Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Biases: Understanding Human Judgment in Climate Change Communication
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47067/ramss.v8i2.535Keywords:
Cognitive Biases, Artificial Intelligence, Climate Communication, Public Engagement, Pro-Environmental Behavior, Optimism Bias, Anchoring Bias, Confirmation Bias, Demographic Differences, MisinformationAbstract
The current research examines cognitive biases and climate communication based on artificial intelligence (AI), as well as their linkage to public climate change message comprehension or engagement. Such cognitive biases as optimism, anchoring, and confirmation bias may cause people to misperceive climate messages, tending to undermine risks and lack motivation to change their pro-environmental behaviors. These relationships were studied using a quantitative research design. The sample size of participants was 280 people who are actively seeking climate information over the Internet using digital sources, such as social networks, news websites, and AI-based software. Stratified random sampling strategy was employed so as to cover a wide range of demographic unevenness, in terms of age, sex, education level and career. Structured questionnaires would be used to obtain measurable data that would be analyzed by use of statistical techniques in order to determine association, predictive effects and group differences. The results show that AI technologies can enhance knowledge and inspire pro-environmental attitude, yet their performance can be affected by overcoming cognitive bias and scrupulousness in message delivery. Perception can be interfered with by demographic factors which mean that communication strategies have to be tailored depending on demographic factors. The paper highlights how psychology and AI design can collectively inform climate communication strategies to be evidence-based, persuasive, and inclusive, and offers recommendations to policymakers, educators, and communicators so they can increase awareness, drive informed decision-making, and promote pro-environmental behavior.
References
Aly, H., Volonte, M., Byrne, K. A., & Knijnenburg, B. P. (2025). Bridging the Trust Gap: Investigating the Role of Trust Transfer in the Adoption of AI Instructors for Digital Privacy Education. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Azar, K. H. (2025). Exploring the Cognitive Systems and its Distortion. Journal of Preventive, 6(1), 29-45.
Bardon, A. (2019). The truth about denial: Bias and self-deception in science, politics, and religion. Oxford University Press.
Begum, R., Ali, A., Nazeef, N. M., & Gul, H. (2025). Cognitive Biases and Climate Change Decision-Making: Understanding the Role of Optimism and Anchoring in Environmental Choices. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 3(1), 2826-2838.
Begum, R., Solangi, M. W., Shaikh, A., & Ali, A. (2025). The Role of Cognitive Flexibility in Adapting to Climate Change: AI-Driven Educational Strategies for Developing Adaptive Thinking. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 3(1), 2500-2515.
Bleda, M., & Pinkse, J. (2025). Leaving the cold behind: The role of emotions and cognitive biases in business adaptation to climate change. Business & Society, 64(1), 9-44.
Bould, M. (2021). The anthropocene unconscious: climate catastrophe culture. Verso Books.
Chen, L., Chen, Z., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., Osman, A. I., Farghali, M., Hua, J., Al-Fatesh, A., Ihara, I., & Rooney, D. W. (2023). Artificial intelligence-based solutions for climate change: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 21(5), 2525-2557.
Fang, J., Arechiga, N., Namikoshi, K., Bravo, N., Hogan, C., & Shamma, D. A. (2024). On LLM Wizards: Identifying Large Language Models' Behaviors for Wizard of Oz Experiments. Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents,
Gabriel, N., & O’Connor, C. (2024). Can confirmation bias improve group learning? Philosophy of Science, 91(2), 329-350.
Galaz, V. (2024). Dark Machines: How Artificial Intelligence, Digitalization and Automation is Changing Our Living Planet. Taylor & Francis.
Galaz, V., Centeno, M., Callahan, P., Causevic, A., Patterson, T., Brass, I., Baum, S., Farber, D., Fischer, J., & Garcia, D. (2021). Machine intelligence, systemic risks, and sustainability. Nature Machine Intelligence.
García-Vinuesa, A., da Cunha, M. L. I., & Pernas, R. G. (2020). Gender Differences in Adolescent’s Climate Change Knowledge and Perceptions. Meta-Analysis. Pensamiento Educativo: Revista De Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 57(2), 1-21.
Hilbert, M. (2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychological bulletin, 138(2), 211.
Huntingford, C., Jeffers, E. S., Bonsall, M. B., Christensen, H. M., Lees, T., & Yang, H. (2019). Machine learning and artificial intelligence to aid climate change research and preparedness. Environmental Research Letters, 14(12), 124007.
Jiang, H., Wang, P., Yi, X., Xie, X., & Xiao, Z. (2025). The Incomplete Bridge: How AI Research (Mis) Engages with Psychology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22847.
Kearney, A. R. (1994). Understanding global change: a cognitive perspective on communicating through stories. Climatic Change, 27(4), 419-441.
Luo, C., Yang, X., Zheng, H., He, Y., & Xu, Y. (2025). Linking incidental corrective information exposure to health misinformation correction intention: testing an extended cognitive mediation model. Asian Journal of Communication, 35(3), 225-246.
Palmucci, D. N., & Ferraris, A. (2023). Climate change inaction: Cognitive bias influencing managers' decision making on environmental sustainability choices. The role of empathy and morality with the need of an integrated and comprehensive perspective. Frontiers in psychology, 14, 1130059.
Rask, M. (2023). Challenges and enablers of effective risk communication: viewpoints from Finnish safety authorities’ communications professionals.
Romeu, H. C. (2025). Framing in Climate Change Communication and its Influence on Ideological Divides. Glocality, 8(1).
Sahil, K., Mehta, P., Bhardwaj, S. K., & Dhaliwal, L. K. (2023). Development of mitigation strategies for the climate change using artificial intelligence to attain sustainability. In Visualization techniques for climate change with machine learning and artificial intelligence (pp. 421-448). Elsevier.
Schwartz, R., Schwartz, R., Vassilev, A., Greene, K., Perine, L., Burt, A., & Hall, P. (2022). Towards a standard for identifying and managing bias in artificial intelligence (Vol. 3). US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology ….
Sterman, J. D. (2011). Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Climatic Change, 108(4), 811.
Van der Linden, E. W. (2020). Lived experiences of failure among healthcare entrepreneurs: An interpretative phenomenological analysis University of Bradford].
Weart, S. R. (2010). The idea of anthropogenic global climate change in the 20th century. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 67-81.
Wu, Q., Xu, Y., Xiao, T., Xiao, Y., Li, Y., Wang, T., Zhang, Y., Zhong, S., Zhang, Y., & Lu, W. (2024). Surveying attitudinal alignment between large language models vs. humans towards 17 sustainable development goals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13885.
Yang, J., He, W., Xia, Z., Wu, K., Fang, W., Ma, Z., Liu, M., & Bi, J. (2025). Measuring climate change perception in China using mental images: A nationwide open?ended survey. Risk Analysis, 45(2), 441-456.
Zaval, L., & Cornwell, J. F. (2016). Cognitive biases, non-rational judgments, and public perceptions of climate change. In Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science.
Zhang, K., Ye, G., Xiang, Q., & Chang, Y. (2025). Influencing mechanism of optimism bias on construction worker’s unsafe behavior: the role of risk perception and risk propensity. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
Zhang, L., & Li, E.-N. (2018). Risk factors for surgical site infection following lumbar spinal surgery: a meta-analysis. Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2161-2169.
