequences, such as protest intentions and policy opposition, underscores the potential impact of these false beliefs on the energy transition. The authors discuss alternative explanations, such as social dynamics, technology understanding, and vested interests, but find these less persuasive compared to the overwhelming role of worldviews. The affect heuristic, while potentially relevant, does not fully explain the observed pattern of results. The relatively weak influence of epistemological factors undermines the efficacy of solely relying on information-based campaigns to address this issue.

This research reveals a widespread acceptance of misinformation about wind farms, driven mainly by a conspiracist worldview, and posing a significant challenge to the energy transition. The findings highlight the insufficiency of purely informational campaigns and suggest targeting the underlying worldviews fueling this misinformation. Future research should investigate effective communication strategies that address these deep-seated beliefs, potentially employing approaches aligning with existing values or eliciting conflicting thoughts to reduce belief rigidity.

The study's reliance on online panels may have underrepresented certain demographic groups (minority religious and ethnic groups, those with lower household income, or those less prone to digital device use). The focus on Western, industrialized nations limits the generalizability of the findings to other contexts. Future studies should address these limitations by employing broader sampling methodologies and examining diverse cultural settings.