People respond to credible messengers.

Climate scientists are the most effective climate change messengers, with more than 75% of Americans reporting to trust them as a “credible source of information about climate change.” Scientists from other disciplines and TV weather reporters are also quite effective, with 67% and 60% of Americans, respectively, naming them as credible sources for climate change information 1 . However, it’s been found that only about one in 10 Americans understands that more than 90% of climate scientists agree global warming is human caused, and fewer than half (45%) believe a majority do 2 . So, while American’s may believe and trust climate scientists as credible sources of information, many do not even know about the scientific consensus on climate change (see Assumption 1 for more information).

As with all communication and messaging, however, the context and audience matter. Scientists are neither the most trusted nor most appropriate source of climate information for all audiences. For example, social science research has found a gradually-developing mistrust of scientists among certain political and ideological orientations over the past several years 3 . 

To determine the most effective, credible messenger, advocates must assess their target audience. For example, religious leaders might be more credible messengers to communicate the moral implications of climate change while business leaders may be better communicating economic impacts 4 . Research shows that children and teenagers can have a significant influence on their parents’ beliefs about climate change. Given this, climate advocates should consider communication messages and strategies that empower youth to be effective messengers 5 .

We should note that campaigns featuring a “credible messenger” — often shared through mass media, particularly when involving celebrities — have both strengths and limitations. Mass media helps to increase awareness, and even knowledge of, a problem,  and sometimes creates change by communicating ‘injunctive norms’ (appropriate behaviors) 6 . However, even with credible messengers, mass media campaigns have relatively little impact on the public’s attitudes and behaviors regarding complex environmental issues 7 . By contrast, research suggests that interpersonal contact (conversations and forums that facilitate immediate social influence amongst peers, communities and networks) is the most effective approach in changing attitudes and behaviors. Consequently, advocacy organizations are starting to prioritize conversation-based platforms and face-to-face engagement 8  when designing campaigns.

• 1Leiserowitz et al. 2012
• 2van der Linden, et al., 2015
• 3Haidt 2013; Kahan 2014, Welch, 2008
• 4Arroyo and Preston, 2007
• 5Mead, et. al., 2012
• 6Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., and Kallgren, C.A., 1990
• 7Dunwoody 2007
• 8Randall 2009; Thevos A.K., Olsen S.J., Rangel J.M., Kaona F.A.D., Tembo M., Quick R.E., 2002-2003; Kahnemann, 2011