Study Reveals Widespread Belief in Electric Vehicle Misinformation Across Multiple Countries

9 myths about electric vehicles have taken hold. A new study shows how many people fall for them

More people believe misinformation about electric vehicles than disagree with it and even EV owners tend to believe the myths, our new research shows. We investigated the prevalence of misinformation about EVs in four countries - Australia, the United States, Germany and Austria. Unfortunately, we found substantial agreement with misinformation across all countries. People who endorsed false claims about EVs were, not surprisingly, significantly less likely to consider buying one. Electric vehicles are vital in the fight against climate change. But pervasive misinformation is a significant challenge to the technology's uptake and has serious implications for the shift away from fossil fuels. Widespread agreement with false EV claims We conducted a survey of 4,200 people across the four countries who did not own an electric vehicle. We measured the extent to which they agreed with these nine misleading claims about electric vehicles: What we found The most widely believed myth was that electric vehicles are more likely to catch fire than petrol cars. Some 43-56% of people agreed with the statement, depending on the country. To tally the results, we looked at participants' responses for all nine misinformation statements - more than 36,000 responses in all. We then calculated how many of these responses indicated agreement or disagreement. Of the 36,000 responses, 36% were in agreement with a statement and 23% were in disagreement. A further 24% were undecided and 17% did not know. Misinformation agreement was highest in Germany and lowest in the US, but the differences between nations were small. Agreement with misinformation was strongly correlated with a lack of support for electric vehicle policies and a lack of intention to buy an EV in future. A separate part of the research involved 2,100 people in the US, about half of whom owned an electric vehicle. Surprisingly, EV owners did not significantly differ in their agreement with misinformation compared to non-owners. This underscores how embedded the problem has become. It's not about education We also examined the factors that make individuals more susceptible to EV misinformation. The strongest predictor was people who scored highly on a "conspiracy mentality" - in other words, they believed conspiracies were common in society, they saw the world through a lens of corruption and secret agendas, and distrusted institutions. People with progressive political and environmental views were less likely to endorse misinformation about EVs. A person's scientific knowledge or level of education was not a predictor. This finding aligns with previous research, and suggests the pervasive endorsement of misinformation stems from distrust in institutions and expertise rather than from a lack of education. Grounds for optimism We tested whether misinformation could be reduced with two interventions among a different sample of US participants. One group was asked to converse with ChatGPT about their views on EV misinformation. The second was asked to read a traditional EV fact sheet from the US Department of Energy. On a third "control" group, no intervention was tested. Participants who engaged with either ChatGPT or the fact sheet before we surveyed them showed significantly lower endorsement of EV misinformation compared to the control group. This persisted at a follow-up session ten days after the survey. Notably, ChatGPT did not produce any misinformation about EVs. These results build upon existing research demonstrating ChatGPT's potential to reduce endorsement of conspiracy theories. How to tackle EV misinformation Our findings show misinformation about electric vehicles has a substantial foothold in Western nations. Susceptibility is not a matter of education or knowledge, but rather stems from distrust of established institutions and expertise. We also found people who engage with facts about electric vehicles are less likely to endorse misinformation. This suggests a dual strategy is needed to reduce misinformation about EVs. First, those who deliberately spread misinformation should be held accountable. And second, evidence-based information, including accessible AI tools, can be used to build public resilience against false claims.

Most people believe misinformation about electric vehicles, international survey finds

More people believe misinformation about electric vehicles (EVs) than disagree with it, according to surveys of four countries, including Australia, Germany, Austria, and the US. The survey found having a conspiracy mentality was the main factor influencing such beliefs, the authors say. The main misinformation-related concerns for Australians included that EVs are more likely to catch fire, that EVs are intentionally complex to prevent DIY, and that batteries are deliberately non-upgradeable. The authors also found that fact sheets and dialogues with AI-chatbots helped reduce belief in misinformation and increased pro-EV policy support and purchase intentions. A University of Queensland-led study published in the journal Nature Energy has found misinformation about electric vehicles (EVs) has taken root in society and is primarily fueled by mistrust and conspiracy theories. Dr. Chris Bretter from the UQ Business School said surveys in Australia, the US, Germany and Austria found people were more likely to agree than disagree with misinformation on EVs -- even among those who owned one. "The misinformation statements we tested included that EVs are more likely to catch fire than petrol cars, do not produce emission savings and emit electromagnetic fields that damage health ... all claims which are demonstrably false," Dr. Bretter said. "We know this sort of false information is out there and circulating, but the scale of acceptance is concerning and poses a significant challenge to the global transition to more sustainable transport. "The fact that even EV owners were more likely than not to agree with misinformation underscores just how embedded it's become in society." Myths and mistrust Professor Matthew Hornsey said perhaps surprisingly, education played no role in whether survey respondents agreed with false information about EVs. "The biggest predictor of whether a person accepted misinformation statements was actually conspiracy mentality -- a tendency to believe conspiracies occur and seeing the world through a lens of corruption and secret agendas," Professor Hornsey said. "This same outlook has also been associated with opposition to science-backed technologies like vaccinations and wind farms." Professor Hornsey said survey respondents had concerns about secret agendas to exaggerate the benefits of EVs, unethical profit-driven decisions, and unfounded or exaggerated concerns about the damage of EVs towards health and the environment. "The results show public understanding of EVs has been distorted by an information landscape shaped by myths, selective framing and speculative reasoning," he said. Tackling untruths with AI The researchers also tested strategies to reduce belief in EV misinformation, increase support for pro-EV policy and an intention to purchase an EV. "We provided survey respondents with a traditional fact sheet on EVs as well as a dialogue with ChatGPT," Dr. Bretter said. "Encouragingly, both strategies resulted in lower endorsement of EV misinformation, even 10 days on. "This is the first evidence that non-curated conversations with Generative AI can have positive effects on misinformation, showing its promise for possible future solution-focused interventions on a large scale." Dr. Bretter said the potential for AI to help combat climate change needs to be assessed against the technology's own environmental impacts but is a worthwhile research avenue. "Given the global need to transition toward more sustainable transport options, it is crucial we address the prevalence of misinformation about energy efficient technologies like EVs." The project also involved researchers from the Leibniz Institute for Psychology and the University of Hohenheim in Germany.