Repetition increases belief in climate-skeptical claims, even for climate science endorsers

which participants self-classified as skeptic-aligning in a linear mixed model that parallels the previously used model (Table 4). This linear mixed-effects model included the following fac- tors: participant (random), repetition (fixed; repeated vs. non-repeated), subjective claim type (fixed; scientist vs. skeptic), and repetition x claim type interaction (fixed). Fig 4. Raincloud plot of truth rating differences between repeated and non-repeated claims across claim types (all, scientist, skeptic, weather) in Experiment 2. Shown is the difference between the truth ratings when claims were repeated vs. not repeated, computed as (mean of repeated claims minus mean of non-repeated claims), for each participant. Values above zero reflect a repetition-induced truth effect, where on average repeated claims are rated as more true than non-repeated claims. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307294.g004 Table 4. Estimates of fixed effects using subjective claim type in Experiment 2 with endorsers only. Variable b SE df t p 95% CI Intercept 2.46 0.21 166.27 12.00 < .001 [2.05, 2.86] Repetition [repeated] 0.68 0.26 218.85 2.61 0.01 [.17, 1.20] Claim Type [scientist-aligning] 1.7 0.26 229.54 6.62 < .001 [1.20, 2.21] Repetition [repeated] * Claim Type [scientist-aligning] 0.19 0.36 226.57 0.51 0.61 [-.53, .90] https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307294.t004 PLOS ONE Illusory truth effect for climate-skeptical claims PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307294 August 7, 2024 11 / 19