IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i24p16670-d1000567.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relationship between Bullshit Receptivity and Willingness to Share Misinformation about Climate Change: The Moderating Role of Pregnancy

Author

Listed:
  • Kaisheng Lai

    (School of Journalism and Communication, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yingxin Yang

    (School of Journalism and Communication, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yuxiang Na

    (School of Journalism and Communication, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China)

  • Haixia Wang

    (School of Journalism and Communication, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China)

Abstract

Widespread dissemination of misinformation about climate change has seriously harmed the health of future generations and the world. Moreover, misinformation-sharing behaviors exhibit strong individual characteristics. However, research is limited on the antecedents of and mechanism underlying the willingness to share misinformation about climate change in terms of individual personalities and physiological states. Accordingly, we surveyed 582 women (224 pregnant) using a questionnaire and constructed a moderated mediation model to explore the relationships among individuals’ bullshit receptivity, belief in misinformation about climate change, willingness to share misinformation about climate change, and pregnancy. The results showed that: (1) bullshit receptivity is positively related to the willingness to share misinformation about climate change; (2) belief in misinformation about climate change mediates the relationship between bullshit receptivity and willingness to share misinformation about climate change; and (3) for individuals with higher bullshit receptivity, pregnancy exacerbates the detrimental effects of bullshit receptivity on belief in misinformation about climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaisheng Lai & Yingxin Yang & Yuxiang Na & Haixia Wang, 2022. "The Relationship between Bullshit Receptivity and Willingness to Share Misinformation about Climate Change: The Moderating Role of Pregnancy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:24:p:16670-:d:1000567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16670/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16670/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:6:p:549-563 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Shengyingjie Liu & Huai Yang & Min Cheng & Tianchang Miao, 2022. "Family Dysfunction and Cyberchondria among Chinese Adolescents: A Moderated Mediation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Yuzheng Wang & Jing Chen & Xiaoshuo Zhang & Xiaoxiao Lin & Yabin Sun & Ning Wang & Jinyan Wang & Fei Luo, 2022. "The Relationship between Perfectionism and Social Anxiety: A Moderated Mediation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-9, October.
    4. Sander L van der Linden & Anthony A Leiserowitz & Geoffrey D Feinberg & Edward W Maibach, 2015. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
    5. Hamiza Ngah & Suhaily Mohd Hairon & Nurul Ainun Hamzah & Shahronizam Noordin & Mohd Nazri Shafei, 2022. "Development and Validation of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Questionnaire: Toward Safe Working in Confined Spaces," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Haixia Wang & Xiqian Zou & Kaisheng Lai & Weiping Luo & Lingnan He, 2021. "Does Quality of Life Act as a Protective Factor against Believing Health Rumors? Evidence from a National Cross-Sectional Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-10, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    2. Hamiza Ngah & Suhaily Mohd Hairon & Nurul Ainun Hamzah & Shahronizam Noordin & Mohd Nazri Shafei, 2022. "Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice on Safe Working in Confined Space among Male Water Services Workers in the Central Region of Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-15, June.
    3. Kaitlin T Raimi & Paul C Stern & Alexander Maki, 2017. "The Promise and Limitations of Using Analogies to Improve Decision-Relevant Understanding of Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    4. Shapiro, Matthew A., 2020. "Next-generation battery research and development: Non-politicized science at the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    5. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Adam R. Pearson & Guadalupe A. Bacio & Sarah Naiman & Rainer Romero-Canyas & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2021. "Cultural determinants of climate change opinion: familism predicts climate beliefs and policy support among US Latinos," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 1-8, July.
    7. Eric Plutzer & A. Lee Hannah, 2018. "Teaching climate change in middle schools and high schools: investigating STEM education’s deficit model," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 305-317, August.
    8. Lipari, Francesca & Lázaro-Touza, Lara & Escribano, Gonzalo & Sánchez, Ángel & Antonioni, Alberto, 2024. "When the design of climate policy meets public acceptance: An adaptive multiplex network model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    9. Rosalind Pidcock & Kate Heath & Lydia Messling & Susie Wang & Anna Pirani & Sarah Connors & Adam Corner & Christopher Shaw & Melissa Gomis, 2021. "Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-22, October.
    10. Albert Ayorinde Abegunde, 2017. "Local communities’ belief in climate change in a rural region of Sub-Saharan Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1489-1522, August.
    11. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    12. Matthew Motta & Daniel Chapman & Dominik Stecula & Kathryn Haglin, 2019. "An experimental examination of measurement disparities in public climate change beliefs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 37-47, May.
    13. Ruth Breeze, 2021. "Claiming Credibility in Online Comments: Popular Debate Surrounding the COVID-19 Vaccine," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, August.
    14. Mantzari, Eleni & Reynolds, James P. & Jebb, Susan A. & Hollands, Gareth J. & Pilling, Mark A. & Marteau, Theresa M., 2022. "Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    15. Neda Mohammadi & Qi Wang & John E Taylor, 2016. "Diffusion Dynamics of Energy Saving Practices in Large Heterogeneous Online Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, October.
    16. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    17. Clulow, Z. & Reiner, D. M., 2022. "How to distinguish climate sceptics, antivaxxers, and persistent sceptics: Evidence from a multi-country survey of public attitudes," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2209, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    18. Carisa Bergner & Bruce A. Desmarais & John Hird, 2019. "Speaking truth in power: Scientific evidence as motivation for policy activism," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    19. Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    20. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2018. "Self-assessed understanding of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 349-362, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:24:p:16670-:d:1000567. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.