From lawful participation to radical protest: how confidence in climate misinformation reshapes the value- and risk-based drivers of environmental activism
This study reveals that while moderate climate activism is driven by trust, perceived benefits, and negative emotions, radical activism is primarily fueled by confidence in climate misinformation and system-critical worldviews, with the latter acting as an epistemic lens that fundamentally reshapes how values and risk perceptions translate into environmental action.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Climate change is no longer just a scientific forecast; it is a reality reshaping ecosystems and threatening human safety. In response, people are taking action, but they are not all acting in the same way. Some choose to work within the system, signing petitions, donating to established groups, and attending lawful demonstrations. Others feel that the current system is broken and unresponsive, leading them to disrupt traffic, occupy buildings, or break laws to force change. For a long time, researchers have wondered if these two groups are simply at different points on the same path, or if they are driven by entirely different psychological engines. The question is not just about what people do, but why they do it, and whether the information they believe—specifically, whether they accept false claims about the climate—changes how their values and fears translate into action.
A team of researchers from South Korea set out to untangle these motivations by looking at a large group of adults. They wanted to see if the factors that push someone to sign a petition are the same ones that push someone to block a highway. Crucially, they introduced a new variable into the mix: confidence in fake news. This is not just about being misinformed, but about how much a person trusts demonstrably false claims about the climate as if they were true. By surveying 1,849 adults and asking them about their values, their trust in institutions, their emotions, and their willingness to accept false information, the researchers built a clear picture of what drives moderate versus radical climate activism.
The study found that the two types of activism rest on almost opposite foundations. Moderate activism, the kind that stays within legal boundaries, is fueled by a broad coalition of positive factors. People who engage this way tend to trust mainstream climate information, see clear benefits in solving the problem, and feel a strong emotional connection to nature. Their actions are driven by a sense that the system can be fixed and that working together through established channels is effective. In this group, trust is the most powerful driver; believing that the information coming from scientists and governments is credible is what turns concern into lawful participation.
In stark contrast, radical activism follows a completely different logic. The factors that drive moderate action, such as trust in institutions or a deep love for nature, do not predict radical behavior. In fact, for those willing to break the law, trust in mainstream sources is often irrelevant or even a barrier. Instead, the strongest predictor of radical activism is confidence in fake news. The more a person accepts false climate claims as true, the more likely they are to support disruptive and illegal tactics. This group is also driven by a belief that the entire social and economic system is the root cause of the problem, rather than just a few fixable mistakes. Interestingly, people who are most confident in their own knowledge of the climate are also more likely to be radical, suggesting that they feel certain enough in their own understanding to challenge the status quo directly.
The researchers also discovered that confidence in fake news does not just act as a separate trigger; it changes how other factors work. For people who are highly susceptible to misinformation, the usual drivers of action are reshaped. For instance, the belief that solving climate change will bring economic benefits becomes a much stronger motivator for moderate action if the person also believes in fake news. However, for radical action, the same susceptibility to misinformation can flip the meaning of trust. Normally, trusting institutions would stop someone from breaking the law, but among those who believe in fake news, a measure of trust actually becomes associated with a higher willingness to engage in confrontation. This suggests that for this group, "trust" might be directed toward alternative, counter-consensus sources rather than mainstream ones, effectively turning a brake on action into an accelerator.
One of the most surprising findings was that the researchers had to adjust their initial expectations based on the data. They thought that negative emotions like anger would drive radical action more than moderate action, but the study showed that negative emotions actually drove moderate, lawful participation more strongly. Similarly, they expected that a deep love for nature would push people toward radicalism, but it only predicted moderate activism. The only factor that consistently predicted a willingness to break the law was the acceptance of false information. This indicates that susceptibility to misinformation is not merely a barrier that stops people from caring about the climate; for a specific, confrontational minority, it acts as a lens that reorganizes their worldview, making them more willing to challenge the system.
The study concludes that treating all climate activism as a single continuum is a mistake. The motivations for working within the system and breaking the rules are distinct and often opposing. While moderate engagement relies on trust, perceived benefits, and a belief in the system's potential, radical engagement is fueled by system-blame, self-assessed expertise, and a distrustful epistemic posture where false claims are accepted as truth. This means that efforts to encourage climate action cannot use a one-size-fits-all approach. Strategies that build trust and highlight benefits may successfully expand the moderate base, but they will not reach the radical flank, whose motivations are rooted in a different set of beliefs and a deep skepticism of the information environment. Understanding these differences is essential for anyone trying to navigate the complex landscape of climate mobilization in an age where misinformation is a powerful force.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.