IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i11p6943-d832821.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Half-Truth Effect and Its Implications for Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Barchetti

    (Carl H. Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati, 2906 Woodside Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA)

  • Emma Neybert

    (Carl H. Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati, 2906 Woodside Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA)

  • Susan Powell Mantel

    (Carl H. Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati, 2906 Woodside Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA)

  • Frank R. Kardes

    (Carl H. Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati, 2906 Woodside Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA)

Abstract

Misinformation on sustainability has become a widespread phenomenon in many different contexts. However, relatively little is known about several important determinants of belief in misinformation, and even less is known about how to debias that belief. The present research proposes and investigates a new effect, the half-truth effect, to explain how message structure can influence belief in misinformation. Two survey-based experiments were conducted to show that people exhibit greater belief in a false claim when it is preceded by a true claim, even if the two claims are logically unrelated. Conversely, when a false claim is presented before the true claim, it reduces the belief in the entire statement. Experiment 1 shows the basic half-truth effect. Experiment 2 investigates an individual difference, propensity to believe meaningless statements are profound, which impacts the half-truth effect. Both experiments also investigate debiasing of the false information. The results of the experiments were analyzed using analysis of variance and regression-based mediation analysis. Results show that belief in misinformation is dependent on message structure, and show that the order in which true and false elements are presented has a strong influence on belief in sustainability misinformation. Finally, we present a discussion of how policy makers can use these findings to identify those people who are most likely to be swayed by the misinformation, and then design responses to debias sustainability misinformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Barchetti & Emma Neybert & Susan Powell Mantel & Frank R. Kardes, 2022. "The Half-Truth Effect and Its Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:11:p:6943-:d:832821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6943/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6943/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haugtvedt, Curtis P & Wegener, Duane T, 1994. "Message Order Effects in Persuasion: An Attitude Strength Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 205-218, June.
    2. Alison Jing Xu & Robert S. Wyer Jr., 2012. "The Role of Bolstering and Counterarguing Mind-Sets in Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(5), pages 920-932.
    3. Dietram A. Scheufele & Nicole M. Krause, 2019. "Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(16), pages 7662-7669, April.
    4. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    5. Hailemariam Teklewold & Menale Kassie & Bekele Shiferaw, 2013. "Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 597-623, September.
    6. David Zilberman & Tim G. Holland & Itai Trilnick, 2018. "Agricultural GMOs—What We Know and Where Scientists Disagree," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    7. Patrick O. Waeber & Natasha Stoudmann & James D. Langston & Jaboury Ghazoul & Lucienne Wilmé & Jeffrey Sayer & Carlos Nobre & John L. Innes & Philip Fernbach & Steven A. Sloman & Claude A. Garcia, 2021. "Choices We Make in Times of Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:6:p:549-563 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Heidi J. Larson, 2018. "The biggest pandemic risk? Viral misinformation," Nature, Nature, vol. 562(7727), pages 309-309, October.
    10. Justin Farrell & Kathryn McConnell & Robert Brulle, 2019. "Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(3), pages 191-195, March.
    11. Chris Butters, 2021. "Myths and Issues about Sustainable Living," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    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. Philipp Lorenz-Spreen & Stephan Lewandowsky & Cass R. Sunstein & Ralph Hertwig, 2020. "How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 1102-1109, November.
    2. Gustavo J. Bobonis & Paul J. Gertler & Marco Gonzalez-Navarro & Simeon Nichter, 2022. "Vulnerability and Clientelism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(11), pages 3627-3659, November.
    3. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    4. Robert Jiro Netzer & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Intercultural trust. An experiment in Austria and Japan," Working Papers 2009-05, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    5. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence -A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,29, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    6. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    7. Pierre Koning & J. Vyrastekova & S. Onderstal, 2006. "Team incentives in public organisations; an experimental study," CPB Discussion Paper 60, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    8. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    9. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    10. Jason Aimone & Sheryl Ball & Brooks King-Casas, 2015. "The Betrayal Aversion Elicitation Task: An Individual Level Betrayal Aversion Measure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, September.
    11. Giuseppe Maggio & Marina Mastrorillo & Nicholas J. Sitko, 2022. "Adapting to High Temperatures: Effect of Farm Practices and Their Adoption Duration on Total Value of Crop Production in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 385-403, January.
    12. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    13. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David, 2019. "Using ethical dilemmas to predict antisocial choices with real payoff consequences: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 195-215.
    14. Kimmich, Christian & Fischbacher, Urs, 2016. "Behavioral determinants of supply chain integration and coexistence," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 55-77.
    15. Funk, Daniel C. & Haugtvedt, Curtis P. & Howard, Dennis R., 2000. "Contemporary Attitude Theory in Sport: Theoretical Considerations and Implications," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 125-144, November.
    16. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Mahmud, Minhaj & Martinsson, Peter, 2005. "Does stake size matter in trust games?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 365-369, September.
    17. Giovanni Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2016. "Trust and reciprocity: extensions and robustness of triadic design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 100-115, March.
    18. Jordi Brandts & Werner Güth & Andreas Stiehler, 2002. "I want YOU! An experiment studying the selection effect when assigning distributive power," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2002-13, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    19. Drouvelis, Michalis & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2015. "Are happier people less judgmental of other people's selfish behaviors? Experimental survey evidence from trust and gift exchange games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 111-123.
    20. Diego Marino Fages, 2023. "Migration and trust: Evidence on assimilation from internal migrants," Discussion Papers 2023-08, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:11:p:6943-:d:832821. 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.