The Psychology Behind Susceptibility to Misinformation

The growing demand for disinformation poses a critical challenge alongside its supply, with Australian research leading efforts to understand both sides of this complex issue. While considerable attention has been paid to the networks creating and distributing false information, experts argue that understanding why people consume such content remains crucial to addressing the problem.

Much like the fossil fuel industry, there exists an infrastructure dedicated to producing disinformation, utilizing both manual creation and AI-powered systems to generate misleading content. These operations establish distribution channels through platforms like Substack and X (formerly Twitter), creating what analysts describe as “pipelines” for falsehoods.

However, the fundamental question remains: Why do individuals so readily accept demonstrably false information, even when it contradicts itself or defies logical scrutiny?

Ketan Joshi, author of the 2020 book “Windfall,” has explored this phenomenon extensively. His research indicates that while there are clearly organized groups funding disinformation campaigns, there’s an equally important demand-side factor at play. Communities that feel marginalized by powerful institutions like governments and corporations become particularly susceptible to narratives that validate their grievances.

“The suppliers of disinformation depend on the demand-side effect of angry, disenfranchised people hunting for validation,” Joshi notes, pointing to a symbiotic relationship between creators and consumers of false information.

In the renewable energy sector, this dynamic becomes especially evident. Corporate developers focused narrowly on profitability often create projects that change ownership multiple times, resist meaningful benefit-sharing arrangements, and fail to establish emotional connections with local communities. This approach can leave people feeling steamrolled by “climate-solutions capitalism,” creating fertile ground for disinformation that provides justification for their anger.

Organizations like the Australian Renewable Energy Alliance are working to bridge this gap by fostering collaboration between industry and communities. However, these efforts often struggle against powerful economic and social currents that continue to alienate certain populations.

The situation isn’t without nuance. Joshi points to wealthy coastal homeowners who oppose barely visible offshore wind projects “for little reason beyond a mix of boredom and the brain-rot of wealth” as demonstrating that disinformation consumers aren’t exclusively the disenfranchised.

Conversely, some communities are proactively avoiding becoming targets of disinformation campaigns by taking control of their energy transitions from the outset. “They aren’t passive victims of disinformation; they become active masters of their own fate,” Joshi observes.

Another complication arises when legitimate critics raising constructive questions about renewable energy implementation get lumped together with disinformation campaigns simply because they appear to oppose renewables. This categorization further muddles efforts to distinguish between genuine criticism and manufactured falsehoods.

While regulating and exposing disinformation suppliers remains vital work—something Joshi himself has dedicated significant career efforts to—addressing the demand side presents a more complex challenge. It requires deeper systemic changes to how wealth, power, and influence are distributed throughout society.

Joshi raises a provocative question: “What if the default way we deal with money and power in the energy transition helps create demand for the toxic bullshit-factory products we are scrambling to push back against?” Though troubling, he maintains this pattern “can absolutely be countered and rectified to ensure the elimination of fossil fuels keeps pace over the coming decades.”

The path forward requires addressing both supply and demand of disinformation, with particular attention to the social and economic conditions that make false narratives appealing to certain communities. Only through this comprehensive approach can societies hope to create an information ecosystem resistant to manufactured falsehoods.