Climatic Change

, Volume 138, Issue 1–2, pp 325–338 | Cite as

Statements about climate researchers’ carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice

  • Shahzeen Z. Attari
  • David H. Krantz
  • Elke U. Weber
Article

Abstract

Would you follow advice about personal energy conservation from a climate specialist with a large carbon footprint? Many climate researchers report anecdotes in which their sincerity was challenged based on their alleged failure to reduce carbon emissions. Here, we report the results of two large online surveys that measure the perceived credibility of a climate researcher who provides advice on how to reduce energy use (by flying less, conserving home energy, and taking public transportation), as a function of that researcher’s personal carbon footprint description. Across the two studies, we randomly assigned participants to one of 18 vignettes about a climate scientist. We show that alleged large carbon footprints can greatly reduce the researcher’s credibility compared to low footprints. We also show that these differences in perceived credibility strongly affect participants’ reported intentions to change personal energy consumption. These effects are large, both for participants who believe climate change is important and for those who do not. Participants’ politics do affect their attitudes toward researchers, and have an extra effect on reported intentions to use public transportation (but not on intentions to fly less or conserve home energy). Credibility effects are similar for male and female climate scientists.

Keywords

Persuasion Advocacy Credibility Carbon footprint ad hominem attacks Energy conservation 

Supplementary material

10584_2016_1713_MOESM1_ESM.xls (1.5 mb)
ESM 1(XLS 1515 kb)
10584_2016_1713_MOESM2_ESM.docx (150 kb)
ESM 2(DOCX 149 kb)
10584_2016_1713_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (161 kb)
ESM 3(PDF 160 kb)
10584_2016_1713_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (163 kb)
ESM 4(PDF 162 kb)

References

  1. Anderson, K (2013) Hypocrites in the air: should climate change academics lead by example?Google Scholar
  2. Bromme R, Goldman SR (2014) The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educ Psychol 49:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6:3–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Editorial (2015) A clean, green science machine. Nature 519:261Google Scholar
  5. Hoffman A (2015) How culture shapes the climate change debate. Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Hollingworth HL (1935) The psychology of the audience. American Book Company New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hovland, CI, Janis, IL, Kelley, HH (1963) Communication and persuasion. Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. By CI Hovland, Irving L. Janis, and Harold H. Kelley. New Haven & LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2:732–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corinne Le Quéré, Stuart Capstick, Adam Corner, David Cutting, Martin Johnson, Asher Minns, Heike Schroeder, Kate Walker-Springett, Lorraine Whitmarsh, Wood, R (2015) Towards a culture of low-carbon research for the twenty-first century. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change ResearchGoogle Scholar
  10. Leiserowitz, A, Maibach, E, Roser-Renouf, C, Feinberg, G, Howe, P (2013) Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in April 2013. In: University (ed) Yale project on climate change communication, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  11. Nordhagen S, Calverley D, Foulds C, O’Keefe L, Wang X (2014) Climate change research and credibility: balancing tensions across professional, personal, and public domains. Clim Chang 125:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schneider SH (1984) ‘natural experiments’ and CO 2-induced climate change: the controversy drags on—an editorial. Clim Chang 6:317–321Google Scholar
  13. Stern P, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano G, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6:81–97Google Scholar
  14. Stohl A (2008) The travel-related carbon dioxide emissions of atmospheric researchers. Atmos Chem Phys 8:6499–6504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tennessee Center for Policy Research (2007) Al Gore’s personal energy use is his own "inconvenient truth"Google Scholar
  16. Walton DN (1998) Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Watson C (ed) (2014) Beyond flying: rethinking air travel in a globally connected world. Green BooksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahzeen Z. Attari
    • 1
  • David H. Krantz
    • 2
  • Elke U. Weber
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana University BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology & Center for Research on Environmental DecisionsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Columbia Business SchoolNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations