Myths about electric vehicles are persistent, but why?
Benoît Béchard, Ph.D. | Doctor of Decision Psychology
Hussein Wazneh, Ph.D. | RISC Center
Delphine de Hemptinne, M.A. | Laval University
Reading time: 25 minutes
Sommaire
The global electric vehicle (EV) market is experiencing rapid growth, expanding from 2.5 to more than 30 million units between 2020 and 2030 [1]. This transformation has been accompanied by a proliferation of misconceptions [2–3]. Understanding the mechanisms that sustain these myths is essential to fostering an informed discussion on the real challenges of the energy transition.
Myths Surrounding the Transition to Electric Mobility
Although the transition to electric mobility is now underway on a global scale, it occurs in an unstable geopolitical context, marked by the resurgence of tensions among major powers, the weakening of international institutions, and increasing political polarization [4]. These upheavals create complex dynamics that influence societies and contribute to social fragmentation. In this environment, false beliefs spread easily and shape how people process and interpret information.
Indeed, a large-scale study conducted among citizens in multiple countries shows that more people today believe in misconceptions about EVs than reject them, including among EV owners themselves [5]. This phenomenon is far from isolated, as a growing body of research highlights the persistence of myths about electric vehicles [see 6–8]. In this context, Daniel Breton’s book 50 Myths and Half-Truths About Electric Vehicles [9] provides a clear overview of these misconceptions. Drawing on scientific data, international comparisons, and concrete examples, the author reviews the most common concerns (range, charging infrastructure, carbon footprint, economic impacts) to distinguish between facts and preconceived notions.
In this text, we will examine a few of these misconceptions, keeping in mind that the many myths still shaping public discourse about EVs generally stem from a lack of understanding of the context and the scientific data associated with them [6–8].
Myth 1: Electric Vehicles Pollute More Than Gas Cars
It is often claimed that over their entire lifecycle, EVs emit more greenhouse gases than gasoline-powered cars. However, life cycle analyses—which consider manufacturing, use, and recycling, i.e., the environmental impact of an object over its entire life—show that EVs’ carbon emissions are generally much lower than those of conventional vehicles [11]. In Quebec, where electricity is almost entirely hydroelectric, this reduction can reach nearly 90%. Even in regions still reliant on coal, the difference remains significant, ranging between 30 and 40% [10].
Myth 2: Battery Metal Extraction Is Too Polluting
Among criticisms of EVs, many argue that the mining required for battery production is too polluting to justify the electric transition. However, this argument does not tell the whole story. Even when accounting for emissions from mining during this stage, the overall carbon footprint of an EV remains better than that of a gasoline vehicle [11].
Myth 3: Batteries Are Designed Not to Last
Some believe that manufacturers deliberately design batteries to be non-repairable or non-upgradable. In reality, data show that under real-world usage conditions, batteries retain more than 80% of their capacity after 200,000 kilometres, while most manufacturers offer warranties of 8–10 years (sometimes up to 160,000 kilometres) [12].
Myth 4: Electric Vehicles Perform Poorly in Extreme Cold
This is another well-entrenched myth, especially in Quebec, where adapting transportation to harsh climates is a real challenge. Again, the facts contradict popular belief. Even at extreme temperatures of –40 °C, EVs remain fully functional and reliable. Certain best practices can further optimize usage, such as pre-conditioning the battery and cabin (bringing them to operating temperature before starting the journey) or planning charging based on the expected departure time [13].
Myth 5: Electric Vehicles Are Dangerous
Contrary to a widely held belief, EVs do not pose a greater fire risk than gasoline-powered cars. Recent statistics even indicate the opposite [15]. While battery overheating is possible, modern thermal management systems have significantly reduced this risk [14]. For those concerned that EVs emit electromagnetic fields harmful to health or the environment, studies are reassuring: the fields measured inside an EV are below thresholds considered dangerous for humans and are too weak to affect wildlife or animal migrations [16, 17].
Myth 6: Electric Vehicles Are Only for the Wealthy
Although the myth that EVs are reserved for the wealthy is widespread, the reality has evolved considerably. In recent years, EV purchase costs have dropped significantly, to the point where over fifty electric and plug-in hybrid models are now sold in Canada at prices comparable to those of new gasoline vehicles [18]. This diverse offering allows consumers to find affordable alternatives to conventional cars.
The Persistence of Myths: Understanding Why
Myths surrounding electric mobility are tenacious. At the intersection of decision psychology, misinformation studies, and risk assessment, our research aims to better understand how individuals process and interpret information. We have focused in particular on why certain misconceptions persist despite contrary evidence. As we will see, part of the answer lies in the complexity of the world we live in.
The Complexity of Our Decision Environments
Complexity is the defining feature of real-world decision environments. It requires considering multiple interrelated factors that evolve with or without our intervention. In this context, we often lack access to all the information necessary to make decisions, and we frequently face conflicting goals (for example, using an EV to reduce our carbon footprint while traveling regularly by plane for work and leisure).
EV myths take root in this complex decision-making environment, where the flood of information from digital and traditional media tests the limits of human cognition [19]. This overload impairs our ability to distinguish between what is essential and what is trivial and to use that information to make decisions. To cope, we tend to rely on mental strategies that reduce or simplify information [20].
Processing Complex Information
The role of simplification strategies is better understood through the analogy of the dual-process system. The brain has two systems: System 1, akin to intuition, is fast and automatic, operating effortlessly and relying largely on spontaneous impressions. System 2, by contrast, corresponds to conscious reasoning. It analyzes, verifies, and applies logical rules. Because System 2 requires sustained mental effort, we tend to let the provisional judgments generated by System 1 prevail [21]. This explains why humans are more likely to accept potentially inaccurate information (automatic System 1 processing) than to exert the effort needed to analyze, verify, and correct it (costly System 2 processing) [22].
When Beliefs and Intuition Intervene
In a content-saturated world, the abundance of information encourages reliance on System 1. We frequently resort to information-reduction strategies rather than analytical reasoning [23]. These strategies are shortcuts influenced by personal beliefs [24] and the way information is presented [25, 26]. In certain circumstances, intuitive suggestions from System 1 can lead to errors.
However, shortcuts do not automatically result in flawed reasoning. Intuitions can adapt effectively to encountered problems and serve our interests [27]. For instance, someone might intuitively sense that EVs could help reduce collective dependence on fossil fuels over the long term without having analyzed all aspects exhaustively. Yet, when we accept information as true without cross-checking with other sources [28], we increase the risk of problematic cognitive behaviors, such as focusing on details rather than the big picture, relying on easily recalled information to make decisions, seeking a single cause to explain complex situations (generalization), assuming the future is a simple extension of the present, or selectively remembering data that confirms our beliefs [29].
Complexity and the Energy Transition
Reasoning errors can arise in the complex context of the energy transition. Consider, for example, the deployment of charging stations in rural areas. Deciding where, when, and how to install them involves more than financial investment. It depends on numerous factors, such as grid density, maintenance costs, and developing a viable business model. These factors are interrelated; changing one affects the others.
Similarly, the still relatively high cost of EVs despite subsidies results from a fragile balance among government policies, globalized production, manufacturer-specific industrial strategies, and consumer perceptions of technology value. Limited availability of certain models further reflects the vulnerability of global supply chains to raw material price fluctuations, influenced in turn by trade conflicts, tariff policies, resource depletion strategies, and manufacturer decisions. Additionally, challenges such as longer charging times compared to refueling gasoline vehicles require revisiting mobility habits and reconfiguring urban infrastructure.
When Simplifying Leads to Mistakes
Faced with the complexity of multiple layers of information, we tend to simplify in order to understand. Intuition acts as a cognitive shortcut, minimizing the effort and time needed for decision-making. However, in an environment where falsehoods circulate as freely as facts, relying on intuition can significantly increase errors, especially when the underlying information is incorrect.
Misinformation or Disinformation?
The persistent myths surrounding EVs constitute a form of disinformation. Disinformation is ideologically motivated and intentionally biased, unlike misinformation, which refers to the unintentional sharing of incorrect information. Disinformation is therefore deliberate, aiming to mislead—for instance, to manipulate public opinion or reinforce certain beliefs at the expense of others. Decisions based on disinformation can limit our collective ability to address existing problems, worsen them, or even create new ones.
A Fragmented Media Landscape
The contemporary media landscape, combining traditional media, digital platforms, and unofficial sources, generates a wide disparity in information quality and reliability. This fragmented environment fosters both disinformation and misinformation. Disinformation refers to the intentional spread of false information to deceive, while misinformation involves sharing content that may be inaccurate without malicious intent.
Reinformation platforms can exploit this confusion to produce and disseminate ideologically biased content, claiming to reveal a “hidden truth” while presenting themselves as credible alternatives to traditional media [30]. These sources can be so convincing that it becomes difficult to distinguish them from official media [31]. Official sources themselves may also unintentionally spread misinformation.
For example, in 2022, German insurer AXA staged a crash test with a Tesla Model S. Widely shared by alternative media, the footage showed the vehicle on fire, suggesting that EVs carry a high fire risk. In reality, the battery had been removed, and the fire was entirely simulated with pyrotechnics [32]. Although false, the video was interpreted as proof that EV batteries ignite easily after an impact.
Why Are We So Susceptible to Disinformation?
The effects of disinformation in the field of electric mobility have been widely documented. Research shows that adherence to false beliefs is common.
One of the main factors promoting the adoption of these misconceptions is a predisposition toward conspiratorial thinking [33]. By conspiratorial thinking, we refer to beliefs that conspiracies are widespread and that the world is governed by corruption and hidden agendas. This worldview, based on distrust of institutions and those who work within them, fosters susceptibility to disinformation.
Attitudes play a decisive role in how people perceive EVs. They develop over time under the influence of social, familial, and professional factors, and are reinforced when they align with personal interests, identity, and values [34]. In socially polarizing topics, such as the energy transition, these attitudes can reinforce adherence to disinformation [24] rather than correct it. This helps explain why some individuals come to believe in conspiracy theories or accept false claims about EVs—for example, that governments mandate EVs to control the population, as they can be remotely disabled.
Attitudes not only shape how we seek information but also the cognitive effort (or lack thereof) we devote to it. They feed confirmation bias—the tendency to select and interpret information according to preexisting beliefs and cherished assumptions [35]. This explains why people with deep skepticism toward EVs are more likely to accept disinformation that discredits them and cling to misconceptions such as: batteries are not recyclable, lithium mining causes more environmental damage than oil extraction, or Quebec’s energy capacity cannot support a large-scale EV transition.
These claims do not withstand scientific scrutiny. Recent research identifies numerous innovative methods for recycling batteries and their components [36]. Furthermore, although EV production has environmental impacts, its overall carbon footprint remains lower than that of diesel or gasoline vehicles [37]. Finally, Hydro-Québec plans to add 8,000 to 9,000 MW of capacity to its grid by 2035 to support the energy transition through transport electrification and decarbonization [38]. Technologies such as smart charging and off-peak charging will allow the gradual absorption of a growing EV fleet without requiring major grid reinforcement.
Protecting Against Disinformation
Combating disinformation relies on a variety of tools and strategies designed to reduce the influence of false beliefs on decision-making [39]. Researchers agree that a multifaceted approach deployed across multiple fronts is the most promising way to mitigate the impact of myths surrounding EVs.
Disseminating Clear and Credible Knowledge
A general level of knowledge about EVs positively influences their adoption [5]. While education level may not significantly affect vulnerability to disinformation, access to clear and reliable information about electric mobility, shared by sources such as dealerships and government agencies, is crucial for building public trust in EVs [40]. It is therefore important to multiply initiatives that provide factual communication. Similarly, strengthening social awareness programs can help correct false perceptions and better inform the public about policies supporting the energy transition [41].
Training to Recognize Bias
Training programs on cognitive biases can raise awareness of how mental shortcuts influence information processing and decision-making about EVs. The goal is not to master every bias identified in scientific literature but to learn to recognize the most obvious ones in order to better identify them in one’s own judgment [42]. This awareness encourages a more critical interpretation of media content, fostering better understanding of EV-related issues.
Using Inoculation Strategies
Inoculation strategies aim to prepare individuals not to be misled by disinformation before exposure. They use attenuated examples of deceptive techniques to concretely illustrate how people might be deceived. They may also include warnings about manipulation tactics [43].
This approach acts as a “cognitive vaccine,” strengthening resistance to disinformation. Its effectiveness, however, depends on preexisting attitudes and beliefs. For example, someone convinced that EVs are part of a conspiracy controlling citizens’ mobility might remain indifferent to inoculation against battery myths. Some studies even suggest that exposure-based strategies can backfire, reinforcing false beliefs [44].
To avoid this “boomerang effect,” inoculation should be reinforced through the regular dissemination of educational content that exposes recurring disinformation tactics (emotional manipulation, false analogies) and strengthens media literacy [45]. These efforts gain credibility when delivered by trusted figures (experts, local leaders, or influential social media personalities) capable of communicating reliable and accessible information to diverse audiences.
Inoculation strategies can be combined with other approaches to minimize the harmful effects of disinformation [46]. Myth-deconstruction strategies can enhance public awareness campaigns. These interventions may take the form of fact-checking, for example, by adding warnings to content identified as false. However, it is important to remember that corrected information can still influence individual perceptions. People exposed to false information may not incorporate subsequent corrections and may maintain erroneous beliefs [47].
Building Trust and Experience
Targeted government measures for populations with limited access to charging infrastructure can complement inoculation and myth-deconstruction strategies [48]. Initiatives such as electric car-sharing cooperatives or public test-drive events increase familiarity with the technology and provide direct experience—two essential drivers of trust. Trust can also develop gradually through community sharing of information among current and potential EV users [49].
Developing Critical and Systemic Thinking
Capacity-building approaches [50] and initiatives aimed at developing sustainable skills, such as critical thinking, can help the public better process complex information about EVs by teaching them to compare and question sources, thereby adopting a reflective stance. Rooted in a systemic understanding of complex social issues, critical thinking can help conceptualize the energy transition as a system in which political, economic, environmental, and technological dimensions create contemporary challenges [51]. Adopting critical thinking can reduce the influence of a narrow, reductionist view focused on isolated factors and contextualize persistent myths surrounding EVs.
And Now?
The challenge of the energy transition is immense. It is a complex issue that engages human communities on a global scale. Beyond strategies that gain effectiveness when supported by collective and societal initiatives, certain practices can already be adopted daily at an individual level to strengthen resistance to disinformation and support informed EV adoption.
Learn to Tolerate (the Discomfort of) Uncertainty
We tend to favor thoughts that confirm our beliefs, which are constructed and maintained through our internal dialogue—the conversation we have with ourselves that helps us make sense of our actions and define our identity. The discomfort that arises when our behaviors contradict our beliefs underlies confirmation bias. This bias functions as an emotional regulation mechanism, designed to reduce the discomfort generated by the dissonance between our thoughts and our self-image.
When confronted with information that unsettles you or elicits an unpleasant emotion, learn to remain with these sensations, reminding yourself that they are temporary. Ask yourself what could lead someone to adopt this point of view. Recognizing that there are situations where uncertainty can be desirable, and accepting the associated discomfort, promotes openness to new information and divergent perspectives [52]. In the context of EVs, it is less about tolerating uncomfortable emotions than learning to engage with them openly.
Make It a Habit to Consult Multiple Sources
What seems obvious is not necessarily true. Accumulating only arguments that support our position—even contradictory ones—and overestimating the amount of evidence favoring our view is an exacerbated form of confirmation bias. Conversely, consulting multiple sources allows us to confront divergent perspectives on the same topic, which contributes to the development of critical thinking.
Next time you discuss EVs with friends who do not share your point of view, cultivate a posture of active listening. Do not merely wait your turn to speak; engage with what they say and explore their points further with new questions. You will end up fully engaged in the discussion without consciously realizing it, while demonstrating openness toward the other person, who will, in turn, be more willing to listen. In any case, you will have confronted your beliefs without attempting to unduly persuade. Listening and showing interest does not make you any less legitimate.
Question Your Own Biases
Being open and practicing active listening does not mean blindly accepting everything you hear. You have the right to form your own opinion on issues that concern you. However, make a conscious effort to question what you learn—not because the information is new, but because it is produced by humans, who are inherently biased and imperfect.
To do so, confront your own preconceptions by consulting sources you would normally dismiss due to their opposing position. Practice deliberate open-mindedness: actively seek information that contradicts your initial assumptions [53], keeping in mind that allowing yourself to be persuaded is not a sign of weakness but of intellectual maturity. Ask yourself what someone you respect, who holds a contrary opinion, would think.
The same logic applies to reasoning. Intuition is not inherently bad; it becomes problematic when it confines us to reductive thinking that prevents us from properly assessing a complex situation. In this regard, tools such as artificial intelligence and conversational agents can be useful, provided they are trained on datasets free from disinformation. Indeed, individuals who discuss their opinions with AI appear less likely to adhere to false beliefs and conspiracy theories [54].
Conclusion
Disinformation surrounding electric vehicles remains widespread, fueling several myths despite their growing adoption. In this article, we have deconstructed some of these myths and proposed evidence-based levers, both at the societal and individual levels. Collectively, this involves training on cognitive biases, awareness campaigns, inoculation strategies, and targeted government interventions. Individually, it is essential to cultivate critical thinking, cross-reference sources, question one’s own beliefs, and learn to recognize personal biases.
References
[1] International Energy Agency (IEA). 2022. Global EV Outlook.
[2] Ashby, C., Weir, D., & Fussey, P. 2025. Understanding public views on electric vehicle charging: a thematic analysis. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 29, 101325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2025.101325
[3] Fitzpatrick, A. C. 2025, August 12. Understanding Electric Vehicle Adoption: The Role of Information Frictions and Heterogeneous Beliefs. SAFE Working Paper No. 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5391851
[4] Canniccioni, S., Sauzey, P., Moreau, L., Langlais, J. M., & Vandenberghe, L. 2025. Beauvau de la sécurité civile. Rapport de synthèse. Ministère de l’intérieur. Gouvernement de la République française.
[5] Bretter, C., Pearson, S., Hornsey, M. J., MacInnes, S., Sassenberg, K., Wade, B., & Winter, K. (2025). Mapping, understanding and reducing belief in misinformation about electric vehicles. Nature Energy, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-025-01790-0
[6] Eisenson, M., Elkin, J., Fitch, A., Ard, M., Sittinger, K., & Lavine, S. 2024. Rebutting 33 false claims about solar, wind, and electric vehicules. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School.
[7] Pavlevski, A. 2025. 9 myths about electric vehicles have taken hold. A new study shows how many people fall for them. The Conversation Canada.
[8] Chown, J. 2025. Busting common myths about electric vehicle ownership. CAA magazine.
[9] Breton, D. 2024. 50 mythes et demi-vérités sur les véhicules électriques. Éditions Somme toute.
[10] O’Malley, J., & Slovic, P. 2024. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of US sedans and SUVs with different powertrains and fuel sources. Research brief. International Council on Clean Transportation.
[11] Bieker, Georg. A global comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of combustion engine and electric passenger cars. communications 49(30), 847129–102.
[12] Hackmann, M., Knörzer, H., Pfeuffer, J. & Jeckel, P. 2024. Battery Aging in Practice: Analysis of over 7,000 Vehicles Provide Deep Insights into Battery Life and Vehicle Residual Value. P3 group GmbH: Stuttgart, Germany.
[13] Esparza, E., Truffer-Moudra, D., & Hodge, C. 2025. Electric Vehicle and Charging Infrastructure Assessment in Cold-Weather Climates: A Case Study of Fairbanks, Alaska. No. NREL/TP-5400-92113. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
[14] Bleakley, D. 2023. Petrol and diesel cars 20 times more likely to catch fire than EVs. The Driven.
[15] Mckenna, A. (2024). L’électrification du transport en 50 nuances de faux. La Presse. https://www.lapresse.ca/auto/voitures-electriques/2024-10-07/l-electrification-du-transport-en-50-nuances-de-faux.php
[16] Gryz, K.; Karpowicz, J.; Zradziński, P. 2022. Complex Electromagnetic Issues Associated with the Use of Electric Vehicles in Urban Transportation. Sensors 22, 1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22051719
[17] Pophof, B., Henschenmacher, B., Kattnig, D. R., Kuhne, J., Vian, A., & Ziegelberger, G. 2023. Biological effects of electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields from 0 to 100 MHz on fauna and flora: Workshop report. Health Physics, 124(1), 39–52.
[18] Riopel, A. 2024. Quoi retenir de “50 mythes et demi-vérités sur les véhicules électriques”, de Daniel Breton ? Le Devoir. https://www.ledevoir.com/actualites/environnement/820086/quoi-retenir-50-mythes-demi-verites-vehicules-electriques-daniel-breton
[19] Fischer, A., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. 2012. The process of solving complex problems. Journal of Problem Solving, 4. https://hdl.handle.net/10993/3184
[20] Funke, J. 2025. Critical Thinking: A Key Competency in the Twenty-First Century to Deal with Uncertainty and Complexity. In Critical Thinking Across Disciplines, Vol. 2: Applications in the Digital Age (pp. 109–123). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-82640-5_5
[21] Kahneman, D. 2011. Système 1, système 2: les deux vitesses de la pensée. Flammarion.
[22] Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. 2019. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
[23] Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. 2021. The psychology of fake news. Trends in cognitive sciences, 25(5), 388–402. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
[24] Béchard, B., Gramaccia, J. A., Gagnon, D., Laouan-Sidi, E. A., Dubé, È., Ouimet, M., de Hemptinne, D., & Tremblay, S. 2024. The resilience of attitude toward vaccination: Web-based randomized controlled trial on the processing of misinformation. JMIR Formative Research, 8, e52871. DOI: 10.2196/52871
[25] Beaulieu-Guay, L. R., Béchard, B., Ouimet, M., Claveau, F., & Montpetit, É. Effect of Emphasizing Methodological Limitations of Primary Studies in a Systematic Review Summary: Findings from Two Randomized Controlled Trials. En révision.
[26] Béchard, B., Kimmerle, J., Lawarée, J., Bédard, P. O., Straus, S. E., & Ouimet, M. 2022. The impact of information presentation and cognitive dissonance on processing systematic review summaries: a randomized controlled trial on bicycle helmet legislation. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(10), 6234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106234
[27] Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R. 2002. Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. MIT Press.
[28] Fiedler, K., Prager, J., & McCaughey, L. 2023. Metacognitive myopia: a major obstacle on the way to rationality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221126906
[29] Dörner, D., & Güss, C. D. 2022. Human error in complex problem solving and dynamic decision making: A taxonomy of 24 errors and a theory. Computers in human behavior reports, 7, 100222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100222
[30] Pyrhönen, N., & Bauvois, G. 2020. Conspiracies beyond fake news. Produsing reinformation on presidential elections in the transnational hybrid media system. Sociological Inquiry, 90(4), 705–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12339
[31] Berduygina, O. N., Vladimirova, T. N., & Chernyaeva, E. V. 2019. Trends in the spread of fake news in the mass media. Media Watch, 10(1), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.15655/mw_2019_v10i1_49561
[32] Loveday, S. 2022.Watch Fake Tesla Battery Fire Performed By an Insurance Company. InsideEVs. https://insideevs.com/news/607542/fake-tesla-fire-insurance-company-crash-test-pyrotechnics/
[33] Vermeule, C., & Sunstein, C. 2009. Conspiracy theories: causes and cures. 17 J. Pol. Phil. 202.
[34] Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. 2014. Attitude strength: An overview. Attitude strength, 1-24. Psychology Press.
[35] Zhou, Y., & Shen, L. 2022. Confirmation bias and the persistence of misinformation on climate change. Communication Research, 49(4), 500–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211028049
[36] Tong, Z., Wang, M., Bai, Z., Li, H., & Wang, N. 2025. Advances in lithium-ion battery recycling: Strategies, pathways, and technologies. ChemPhysMater, 4(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chphma.2024.05.005
[37] Hu, D., Zhou, K., Hu, R., & Yang, J. 2024. Provincial inequalities in life cycle carbon dioxide emissions and air pollutants from electric vehicles in China. Communications Earth & Environment, 5(1), 726. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01906-6
[38] Hydro-Québec. 2025. Véhicules électriques : quels impacts sur la facture d’électricité ? https://www.hydroquebec.com/residentiel/mieux-consommer/impacts-facture-electricite-voitures-electriques.html
[39] Kanozia, R. 2019. Analysis of digital tools and technologies for debunking fake news. Journal of Content, Community & Communication, 9(5), 114–122. DOI: 10.31620/JCCC.06.19/16
[40] Anwar, A., Wardley, L. J., & Khalid, A. 2025. The customer knowledge gap and electric vehicle adoption: a meta-Analytic Review and future Research agenda. Applied Economics, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2025.2516164
[41] Broadbent, G. H., Wiedmann, T. O., & Metternicht, G. I. 2021. Electric vehicle uptake: Understanding the print media’s role in changing attitudes and perceptions. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 12(4), 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12040174
[42] Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. 2002. The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008
[43] Biddlestone, M., Roozenbeek, J., Suiter, J., Culloty, E., & van Der Linden, S. 2025. Tune in to the prebunking network! Development and validation of six inoculation videos that prebunk manipulation tactics and logical fallacies in misinformation. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70015
[44] Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. 2010. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
[45] Popescu, M. M. 2020. Media literacy tools in combating disinformation and fake news in social media. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Series VII: Social Sciences and Law, 13(1), 103–112.
[46] Roozenbeek, J., Culloty, E., & Suiter, J. 2023. Countering misinformation. European Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000492
[47] Traberg, C. S., Harjani, T., Basol, M., Biddlestone, M., Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. 2023. Prebunking against misinformation in the modern digital age. Managing Infodemics in the 21st Century: Addressing New Public Health Challenges in the Information Ecosystem, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27789-4_8
[48] Lou, J., Shen, X., Niemeier, D. A., & Hultman, N. 2024. Income and racial disparity in household publicly available electric vehicle infrastructure accessibility. Nature Communications, 15(1), 5106. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49481-w
[49] Oksanen, A., & Savolainen, I. 2025. Trust in emerging technologies and artificial intelligence. Handbook of Trust and Social Psychology, 184–205. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803929415.00023
[50] Herzog, S. M., & Hertwig, R. 2025. Boosting: Empowering citizens with behavioral science. Annual Review of Psychology, 76. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020924-124753
[51] Georgalos, K., & Nabil, N. 2025. Testing models of complexity aversion. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 116, 102354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2025.102354
[52] Alquist, J. L., & Baumeister, R. F. 2024. Learning to Love Uncertainty. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33(6), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214241279539
[53] Esmene, S., Taylor, T. J., & Leyshon, M. 2020. A systems thinking approach to exploring the influence of the media on how publics engage with and develop dialogues relating to electric vehicles. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 59. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00059
[54] Baron, J. 1993. Why teach thinking?‐An essay. Applied Psychology, 42(3), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1993.tb00731.x