Does Engagement in Advocacy Hurt the Credibility of Scientists? Results from a Randomized National Survey Experiment

Environmental Communication

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 415-429

  Kotcher, John E ^a   Myers, Teresa A ^a   Vraga, Emily K ^a   Stenhouse, Neil ^b   Maibach, Edward W ^a  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Advocacy; climate change; credibility; message effects; public engagement; trust in scientists

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014547994     PISSN: 17524032     EISSN: 17524040     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Abelson, R. P., & Miller, J. C., (1967). Negative persuasion via personal insult. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(4), 321–333. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(67)90001-7
2. Anderson, A. A., Myers, T. A., Maibach, E. W., Cullen, H., Gandy, J., Witte, J., … Leiserowitz, A., (2013). If they like you, they learn from you:How a brief weathercaster-delivered climate education segment is moderated by viewer evaluations of the weathercaster. Weather, Climate, and Society, 5(4), 367–377. doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00051.1
3. Besley, J. C., (2014). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Science and Public Policy, scu042. doi:10.1093/scipol/scu042
4. Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., & Storksdieck, M., (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199–220. doi:10.1002/tea.21186
5. Bless, H., & Schwarz, N., (2010). Mental construal and the emergence of assimilation and contrast effects:The inclusion/exclusion model. In B.-A. in E. S. Psychology (Ed.), (Vol. 42, pp. 319–373). Academic Press. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260110420067
6. Bloodhart, B., Maibach, E., Myers, T., & Zhao, X., (2015). Local climate experts:The influence of local TV weather information on climate change perceptions. PLOS ONE, 10(11), e0141526. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141526
7. Brossard, D., (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement_3), 14096–14101. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212744110
8. Corner, A., & Groves, C., (2014). Breaking the climate change communication deadlock. Nature Climate Change, 4(9), 743–745. doi:10.1038/nclimate2348
9. Crawford, B. A., Kramer, D. W., & Hinton, J. W., (2016). Comparing student and professional responses toward advocacy in science. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 21(4), 361–370. doi:10.1080/10871209.2016.1149747
10. Donner, S. D., (2014). Finding your place on the science—advocacy continuum:An editorial essay. Climatic Change, 124, 1–8. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1108-1
11. Druckman, J. N., & Leeper, T. J., (2012). Learning more from political communication experiments:Pretreatment and Its effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 875–896. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00582.x
12. Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C., (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0148867. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
13. Feldman, L., & Hart, P. S., (2016). Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism:The mediating role of emotions. Science Communication, 38(1), 99–127. doi:10.1177/1075547015617941
14. Gray, N. J., & Campbell, L. M., (2009). Science, policy advocacy, and marine protected areas. Conservation Biology, 23(2), 460–468. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01093.x
15. Herr, P. M., (1986). Consequences of priming:Judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1106–1115. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1106
16. Hmielowski, J. D., Feldman, L., Myers, T. A., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E., (2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 866–883. doi:10.1177/0963662513480091
17. Jacks, J. Z., & Cameron, K. A., (2003). Strategies for resisting persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 145–161. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5
18. Kahan, D., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D., (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
19. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., Tarantola, T., Silva, C. L., & Braman, D., (2015). Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two-channel model of science communication. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 192–222. doi:10.1177/0002716214559002
20. Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E., (1995). Attitude strength:An overview. In R. E., Petty & J. A., Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength:Antecedents and consequences. Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion (Vol. 4, pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Kunda, Z., (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
22. Lach, D., List, P., Steel, B., & Shindler, B., (2003). Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decision making:A regional study. BioScience, 53(2), 170–178. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0170:AACOES]2.0.CO;2
23. Lackey, R. T., (2007). Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 12–17. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00639.x
24. Leeper, T. J., & Slothuus, R., (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35, 129–156. doi:10.1111/pops.12164
25. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N., & Dawson, E., (2013). Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 818–837. doi:10.1177/0002764212458272
26. Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S., (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3, 399–404. doi:10.1038/nclimate1720
27. van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W., (2014). How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change:Plain facts, pie charts or metaphors? Climatic Change, 126(1), 255–262. doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1190-4
28. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E., (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming. Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
29. McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J., (1999). Goodwill:A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. doi:10.1080/03637759909376464
30. Mussweiler, T., (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment:Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110(3), 472–489. doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.472
31. Myers, T. A., Kotcher, J., Stenhouse, N., Anderson, A. A., Maibach, E., Beall, L., Leiserowitz, A., (2016). Predictors of trust in the general science and climate science research of US federal agencies. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England). Retrieved from http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/26960910
32. Nelkin, D., (1977). Scientists and professional responsibility:The experience of American ecologists. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), ii. doi:10.1177/030631277700700103
33. Nelson, M. P., & Vucetich, J. A., (2009). On advocacy by environmental scientists:What, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1090–1101. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x
34. Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K., (2015). The partisan brain how dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36–66. doi:10.1177/0002716214555474
35. Nisbet, E. C., Hart, P. S., Myers, T., & Ellithorpe, M., (2013). Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 766–785. doi:10.1111/jcom.12040
36. Pearson, A. R., & Schuldt, J. P., (2014). Facing the diversity crisis in climate science. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), 1039–1042. doi:10.1038/nclimate2415
37. Peters-Burton, E., Schweizer, V., Cobb, S., & Maibach, E., (2014). Weathercaster views on informal climate education:Similarities and differences according to climate change attitudes. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3), 431–444. doi:10.5408/13-046.1
38. Pew Research Center. (2009). Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. Washington, DC:Pew Research Center for People & the Press.
39. Pew Research Center. (2015). Americans, politics and science issues.
40. Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2007). The honest broker:Making sense of science in policy and politics. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
41. Reiners, D. S., Reiners, W. A., & Lockwood, J. A., (2013). The relationship between environmental advocacy, values, and science:A survey of ecological scientists’ attitudes. Ecological Applications, 23(5), 1226–1242. doi:10.1890/12-1695.1
42. Ruggiero, L. F., (2010). Scientific independence and credibility in sociopolitical processes. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(6), 1179–1182. doi:10.1111/j.1937-2817.2010.tb01237.x
43. Runkle, D., & Frankel, M. S., (2012). Advocacy in science:Summary of a workshop convened by the American association for the advancement of science. Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.
44. Schneider, S. H., (1988). The greenhouse effect and the U.S. summer of 1988:Cause and effect or a media event? Climatic Change, 13(2), 113–115. doi:10.1007/BF00140564
45. Schuldt, J. P., & Pearson, A. R., (2016). The role of race and ethnicity in climate change polarization:Evidence from a U.S. national survey experiment. Climatic Change, 136(3–4), 495–505. doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1631-3
46. Scott, J. M., Rachlow, J. L., Lackey, R. T., Pidgorna, A. B., Aycrigg, J. L., Feldman, G. R., … Steinhorst, R. K., (2007). Policy advocacy in science:Prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservation biologists. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 29–35. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00641.x
47. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M., (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
48. Tannenbaum, P. H., & Norris, E. L., (1965). Effects of combining congruity principle strategies for the reduction of persuasion. Sociometry, 28(2), 145–157. doi:10.2307/2785647
49. Truelove, H., & Greenberg, M., (2012). Who has become more open to nuclear power because of climate change? Climatic Change, 1–21. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0497-2
50. Tryon, W. W., (2001). Evaluating statistical difference, equivalence, and indeterminacy using inferential confidence intervals:An integrated alternative method of conducting null hypothesis statistical tests. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 371–386. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.371
51. Weber, R., & Popova, L., (2012). Testing equivalence in communication research:Theory and application. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(3), 190–213. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.703834
52. Wright, P. L., (1973). The cognitive processes mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 53–62. doi:10.2307/3149409
53. Zhao, X., Maibach, E., Gandy, J., Witte, J., Cullen, H., Klinger, B. A., … Pyle, A., (2013). Climate change education through TV weathercasts:Results of a field experiment. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(1), 117–130. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00144.1