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.