Abstract
ABSTRACT We experimentally tested whether information from environmental scientists regarding the consequences of global warming would be taken more seriously if they had engaged in civil disobedience, as opposed to non-disruptive forms of advocacy on behalf of climate action. Supporting this proposition, we found that after reading an article describing the effects of climate change-driven “wind stilling,” our college student participants inferred that there was a greater risk to human welfare from this phenomenon when the information was provided by a scientist who had been involved in disruptive activism. The perception that the scientist had participated in civil disobedience did not undermine the credibility of their research findings. However, the heightened sense of climate risk engendered by these communications did not reliably translate into stronger personal intentions to help reduce the impact of global warming. These findings stand to inform the debate regarding the appropriate role of scientists in securing a sustainable environment.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
