Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 91 references

Towards Designing Social Interventions For Online Climate Change Denialism Discussions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Interventions that reply to climate-denial posts with linked evidence and neutral wording draw more constructive responses than evidence-free or trigger-worded replies.

desk verdict A genuinely novel field deployment with rich qualitative observations, but its causal headline outruns the design and the internal numbers need reconciliation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06561 v2 pith:NHQI4ILX submitted 2025-07-09 cs.HC cs.SI

Ruican Zhong , Shruti Phadke , Beth Goldberg , Tanushree Mitra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.SI
keywords conspiracytheoriesclimatechangedenialismsocialmediainterventionsRedditinsiderlanguageevidence-basedinterventiongenerativeAIhuman-computerinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a particular kind of reply can open up, rather than shut down, online climate-change denial discussions. The authors designed intervention messages that use the denial community's own insider terms, add linked scientific evidence, keep the wording polite and neutral, and post them through transparently labeled bot accounts in two Reddit communities. They report that climate-change deniers responded more constructively when the reply contained linked evidence, when the original post was calm rather than emotionally charged, and when the wording avoided trigger terms such as "climate scientists." They also report that climate-change supporters used the interventions as a springboard to add further evidence, and that a community-centric, insider-language approach is a workable way to intervene in conspiracy-theory spaces. The payoff, if the pattern holds, is a concrete design recipe for automated social-media interventions aimed at conspiracy beliefs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the insider-language intervention pipeline. Insider language is defined as the community-specific terms, such as "albedo," "trace gas," and "mid-Holocene," that climate-change denialists use to build and signal their worldview; the paper detected these terms with a sparse additive generative model comparing r/climateskeptics to other subreddits, brainstormed counterarguments to each term, wrote polite intervention messages, expanded the set with generative AI, and deployed the messages as replies from transparently labeled bot accounts triggered when an insider term appeared in a post. The insider-language framing is what is supposed to prevent the motivated-reasoning shutdown that direct counterargument often triggers, by meeting believers inside their own meaning system; the evidence link, neutral wording, and attention to the original poster's emotional state are the specific levers the analysis found to matter.

What would settle it

Deploy a randomized set of replies in the same communities in which otherwise identical interventions differ only in one feature at a time, linked evidence present or absent, "climate scientists" mentioned or avoided, original post calm or heated, across hundreds of threads, then compare response sentiment and engagement. If neutral, evidence-free replies perform as well as evidence-linked ones, or if trigger terms show no consistent negative effect, the paper's central pattern would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that denialists' responses to counter-attitudinal interventions track three design features: whether the bot's reply includes a linked piece of evidence, whether the original post the bot replied to was emotionally calm or invested, and whether the intervention used terminology associated with the pro-climate side. When evidence was included, deniers still rejected the conclusion but engaged with the details, requested follow-up, and sometimes shared personal experience; when it was absent, they asked "based on what evidence" and reinforced the conspiracy. Mentioning phrases like "climate scientists" or "alarmist" produced emotional, hostile replies, while neutrally worded replies that stayed on the poster's own terms kept discussion open. The same interventions encountered a second, unpredicted population, climate-change supporters in the same threads, who responded positively, extended the reasoning, and added their own citations and evidence. The paper frames this as evidence that community-centric interventions built on insider language can foster open discussion rather than provoking reactance.

Load-bearing premise

Because the interventions were deployed non-randomly, without a control condition, and with bot identity, thread topic, and timing entangled with the features being compared, the central claim rests on the assumption that the observed response differences were actually caused by the presence of evidence, the wording, and the original poster's emotional tone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interventions that include a linked source of evidence should be the default when replying to climate-change denialists; evidence-free replies invite demands for proof and conspiracy reinforcement.
  • Intervention wording should avoid pro-climate trigger terms like "climate scientists" and "alarmist," since these reliably produced emotional, hostile responses.
  • The emotional state of the post being replied to matters: calm or curious original posters are the ones who stay in the conversation, so interventions should target or adapt to low-arousal posts.
  • Climate-change supporters already active in denialist threads will amplify an intervention by adding their own evidence, so intervention design should treat them as collaborators.
  • Intervention messages built on one community's insider language do not transfer cleanly to another conspiracy community; r/conspiracy used the same terms differently, causing misfires.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step the paper does not take is a randomized field experiment that varies one feature at a time, evidence on or off, trigger term on or off, across matched threads; that would tell whether the reported differences are causal or confounded with topic and thread context.
  • The finding that calm posters stay engaged suggests a cheap triage rule for automated intervention systems: score post emotion first and only deploy replies on low-arousal, curious posts.
  • If the evidence effect is real, the mechanism may be that linked sources give denialists something concrete to push against, converting an identity threat into a technical dispute they can participate in; that hypothesis is testable by analyzing whether responses with evidence contain more detail-oriented language.
  • The paper's bot accounts were transparently labeled and several were banned, which hints that community acceptance, not message content alone, may determine whether an intervention gets a chance to work; future deployments could test messenger identity as a separate factor.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper describes a field deployment of social-media interventions on Reddit's r/climateskeptics and r/conspiracy. The authors use SAGE to extract insider terms, manually craft and GPT-expand counter-arguments, deploy replies from transparent bot accounts to posts mentioning insider terms, and code the resulting responses. They characterize climate-change deniers and supporters and report that evidence-linked, neutral-language interventions are associated with more positive engagement from deniers, while supporters use the interventions to add evidence. The manuscript also documents deployment challenges, including account bans and the Reddit blackout.

Significance. If the central findings held, the paper would offer a novel and practically valuable demonstration that insider-language interventions can be deployed automatically in open conspiracy-theory communities and that linked evidence and neutral terminology are associated with constructive engagement. The transparent-bot deployment, insider-term extraction, and documentation of external hurdles are useful scaffolding for future work. However, the causal language in the abstract and §4.2 is not supported by the non-randomized, uncontrolled deployment design, and the internal sample inconsistencies and single-coder coding mean the contribution is currently exploratory rather than confirmatory.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §4.2; §3.4.2] The abstract and §4.2 state that evidence-based interventions with neutral language 'foster positive engagement' and 'encourage open discussions' among climate-change deniers, but this causal attribution is not identifiable from the deployment. As described in §3.4.2, the bots only replied to posts containing insider terms, the intervention text was hand-tailored per post in the pilot and automatically selected in later phases, and out-of-context interventions were removed post hoc (§3.5.1). There was no no-reply, generic-reply, or placebo control, and evidence presence, terminology choice, original-poster emotion, insider-term topic, bot account, subreddit, and timing (including the Reddit blackout and account bans in Appendix A) vary jointly. The contrasts reported in §4.2.1–4.2.3 may therefore reflect which posts received which replies rather than any causal effect of the replies. The Limitations section (§7) acknowledges the small sample but not this identification problem. Please rephrase the results as descriptive/observational associations and explicitly state that the data cannot support causal claims about intervention effectiveness.
  2. [§3.5.1; §4.1.1; §4.2.1] The reported sample is internally inconsistent across the paper. The abstract and introduction say 22 of 49 interventions contained evidence, while §4.2.1 says 19 of 49; §3.5.1 says 42 relevant interventions were retained, with 30 deployed to deniers and 12 to supporters, while §4.1.1 reports 40 relevant interventions to deniers and §4.1.3 uses 30 denier and 10 supporter responses in the t-test; and §4.1.1 reports 35 denier responses while §4.1.2 reports 9 supporter responses. Please reconcile these counts and report the exact analysis sample for each quantitative claim.
  3. [§3.5.2] The final thematic coding described in §3.5.2 was performed by one researcher, and the paper does not report inter-rater reliability, double coding, or any reliability check for the codebook. Since the headline results depend on classifying responses as positive versus negative, engaged versus dismissive, and evidence-based versus not, the outcome labels are not independently established. Please add a reliability procedure (e.g., dual coding with agreement statistics) or explicitly label the qualitative findings as single-coder exploratory.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2.1; Fig. 3b; Table 2] There are several typographical errors: 'climate change deiners' in §4.2.1, 'r/consipracy' in the Figure 3b caption, and 'Infarered energy' in Table 2.
  2. [§4.2.2] In the §4.2.2 example, the text introduces D26 and then refers to 'B26'; please correct the identifier.
  3. [Figure 4] Figure 4, which underlies the §4.2.3 claims about emotional change, has no caption describing the axes, the categories, or the number of posts in each cell; please add that information.
  4. [§3.4.1; Appendix A.2] The text says karma farming was performed to build account credibility, while Appendix A.2 reports account bans; please clarify whether the bans were related to the karma-farming accounts and whether any accounts were suspended before completing the deployment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the intervention-response findings are observed behaviors, not re-derived inputs; self-citations are motivational rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than formal: insider terms are extracted from the target subreddits with SAGE, interventions are constructed around those terms, and responses are collected and thematically coded. The central finding that evidence-containing, neutral interventions are associated with more constructive engagement from deniers is an observed contrast, not a quantity re-derived from the intervention design. The insider terms themselves are data-driven inputs, and the outcome labels come from post-hoc coding of response text, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Several supporting citations for the insider-language framework are by the same research group (e.g., [33,74,75]), but they are independent empirical studies used as motivation and design rationale rather than as a theorem that forces the present result. The limitations section acknowledges the small sample and deployment difficulties, and the non-randomized, control-free design with post-hoc exclusions and inconsistent counts across sections poses a causal-identification threat; such threats are correctness risks, not circularity. No step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free numerical parameters were fitted, but the analyst decisions (emotion label grouping, insider-term selection, single-coder final coding) are implicit degrees of freedom. The paper's claims rest on domain assumptions about term representativeness, bot acceptance, emotion proxies, and coding reliability rather than on invented entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SAGE-extracted insider terms from r/climateskeptics are sufficiently representative to craft engaging interventions.
    The deployment relies on these terms being central to the community's discourse (§3.2).
  • domain assumption Transparently labeled bot accounts can participate in these communities without systematic rejection beyond observed bans.
    Account bans in r/climateskeptics (Appendix A.2) limit the assumption's validity.
  • domain assumption EmoBERT/EmoRoBERTa emotion classifications approximate users' emotional state and engagement.
    Emotion categories are used to infer emotional investment (Fig. 4, §4.2.3).
  • domain assumption The single-coder thematic analysis reliably distinguishes deniers and supporters and their response strategies.
    Final coding was done by one researcher after group discussion (§3.5.2), with no inter-rater reliability reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Designing Social Interventions For Online Climate Change Denialism Discussions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NHQI4ILX

@misc{pith2026250706561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Designing Social Interventions For Online Climate Change Denialism Discussions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NHQI4ILX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06561}
}
read the original abstract

As conspiracy theories gain traction, it has become crucial to research effective intervention strategies that can foster evidence and science-based discussions in conspiracy theory communities online. This study presents a novel framework using insider language to contest conspiracy theory ideology in climate change denialism on Reddit. Focusing on discussions in two Reddit communities, our research investigates reactions to pro-social and evidence-based intervention messages for two cohorts of users: climate change deniers and climate change supporters. Specifically, we combine manual and generative AI-based methods to craft intervention messages and deploy the interventions as replies on Reddit posts and comments through transparently labeled bot accounts. On the one hand, we find that evidence-based interventions with neutral language foster positive engagement, encouraging open discussions among believers of climate change denialism. On the other, climate change supporters respond positively, actively participating and presenting additional evidence. Our study contributes valuable insights into the process and challenges of automatically delivering interventions in conspiracy theory communities on social media, and helps inform future research on social media interventions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of our intervention design and deployment process. The external events refer to events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This figure contains four examples of the interventions deployed. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This figure shows examples of how our intervention was deployed and how community members [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This image shows the EmoBERT analysis result of the comment (original post) and the response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. Dangerous Speech Project. https://dangerousspeech.org/

  2. [2]

    Introducing Birdwatch, a community-based approach to misinformation

    2021. Introducing Birdwatch, a community-based approach to misinformation. Retrieved Jan 21, 2021 from https://blog. twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformation

    2021

  3. [3]

    N Abas and N Khan. 2014. Carbon conundrum, climate change, CO2 capture and consumptions.Journal of CO2 Utilization8 (2014), 39–48. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW251. Publication date: November 2025. CSCW251:20 Zhong et al

    2014

  4. [4]

    Mark S Ackerman. 2000. The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility.Human–Computer Interaction15, 2-3 (2000), 179–203

    2000

  5. [5]

    Olanrewaju Tahir Aduragba, Jialin Yu, Alexandra I Cristea, and Lei Shi. 2021. Detecting fine-grained emotions on social media during major disease outbreaks: health and well-being before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In AMIA annual symposium proceedings, Vol. 2021. American Medical Informatics Association, 187

    2021

  6. [6]

    Zhila Aghajari, Eric PS Baumer, and Dominic DiFranzo. 2023. Reviewing Interventions to Address Misinformation: The Need to Expand Our Vision Beyond an Individualistic Focus.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–34

    2023

  7. [7]

    Loai Albarqouni, Tammy Hoffmann, and Paul Glasziou. 2018. Evidence-based practice educational intervention studies: a systematic review of what is taught and how it is measured.BMC medical education18, 1 (2018), 1–8

    2018

  8. [8]

    Michelle A Amazeen, Arunima Krishna, and Rob Eschmann. 2022. Cutting the bunk: Comparing the solo and aggregate effects of prebunking and debunking COVID-19 vaccine misinformation.Science Communication44, 4 (2022), 387–417

    2022

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    Craig A Anderson, Mark R Lepper, and Lee Ross. 1980. Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information.Journal of personality and social psychology39, 6 (1980), 1037

    1980

  2. [10]

    Amanda Baughan, Katherine Alejandra Cross, Elena Khasanova, and Alexis Hiniker. 2022. Shame on Who? Experimen- tally Reducing Shame During Political Arguments on Twitter.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–18

    2022

  3. [11]

    Salil D Benegal and Lyle A Scruggs. 2018. Correcting misinformation about climate change: The impact of partisanship in an experimental setting.Climatic change148, 1-2 (2018), 61–80

    2018

  4. [12]

    Jeff Berardelli. 2020. 10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says. https://www.cbsnews. com/news/climate-change-myths-what-science-really-says/

    2020

  5. [13]

    Alessandro Bessi, Mauro Coletto, George Alexandru Davidescu, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, and Walter Quat- trociocchi. 2015. Science vs conspiracy: Collective narratives in the age of misinformation.PloS one10, 2 (2015), e0118093

    2015

  6. [14]

    William R Brown. 1982. Attention and the rhetoric of social intervention.Quarterly Journal of Speech68, 1 (1982), 17–27

    1982

  7. [15]

    2011.Conspiracy theories: A critical introduction

    Jovan Byford. 2011.Conspiracy theories: A critical introduction. Springer

    2011

  8. [16]

    Anny Cazenave and Frederique Remy. 2011. Sea level and climate: measurements and causes of changes.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change2, 5 (2011), 647–662

    2011

  9. [17]

    Man-pui Sally Chan, Christopher R Jones, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, and Dolores Albarracín. 2017. Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation.Psychological science28, 11 (2017), 1531–1546

    2017

  10. [18]

    Hans Christian, Mikhael Pramodana Agus, and Derwin Suhartono. 2016. Single document automatic text summarization using term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF).ComTech: Computer, Mathematics and Engineering Applications7, 4 (2016), 285–294

    2016

  11. [19]

    Matteo Cinelli, Gabriele Etta, Michele Avalle, Alessandro Quattrociocchi, Niccolò Di Marco, Carlo Valensise, Alessandro Galeazzi, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2022. Conspiracy theories and social media platforms.Current Opinion in Psychology(2022), 101407

    2022

  12. [20]

    Yale Climate Change Communication. 2023. Global Warming’s Six Americas. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/ about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas/

    2023

  13. [21]

    John Cook. 2020. Deconstructing climate science denial.Research handbook on communicating climate change(2020), 62–78

    2020

  14. [22]

    Adam Corner, Ezra Markowitz, and Nick Pidgeon. 2014. Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: climate change5, 3 (2014), 411–422

    2014

  15. [23]

    Matthew RX Dentith. 2019. Conspiracy theories on the basis of the evidence.Synthese196 (2019), 2243–2261

    2019

  16. [24]

    Matthew RX Dentith and Martin Orr. 2018. Secrecy and conspiracy.Episteme15, 4 (2018), 433–450

    2018

  17. [25]

    Karen M Douglas and Robbie M Sutton. 2015. Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous.Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists71, 2 (2015), 98–106

    2015

  18. [26]

    Karen M Douglas, Robbie M Sutton, and Aleksandra Cichocka. 2017. The psychology of conspiracy theories.Current directions in psychological science26, 6 (2017), 538–542

    2017

  19. [27]

    Karen M Douglas, Robbie M Sutton, Daniel Jolley, and Michael J Wood. 2015. The social, political, environmental, and health-related consequences of conspiracy theories.The psychology of conspiracy56 (2015), 183–200

    2015

  20. [28]

    Karen M Douglas, Joseph E Uscinski, Robbie M Sutton, Aleksandra Cichocka, Turkay Nefes, Chee Siang Ang, and Farzin Deravi. 2019. Understanding conspiracy theories.Political psychology40 (2019), 3–35

    2019

  21. [29]

    Chiara Patricia Drolsbach and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2023. Diffusion of community fact-checked misinformation on Twitter.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–22. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW251. Publication date: N...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Riley E Dunlap, Aaron M McCright, et al. 2011. Organized climate change denial.The Oxford handbook of climate change and society1 (2011), 144–160

    2011

  23. [31]

    Catherine Dwyer. 2007. Task Technology Fit, the social technical gap and social networking sites.AMCIS 2007 Proceedings(2007), 374

    2007

  24. [32]

    Jacob Eisenstein, Amr Ahmed, and Eric P Xing. 2011. Sparse additive generative models of text. InProceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML-11). 1041–1048

    2011

  25. [33]

    Kristen Engel, Shruti Phadke, and Tanushree Mitra. 2023. Learning from the Ex-Believers: Individuals’ Journeys In and Out of Conspiracy Theories Online.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–37

    2023

  26. [34]

    Robert Etkins and Edward S Epstein. 1982. The rise of global mean sea level as an indication of climate change.Science 215, 4530 (1982), 287–289

    1982

  27. [35]

    Daniel J Flynn, Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler. 2017. The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics.Political Psychology38 (2017), 127–150

    2017

  28. [36]

    Isabelle Freiling, Nicole M Krause, and Dietram A Scheufele. 2023. Science and ethics of “curing” misinformation. AMA journal of ethics25, 3 (2023), 228–237

    2023

  29. [37]

    Terrence L Gargiulo. 2006. Power of stories.The journal for quality and participation29, 1 (2006), 4

    2006

  30. [38]

    R Kelly Garrett and Brian E Weeks. 2013. The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political misperceptions. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 1047–1058

    2013

  31. [39]

    2007.Towards Reducing the Social-Technical Gap in Location-A ware Computing

    Fabien Girardin. 2007.Towards Reducing the Social-Technical Gap in Location-A ware Computing. Ph. D. Dissertation. Ph. D. Dissertation. Citeseer

    2007

  32. [40]

    Andreas Goreis, Oswald D Kothgassner, et al. 2020. Social media as vehicle for conspiracy beliefs on COVID-19.Digital Psychology1, 2 (2020), 36–39

    2020

  33. [41]

    Robin Lambert Graham, Monica G Turner, and Virginia H Dale. 1990. How increasing CO2 and climate change affect forests.BioScience40, 8 (1990), 575–587

    1990

  34. [42]

    Dominik Hangartner, Gloria Gennaro, Sary Alasiri, Nicholas Bahrich, Alexandra Bornhoft, Joseph Boucher, Buket Buse Demirci, Laurenz Derksen, Aldo Hall, Matthias Jochum, et al. 2021. Empathy-based counterspeech can reduce racist hate speech in a social media field experiment.Pr...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Chip Heath, Chris Bell, and Emily Sternberg. 2001. Emotional selection in memes: the case of urban legends.Journal of personality and social psychology81, 6 (2001), 1028

    2001

  36. [44]

    Reddit Help. [n. d.]. What is karma? https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-

  37. [45]

    2012.The paranoid style in American politics

    Richard Hofstadter. 2012.The paranoid style in American politics. Vintage

    2012

  38. [46]

    2023.The sun, energy, and climate change

    Eklas Hossain. 2023.The sun, energy, and climate change. Springer

    2023

  39. [47]

    Mark Jary. 1998. Relevance theory and the communication of politeness.Journal of pragmatics30, 1 (1998), 1–19

    1998

  40. [48]

    Dan M Kahan. 2013. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection.Judgment and Decision making8, 4 (2013), 407–424

    2013

  41. [49]

    Joseph Kahne and Benjamin Bowyer. 2017. Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation.American educational research journal54, 1 (2017), 3–34

    2017

  42. [50]

    Susan M Kegeles, Gregory Rebchook, Lance Pollack, David Huebner, Scott Tebbetts, John Hamiga, David Sweeney, and Benjamin Zovod. 2012. An intervention to help community-based organizations implement an evidence-based HIV prevention intervention: The mpowerment project technolo...

    2012

  43. [51]

    Taewoon Kim and Piek Vossen. 2021. Emoberta: Speaker-aware emotion recognition in conversation with roberta. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12009(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Colin Klein, Peter Clutton, and Adam G Dunn. 2019. Pathways to conspiracy: The social and linguistic precursors of involvement in Reddit’s conspiracy theory forum.PloS one14, 11 (2019), e0225098

    2019

  45. [53]

    Alex Zhi-Xiong Koo, Min-Hsin Su, SangWon Lee, So-Yun Ahn, and Hernando Rojas. 2021. What motivates people to correct misinformation? Examining the effects of third-person perceptions and perceived norms.Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media65, 1 (2021), 111–134

    2021

  46. [54]

    Thomas R Kratochwill and Elisa Steele Shernoff. 2003. Evidence-based practice: Promoting evidence-based interventions in school psychology.School Psychology Quarterly18, 4 (2003), 389

    2003

  47. [55]

    Ziva Kunda. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning.Psychological bulletin108, 3 (1990), 480

    1990

  48. [56]

    Elżbieta Kużelewska and Mariusz Tomaszuk. 2022. Rise of conspiracy theories in the pandemic times.International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique35, 6 (2022), 2373–2389

    2022

  49. [57]

    Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Ullrich Ecker, Dolores Albarracín, Panayiota Kendeou, Eryn J Newman, Gordon Pennycook, Ethan Porter, David G Rand, David N Rapp, et al. 2020. The debunking handbook 2020. (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    post-truth

    Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich KH Ecker, and John Cook. 2017. Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.Journal of applied research in memory and cognition6, 4 (2017), 353–369. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW251. Publ...

    2017

  51. [59]

    Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, James S Risbey, Ben R Newell, and Michael Smithson. 2015. Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community.Global Environmental Change33 (2015), 1–13

    2015

  52. [60]

    Richard S Lindzen. 1997. Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences94, 16 (1997), 8335–8342

    1997

  53. [61]

    2013.The rationalizing voter

    Milton Lodge and Charles S Taber. 2013.The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University Press

    2013

  54. [62]

    Jonathan Lynn. 2018. Communicating the IPCC: challenges and opportunities.Handbook of Climate Change Commu- nication: Vol. 3: Case Studies in Climate Change Communication(2018), 131–143

    2018

  55. [63]

    Lauren Mackenzie and Megan Wallace. 2011. The communication of respect as a significant dimension of cross-cultural communication competence.Cross-Cultural Communication7, 3 (2011), 10–18

    2011

  56. [64]

    Nobuo Mimura. 2013. Sea-level rise caused by climate change and its implications for society.Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B89, 7 (2013), 281–301

    2013

  57. [65]

    Stephen A Montzka, Edward J Dlugokencky, and James H Butler. 2011. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change. Nature476, 7358 (2011), 43–50

    2011

  58. [66]

    Patricia Moravec, Randall Minas, and Alan R Dennis. 2018. Fake news on social media: People believe what they want to believe when it makes no sense at all.Kelley School of Business research paper18-87 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Melinda Wenner Moyer. 2019. Why we believe conspiracy theories.Scientific American320, 3 (2019), 58–63

    2019

  60. [68]

    Kevin Munger. 2017. Tweetment effects on the tweeted: Experimentally reducing racist harassment.Political Behavior 39 (2017), 629–649

    2017

  61. [69]

    Kenzo Nera, Youri L Mora, Pit Klein, Antoine Roblain, Pascaline Van Oost, Julie Terache, and Olivier Klein. 2022. Looking for ties with secret agendas during the pandemic: Conspiracy mentality is associated with reduced trust in political, medical, and scientific institutions–...

    2022

  62. [70]

    Raymond S Nickerson. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.Review of general psychology 2, 2 (1998), 175–220

    1998

  63. [71]

    Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler. 2010. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions.Political Behavior32, 2 (2010), 303–330

    2010

  64. [72]

    James Painter and Teresa Ashe. 2012. Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10.Environmental research letters7, 4 (2012), 044005

    2012

  65. [73]

    Gordon Pennycook, Jonathon McPhetres, Yunhao Zhang, Jackson G Lu, and David G Rand. 2020. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention.Psychological science31, 7 (2020), 770–780

    2020

  66. [74]

    Shruti Phadke, Mattia Samory, and Tanushree Mitra. 2021. Characterizing social imaginaries and self-disclosures of dissonance in online conspiracy discussion communities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–35

    2021

  67. [75]

    Shruti Phadke, Mattia Samory, and Tanushree Mitra. 2022. Pathways through conspiracy: the evolution of conspiracy radicalization through engagement in online conspiracy discussions. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 16. 770–781

    2022

  68. [76]

    Nicolas Pröllochs and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2023. Mechanisms of true and false rumor sharing in social media: Collective intelligence or herd behavior?Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–38

    2023

  69. [77]

    2018.The psychology of conspiracy theories

    Jan-Willem Prooijen. 2018.The psychology of conspiracy theories. Routledge

    2018

  70. [78]

    Tiago Rocha-Silva, Conceição Nogueira, and Liliana Rodrigues. 2023. Passive data collection on Reddit: a practical approach.Research Ethics(2023), 17470161231210542

    2023

  71. [79]

    Jon Roozenbeek, Sander Van Der Linden, Beth Goldberg, Steve Rathje, and Stephan Lewandowsky. 2022. Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media.Science Advances8, 34 (2022), eabo6254

    2022

  72. [80]

    Marina Ryabova. 2015. Politeness strategy in everyday communication.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences206 (2015), 90–95

    2015

  73. [81]

    Mattia Samory and Tanushree Mitra. 2018. Conspiracies online: User discussions in a conspiracy community following dramatic events. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 12

    2018

  74. [82]

    Mattia Samory and Tanushree Mitra. 2018. ’The Government Spies Using Our Webcams’ The Language of Conspiracy Theories in Online Discussions.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction2, CSCW (2018), 1–24

    2018

  75. [83]

    Alexandra A Siegel and Vivienne Badaan. 2020. # No2Sectarianism: Experimental approaches to reducing sectarian hate speech online.American Political Science Review114, 3 (2020), 837–855

    2020

  76. [84]

    Cass R Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. 2009. Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures.Journal of political philosophy17, 2 (2009), 202–227

    2009

  77. [85]

    Kim-Pong Tam and Hoi-Wing Chan. 2023. Conspiracy theories and climate change: A systematic review.Journal of Environmental Psychology(2023), 102129

    2023

  78. [86]

    Christoph Treude and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2009. How tagging helps bridge the gap between social and technical aspects in software development. In2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 12–22. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Arti...

    2009

  79. [87]

    David Tuffley. 2009. Mind the gap.International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD)1, 1 (2009), 58–69

    2009

  80. [88]

    2019.Conspiracy theories and the people who believe them

    Joseph E Uscinski. 2019.Conspiracy theories and the people who believe them. Oxford University Press, USA

    2019

  81. [89]

    Joseph E Uscinski, Karen Douglas, and Stephan Lewandowsky. 2017. Climate change conspiracy theories. InOxford research encyclopedia of climate science

    2017

  82. [90]

    Morgan Wofford. 2022. Parasitic knowledge infrastructures: Data reuse by anthropogenic climate change skeptics. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology59, 1 (2022), 837–839

    2022

  83. [91]

    chaos theory,

    Morgan F Wofford and Andrea K Thomer. 2023. Curating for Contrarian Communities: Data Practices of Anthropogenic Climate Change Skeptics.Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology60, 1 (2023), 442–455. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7,...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.