English
 
Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
Add to Basket
  Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released
Journal Article

(Un-)scientifically Spun: Narratives, Belief Updating, and Pro-Environmental Behavior

Authors
/persons/resource/Anwesha.Banerjee

Banerjee,  Anwesha
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;
Submitting Corresponding Author, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

Momsen,  Katharina
External Organizations;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)

s10640-025-01045-2-1.pdf
(Publisher version), 4MB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Banerjee, A., Momsen, K. (2025): (Un-)scientifically Spun: Narratives, Belief Updating, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. - Environmental and Resource Economics, 88, 3873-3903.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-025-01045-2


Cite as: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_33873
Abstract
In an experiment conducted with 2346 US residents, we examine the effect of content (positive/ negative/ inconclusive) and style (scientific/unscientific) of narratives about CO2 emissions on belief updating and pro-environmental behavior. We use the Work for Environmental Protection Task (WEPT) by Lange and Dewitte (Behave Res Methods 54:133–145, 2022) as a proxy for pro-environmental behavior. Narratives are constructed using the natural language processing chatbot ChatGPT. We find that negative narratives significantly increase concern regarding CO2 emissions, while positive narratives significantly decrease concern, with the latter effect being significantly larger in terms of absolute value. For inconclusive narratives, the effect on beliefs depends on prior beliefs: Subjects with low prior beliefs increase their concern, whereas subjects with high prior beliefs decrease their concern. Moreover, we find that the unscientific style has a stronger
effect on belief updating than the scientific style. Neither content nor style affects pro-environmental behavior significantly.