ABSTRACT It is often assumed that issue advocacy will compromise the credibility of scientists. We conducted a randomized controlled experiment to test public reactions to six different advocacy statements made by a scientist—ranging from a purely informational statement to an endorsement of specific policies. We found that perceived credibility of the communicating scientist was uniformly high in five of the six message conditions, suffering only when he advocated for a specific policy—building more nuclear power plants (although credibility did not suffer when advocating for a different specific policy—carbon dioxide limits at power plants). We also found no significant differences in trust in the broader climate science community between the six message conditions. Our results suggest that climate scientists who wish to engage in certain forms of advocacy have considerable latitude to do so without risking harm to their credibility, or the credibility of the scientific community.
Does Engagement in Advocacy Hurt the Credibility of Scientists? Results from a Randomized National Survey Experiment
J. Kotcher,Teresa A. Myers,E. Vraga,Neil Stenhouse,E. Maibach
Published 2017 in Environmental Communication
ABSTRACT
PUBLICATION RECORD
- Publication year
2017
- Venue
Environmental Communication
- Publication date
2017-02-26
- Fields of study
Environmental Science, Political Science, Psychology
- Identifiers
- External record
- Source metadata
Semantic Scholar
CITATION MAP
EXTRACTION MAP
CLAIMS
- No claims are published for this paper.
CONCEPTS
- No concepts are published for this paper.
REFERENCES
Showing 1-52 of 52 references · Page 1 of 1