A new study published in November’s issue of the journal Memory & Cognition found that comments on blog posts can influence a reader’s perception of the content. The study by lead author Stephan Lewandowsky had subjects look at blog posts that either endorsed or rejected climate science, and then read comments either in agreement with or in opposition to the initial content.
Researchers set out to study the influence of commenters because of the valuable role that perception of consensus plays in shaping how we think. Put simply, what you believe other people think shapes what you think. If most people believe something, human brains are generally hardwired to also believe that. On the flip side, if we see people united in opposition, we’re going to be a little more skeptical.
Therefore, changing whether commenters appear to be in consensus about a post could influence how readers perceive that post.
To test whether or not contrarian commenters can downplay findings in a blog post, the researchers created two fake posts and two sets of fake reactions for each. Research subjects were then exposed either to a science post with consensus comments, a science post with contrarian comments, a contrarian post with contrarian comments, or a contrarian post with consensus comments.
First, they found that reading the science-based post made people more likely to believe in climate change than the contrarian post, affirming existing research about the value of communicating the climate science consensus among experts.
But when comments and content were in conflict, it “undermined support” of the post and “perceived consensus” around the topic.
When comments and content were in agreement, “participants supported the argument in the post more, irrespective of its content.” Similarly, when the subjects saw the majority of comments as being in agreement, it made them more supportive.
Most relevant for climate communications is the fact that comments only had a direct effect on views about climate change for very careful readers, the subset of subjects who took the longest to read through the blog post and comments. In general, “there was no evidence that comments alone affected attitudes towards climate change directly.”
But, there was a weaker, secondary relationship between the readers’ perception of whether commenters endorsed climate change, and the reader’s own views, which made denial comments more dangerous. Because unfortunately, the “results suggest that a large number of readers may be nudged towards rejection of climate science if they encounter a stream consisting of contrarian comments.”
It’s no secret, as the authors acknowledge, that comment sections are rife with fake accounts and spam, and that it’s not all that difficult to purchase comments from shady sources. This research suggests that it’s not an entirely pointless exercise, because despite the fact that fake engagement is generally pretty obvious, merely the existence of a large quantity of dissent appears to be enough to dampen support for the content.
What do you think? Leave a comment- but only if you agree.
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: