Here at DeSmogBlog, and around the environmental and liberal political blogosphere, there is great concern about โAstroturfโ organizationsโgroups that pose as real citizen movements or organizations, but in fact are closely tied to corporations or special interests. The โfake grassrootsโ has been a major issue in the climate debate in particular, where groups like Americans for Prosperity, closely tied to the billionaire Koch Brothers, have sought to mobilize opposition to cap-and-tradeย legislation.
One obvious goal of astroturfing is to shape public policy, and public opinion, in a manner congenial to corporate interests. And indeed, the outrage over astroturfing in a sense presumes that this activity actually works (or else, why opposeย it).
Yet there have been few scientific tests of whether the strategy does indeed move peopleโin part, presumably, because doing a controlled experiment might be hard to pull off. Thatโs why I was so intrigued by a new study in the Journal of Business Ethics, which attempts to do just that.
Charles H. Cho of the ESSEC Business School in France, and his colleagues, set up a study in which they created (ironically) fake Astroturf websites related to global warmingโas well as fake grassroots websites on the same issueโand tested over 200 college undergraduates on their responses to them. To ensure a strong experimental design, only a few things were varied about these websitesโwhat they claimed about the science, and what they disclosed about their fundingย sources:
The website for each condition, respectively, consisted of a โโHome pageโโ with links to five other pages pertaining to global warming and the organizationโs activities. In the grassroots condition, these were labeled as โโAbout us,โโ โโKey issues and solutions,โโ โโWhy act now?โโ โโGet involved!โโ and โโContact us.โโ Similarly, in the astroturf condition, the pages links were labeled as โโAbout us,โโ โโMyths/facts,โโ โโClimate science,โโ โโScientific references,โโ and โโContact us.โโ All of the content was based on information found on real-world grassroots and astroturf web-sitesย โฆ.
A further manipulation consisted of disclosing information regarding the funding source that supported the organization. The organizationโs name in all websites, regardless of the condition, was โโClimate Clarity.โโ In each of the funding source conditions, all web pages within the condition specified who funds the organization (donations, Exxon Mobil or the Conservation Heritage Fund). The โโno disclosureโโ condition did not have any information on funding sources anywhere within the webย pages.
I trust readers of this blog can see why this study designย isโฆrelevant.ย
Interestingly, when the results were gathered, it turned out that information about the siteโs funding source didnโt have any significant effect on the study participantsโ views. However, readers of the astroturf sites ย were much more likely to feel that the science of global warming is uncertain, and to question the phenomenonโs humanย causation.ย
One finding was particularly disturbing: People found the Astroturf messages less trustworthy overall, and yet were still influenced by them. The most influenced were those study participants who were the least engaged in the climate issueโand thus, presumably, the most vulnerable to astroturfย misinformation.
In many ways, this study bulwarks assumptions that Iโand many of usโhad already. The one surprising thing was that funding source didnโt seem to matterโbut you have to wonder about this finding aย little.
The study used โExxonMobilโ as the funding source for Astroturf groups, but what that actually signified to study participants is unclear. When funding sources of Astroturf groups are revealed in blogs and on the media, you generally get a lot more information than thisโand a much greater tone of outrage. Perhaps a more realistic test of this condition would lead to a differentย result.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts