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

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.

虚假新闻的扩散以及道德推理对公众舆论的影响，给气候变化传播领域带来了显著挑战。本研究聚焦保守主义与自由主义的意识形态根基，结合逻辑谬误与虚假新闻的作用，探讨其如何塑造公众对气候变化的认知。本研究采用道德基础问卷（Moral Foundations Questionnaire, MFQ）与一项包含288名受访者的量化线上调查，评估被归类为自由主义者或保守主义者的群体是否更易接受存在缺陷的推理逻辑。研究结果显示，保守主义者显著更容易受到情感操纵、诉诸权威以及过度简化论证的影响，这类影响与人身攻击（Argumentum ad hominem）、稻草人（Straw Man）以及诉诸虚伪（Tu quoque）等逻辑谬误相契合。而自由主义者尽管整体上更不易受逻辑谬误影响，但尤其容易受到情感呼吁与窃取论题（begging the question）的影响，这类影响与其道德维度中的伤害与公平关切相契合。本研究结果为道德心理学、政治意识形态与虚假信息的交叉领域提供了全新视角，同时对设计适配不同意识形态的气候变化传播内容具有实践指导意义。