Credibility, communication, and climate change: How lifestyle inconsistency and do-gooder derogation impact decarbonization advocacy

Sparkman, Gregg; Attari, Shahzeen Z.

doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.101290

Cited by 49 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regardless of the pro-flight social and professional pressures that academics may experience, they (we!) also need to consider the impact of our behaviour in terms of credibility losses [56,57].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Dissonance in Sustainability Scientists Regarding Air Travel for Academic Purposes: A Qualitative Study

Schrems

Upham

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to investigate in depth the perspectives of sustainability scientists regarding academic air travel, with an emphasis on cognitive dissonance and associated coping and rationalisation strategies. The research design is case study-based, focusing on a sustainability-focused academic unit in Germany. Thematic content analysis was applied to the transcripts of 11 interviews with sustainability scientists. Analytic codes were informed by prior previously identified cognitive dissonance reduction strategies. The research design is interpretative rather than seeking representativeness. Most of the academics questioned experience some degree of cognitive dissonance relating to the disjunction between their sustainability knowledge, attitudes and flight behaviour. While this dissonance relates-as expected-to the inconsistency between pro-environmental attitudes and flying, it also relates to the contradiction of social norms that support academic flying. To resolve feelings of dissonance, the interviewees report behavioural change, suppress inconsistencies and use various justifications that include denial of control, denial of responsibility, comparisons and compensation through benefits.Sustainability 2020, 12, 1837 2 of 14 processes involved in such groups. Moreover, as social role models, their behavior may influence others' intentions to change their own behavior [11,12]. Finally, in terms of the rationale of the study, although there is research concerning the institutional factors that hinder reductions in academic air travel [11,[13][14][15][16][17], research concerning individual-level processes relating to flight reduction is scant [9,18].A variety of individual-level theories are available for helping to explain attitude-behavior gaps. Here we use the theory of cognitive dissonance, as it is arguably the most specifically applicable approach for understanding dissonance per se. It might also be noted that the lesser-known theory of cognitive polyphasia [19,20] proposes that people move between different ways of knowing or rationalities in different social contexts and thus avoid dissonance in this way. This approach arguably also merits further investigation in the context of discretionary flying, but here we focus on the application of cognitive dissonance theory [21].According to the latter, inconsistency between cognitive elements (e.g., between cognitions about attitude and cognitions about behavior) causes aversive feelings in people, characterized by tension and discomfort. In order to reduce these negative feelings, behavior changes are one option, besides attitude changes and further resolution strategies [21][22][23]. Various studies have found that people rather tend to justify their flying behavior or deny its impact, instead of changing their behavior e.g., [2,[5][6][7]9,[24][25][26]. However, few studies of air travel have explicitly based their investigation on the framework of cognitive dissonance [8,10] and none (to our knowledge) have researched sustainability scie...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Dissonance in Sustainability Scientists Regarding Air Travel for Academic Purposes: A Qualitative Study

Schrems

Upham

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The social influence of highemitting groups, especially those in prestigious or influential positions, may be particularly important in shaping what is desirable and affect people's willingness to cooperate on shared problems (Anderson 2011;Henrich et al 2015). Additionally, climate communicators, advocates and researchers are seen as more convincing -and their advice more likely to be acted upon -if they themselves pursue low-carbon lifestyles (Attari et al 2016;Attari et al 2019;Sparkman and Attari 2020).…”

Section: Social Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the gap – implications of current COVID-19 fiscal rescue and recovery measures

Höhne

Hans

Olhoff

2021

Emissions Gap Report 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory or city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. For general guidance on matters relating to the use of maps in publications please go to

show abstract

“…Research suggests that experts can safely engage in policy advocacy without damaging their credibility (Kotcher et al, 2017), yet, the extent to which their advocacy efforts are likely to be effective is also of practical relevance. Preliminary work (Sparkman & Attari, 2020) suggests that an individual expert may be no more persuasive than an average individual in advocating for climate policy, and even highlighting the entire scientific consensus around climate change (see Anderegg et al, 2010 for information on this consensus) only exerts, at best, a small positive shift on climate beliefs and support for action (Van der Linden et al, 2019 but also see Ma et al, 2019).…”

Section: Expert Credibility and Persuasiveness In Public Health Policy Advocacy Messagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do People Actually “Listen to the Experts”? A Cautionary Note on Assuming Expert Credibility and Persuasiveness on Public Health Policy Advocacy

Geiger

2020

Health Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present work empirically explores whether experts are trusted more or more persuasive than an "average Joe" when engaging in policy advocacy on public health topics. I conducted a 2 (topic: climate change vs. COVID-19) X 2 (source: expert vs. nonexpert) experimental study with an US adult sample (N = 486). Using Bayes factors to quantify evidence for null and alternative hypothesis, I find substantial evidence that at least under the conditions present in the study, experts are perceived to be higher in expertise, but equal in trustworthiness to the "average Joe". In turn, experts are equally persuasive to nonexperts on both topics. My work suggests that when engaging in policy advocacy on public health matters, the fact that an advocate is an expert on a topic can be acknowledged by audiences, but this may not necessarily help (nor necessarily harm) one's perceived trustworthiness or ability to persuade an audience. More research is needed to understand how experts can bolster their trustworthiness and persuasiveness when advocating for public health policies.

show abstract

Credibility, communication, and climate change: How lifestyle inconsistency and do-gooder derogation impact decarbonization advocacy

Cited by 49 publications

References 38 publications

Cognitive Dissonance in Sustainability Scientists Regarding Air Travel for Academic Purposes: A Qualitative Study

Cognitive Dissonance in Sustainability Scientists Regarding Air Travel for Academic Purposes: A Qualitative Study

Bridging the gap – implications of current COVID-19 fiscal rescue and recovery measures

Do People Actually “Listen to the Experts”? A Cautionary Note on Assuming Expert Credibility and Persuasiveness on Public Health Policy Advocacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About