Thread by @TSpampatti

🚨new preprint🚨

In two preregistered studies (N>3000 from 8 countries), we provide first evidence supporting a new *trust inoculation* that can be implemented to protect climate mitigation actions against negative persuasive attacks. psyarxiv.com/zau32/

Interested? 🧵1/7

Negative attacks towards climate mitigation actions are ubiquitous in public discourse, and traditional interventions require preemptive knowledge about the argumentation used in these attacks to build psychological defenses.
2/7

To overcome this and create an inoculation that can be used regardless of the content of incoming attacks, we developed a trust inoculation: we made every aspect of the trustworthiness of key energy actors salient, as an attitudinal protection that we tested against...
3/7

... twenty consecutive (!) negative persuasive attacks. In Geneva and 7 EU countries, the inoculation protected participants affect towards and political support of a renewable energy, #geothermal energy, and the protection extended to an energy choice task. 4/7

Importantly, across both studies, we also found that the trust inoculation protected those participants who were most vulnerable to negative persuasive, and that it was not moderated by baseline trust in the energy actors.
5/7

Overall, our findings show that creating new inoculations tailored around social aspects of persuasion - such as trustworthiness for the trust inoculation - can be a promising new direction for future inoculation interventions!
6/7

Again, the preprint can be found at psyarxiv.com/zau32/ This work would have not been possible without my amazing supervisors 🫡 @tobiasbrosch , @etrutnevyte, and Ulf Hahnel 🫡
7/7

Would love to hear what inoculation researchers think! @JoshCompton2011 @Sander_vdLinden @CecilieTraberg @roozenbot @johnfocook