When fairness is flawed: Effects of false balance reporting and weight-of-evidence statements on beliefs and perceptions of climate change.

Presenting both sides of an issue is considered a feature of good journalism. However, false balance can result when equal platform is given to opposing views despite one view holding expert and evidentiary support. In three experiments, we examined whether exposure to non-consensus contrarian views, on their own and in falsely balanced presentations, would affect perceptions of expert consensus and personal belief in climate change. Exposure to contrarian views reduced perceived expert consensus, even when paired with a consensus view, and regardless of the expertise of the contrarian source. However, participants who subsequently read a weight-of-evidence statement, despite reading contrarian arguments, showed no such reductions and even beneficial increases in their beliefs and perceptions. Although contrarian claims problematically inform people’s understandings of issues by making them seem more contentious than they actually are, statements about the broader consensus of experts can encourage perceptions and understandings in line with empirical evidence.