Abstract
Public misinformation about wind farms threatens the global transition to net-zero and a more environmentally sustainable future. This study examines whether conversations with Generative AI (GenAI) can effectively address misinformation and improve attitudes and beliefs about wind farms. In two pre-registered experiments (collective N = 2405), participants with anti-wind farm beliefs engaged in three-round dialogues with ChatGPT, a widely used GenAI tool. Fact-checking showed no clear cases of the GenAI introducing misinformation. Furthermore, following GenAI conversations, participants displayed reduced agreement with misinformation about wind farms, increased policy support, and reduced confidence in their anti-wind farm views. However, some of these effects decayed over time and were not always more effective than static informational resources. These findings highlight both the potential and limitations of GenAI in combating sustainability misinformation, offering insights for leveraging AI in public communication strategies.
Data availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available in the OSF repository, [https://osf.io/e8m26/?view\_only=1f6ae3d63e1a41349d3a4bf9cba6fe49](https:/osf.io/e8m26/?view_only=1f6ae3d63e1a41349d3a4bf9cba6fe49).
References
Devine-Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy. 8, 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.124 (2005).
Pedersen, E. & Persson Waye, K. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occup. Environ. Med. 64, 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2006.031039 (2007).
Heintzelman, M. D. & Tuttle, C. M. Values in the wind: A hedonic analysis of wind power facilities. Land Econ. 88, 571–588 (2012).
Hall, N., Ashworth, P. & Devine-Wright, P. Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies. Energy Policy. 58, 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.009 (2013).
Liu, L., Bouman, T., Perlaviciute, G. & Steg, L. Effects of competence- and integrity-based trust on public acceptability of renewable energy projects in China and the Netherlands. J. Environ. Psychol. 67, 101390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101390 (2020).
Perlaviciute, G. & Steg, L. Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 35, 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.003 (2014).
Walker, B. J. A., Wiersma, B. & Bailey, E. Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of offshore wind farms: An experimental study in England. Energy Res. Social Sci. 3, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.003 (2014).
Southwell, B. G., Brennen, J. S. B., Paquin, R., Boudewyns, V. & Zeng, J. Defining and measuring scientific misinformation. ANNALS Am. Acad. Political Social Sci. 700, 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221084709 (2022).
Winter, K., Hornsey, M. J., Pummerer, L. & Sassenberg, K. Public agreement with misinformation about wind farms. Nat. Commun. 15, 8888. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53278-2 (2024).
Hall, G., Culhane, T. & Roberts, J. T. Climate coalitions and anti-coalitions: Lobbying across state legislatures in the United States. Energy Res. Social Sci. 113, 103562 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103562 (2024).
Slevin, I., Kattrup, W., Marcil, C. & Roberts, J. T. Beyond dark money: Information subsidies and complex networks of opposition to offshore wind on the U.S. East Coast. Energy Res. Social Sci. 119, 103829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103829 (2025).
Simon, J. in Misinformation is derailing renewable energy projects across the United States. NPR (2022). https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1086790531/renewable-energy-projects-wind-energy-solarenergy-climate-change-misinformation
Sturmer, J. Waubra Foundation, prominent anti-wind farm lobby, stripped of health promotion charity status. ABC News (2014).
Fergen, J. T., Jacquet, J. B. & Shukla, R. Doomscrolling’ in my backyard: Corrosive online communities and contested wind development in rural Ohio. Energy Res. Social Sci. 80, 102224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102224 (2021).
Bump, P. Trump claims that wind farms cause cancer for very Trumpian reasons. Washington Post 3 (2019).
Ecker, U. K. H. et al. Misinformation poses a bigger threat to democracy than you might think. Nature 630, 29–32 (2024).
Toke, D. Explaining wind power planning outcomes: Some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy. 33, 1527–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.01.009 (2005).
Imhoff, R. On the usefulness of the conspiracy mentality concept. Z. Psychol. 232, 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000550 (2024).
Imhoff, R. & Bruder, M. Speaking (un-)truth to power: Conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude. Eur. J. Pers. 28, 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1930 (2014).
Winter, K., Hornsey, M. J., Pummerer, L. & Sassenberg, K. Anticipating and defusing the role of conspiracy beliefs in shaping opposition to wind farms. Nat. Energy. 7, 1200–1207 (2022).
Swami, V. et al. Lunar lies: The impact of informational framing and individual differences in shaping conspiracist beliefs about the moon landings. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 27, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2873 (2013).
Bode, L. & Vraga, E. K. See something, say something: Correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Commun. 33, 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312 (2018).
Guan, T., Liu, T. & Yuan, R. Facing disinformation: Five methods to counter conspiracy theories amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Comunicar 29, 71–83 (2021).
Orosz, G. et al. Changing conspiracy beliefs through rationality and ridiculing. Front. Psychol. 7, 1525 (2016).
O’Mahony, C., Brassil, M., Murphy, G. & Linehan, C. The efficacy of interventions in reducing belief in conspiracy theories: A systematic review. PLOS ONE. 18, 0280902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280902 (2023).
Stasielowicz, L. The effectiveness of interventions addressing conspiracy beliefs: A meta-analysis. OSF Preprint, (2024). https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/6vs5u
Hornsey, M. J., Bierwiaczonek, K., Sassenberg, K. & Douglas, K. M. Individual, intergroup and nation-level influences on belief in conspiracy theories. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00133-0 (2023).
Chan, M. S. & Albarracín, D. A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 1514–1525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01623-8 (2023).
Danielson, R. W. et al. The effectiveness of refutation text in confronting scientific misconceptions: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychol. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2365628 (2024).
Costello, T. H., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI. Science 385, eadq1814. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq1814 (2024).
Huang, G. & Wang, S. Is artificial intelligence more persuasive than humans? A meta-analysis. J. Communication. 73 (6), 552–562. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad024 (2023).
Chu-Ke, C. & Dong, Y. Misinformation and literacies in the era of Generative Artificial Intelligence: A brief overview and a call for future research. Emerg. Media. 2, 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543241240285 (2024).
Shumailov, I. et al. AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data. Nature 631, 755–759. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07566-y (2024).
Alemohammad, S. et al. Self-consuming generative models Go MAD. ICLR Conference Proceedings (2024).
Roozenbeek, J., Remshard, M. & Kyrychenko, Y. Beyond the headlines: On the efficacy and effectiveness of misinformation interventions. Adv. Psychol. 2, e24569 https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00019 (2024).
Kozyreva, A. et al. Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0 (2024).
Holliday, D. E., Lelkes, Y. & Westwood, S. J. Why depolarization is hard: Evaluating attempts to decrease partisan animosity in America. Proce. Natl. Acad. Sci. 122 (39), e2508827122 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2508827122 (2025).
Bretter, C. et al. Mapping, understanding and reducing belief in misinformation about electric vehicles. Nat. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-025-01790-0 (2025).
Hornsey, M. J. et al. The promise and limitations of using GenAI to reduce climate scepticism. Nat. Clim. Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02425-8 (2025).
Yan, L., Greiff, S., Teuber, Z. & Gašević, D. Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 1839–1850. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02004-5 (2024).
Goos, M. & Savona, M. The governance of artificial intelligence: Harnessing opportunities and mitigating challenges. Res. Policy. 53, 104928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104928 (2024).
Curtis, C., Gillespie, N. & Lockey, S. AI-deploying organizations are key to addressing ‘perfect storm’ of AI risks. AI Ethics. 3, 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00163-7 (2023).
Kemene, E., Valkhof, B. & Tladi, T. AI and energy: Will AI help reduce emissions or increase demand? Here’s what to know (World Economic Forum, 2024).
Altman, S. The gentle singularity. OpenAI. Retrieved October 1, from (2025). https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity
Rajasekar, E., Chandra, H., Pears, N., Vairavasundaram, S. & Kotecha, K. Lung image quality assessment and diagnosis using generative autoencoders in unsupervised ensemble learning. Biomed. Signal Process. Control. 102, 107268 (2025).
Kumarappan, J., Rajasekar, E., Vairavasundaram, S., Kotecha, K. & Kulkarni, A. Siamese Graph Convolutional Split-Attention Network with NLP based Social Sentimental Data for enhanced stock price predictions. J. Big Data. 11, 154 (2024).
Kumarappan, J., Rajasekar, E., Vairavasundaram, S., Kotecha, K. & Kulkarni, A. Federated Learning Enhanced MLP–LSTM Modeling in an Integrated Deep Learning Pipeline for Stock Market Prediction. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 17, 267 (2024).
DeVerna, M. R., Yan, H. Y., Yang, K. C. & Menczer, F. Fact-checking information from large language models can decrease headline discernment. Proce Natl. Acad. Sci. 121, e2322823121. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322823121 (2024).
Funding
acknowledgement.
This research was supported by an ARC Laureate grant awarded to MJH (FL230100022).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.P., M.J.H.,C.B., S.M., A.S. designed the studies. S.P. and M.J.H. conducted the analyses. S.P. and M.J.H. wrote the paper, and C.B., S.M., A.S., S.R., B.W. and J.N. provided support in revising the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pearson, S., Hornsey, M.J., Bretter, C. et al. Evaluating generative AI’s potential to dispel misinformation about wind farms. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-42790-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-42790-8
