How the Climate Communicator Determines Public Action
A global study of 6,500 people reveals that the messenger’s credibility, more than scientific facts, is the decisive factor for climate engagement.
Research published in the journal Global Environmental Change shows that clarity, shared values, and sincerity are the pillars of trust, which varies drastically between climate change believers and skeptics.
An international study of nearly 6,500 people across 13 countries reveals that trust in the communicator is more crucial than the scientific message for the acceptance of and action on climate change. Discover which sources and characteristics are considered trustworthy and how to engage different audiences.
The Trust Crisis at the Heart of the Climate Crisis
While scientific evidence regarding climate change becomes increasingly solid and urgent, a parallel and equally critical challenge intensifies: convincing the public to accept these facts and act upon them.
Science alone is not enough. The human element of communication—specifically, who people trust to speak about the climate—emerges as the most powerful determinant for collective action.
A comprehensive study published in the renowned journal Global Environmental Change, titled “Who do we trust on climate change, and why?“, investigates precisely this dynamic. Based on surveys with 6,479 participants from 13 countries, the work offers a detailed map of global trust in climate communicators.
The results are clear: the acceptance of information and the willingness to act depend less on the accuracy of the data and more on the perceived characteristics of those presenting it.
This analysis dives into the research findings to explain why trust is the foundation of climate action and what this means for scientists, journalists, activists, and anyone who wants to engage the public in this decisive debate.
The Global Map of Trust: Who Does the Public Really Listen To?
The study first mapped which sources of information on climate change are considered most trustworthy by the general public. The results reveal a hierarchy of trust that prioritizes social proximity and the perception of integrity:
-
Climate Scientists: They remain the source with the highest epistemic authority, especially for those who already believe in climate science. They represent technical expertise and factual precision.
-
Friends and Family: Surprisingly, or perhaps not, personal networks occupy a place of extreme trust, often surpassing formal institutions. This category represents trust based on shared identity and experience.
-
People Like Me: Trust in social peers reinforces that proximity and similarity of values are powerful criteria, often outweighing academic credentials or official positions.
At the other end of the spectrum, traditional public figures face a significant credibility crisis on this topic:
-
Business and Industry Leaders: Frequently ranked as the least trustworthy, reflecting the public perception of a conflict of interest between profit and environmental protection.
-
Politicians and Government Agencies: Also receive low trust scores, indicating a deficit of institutional credibility regarding the climate issue.
-
Religious Leaders: In many contexts, they are seen as irrelevant or untrustworthy sources for climate information.
This hierarchy demonstrates that trust is not an automatic reflection of formal authority. Instead, it flows toward where people perceive authenticity, alignment of values, and an absence of hidden motives.
The 4 Characteristics That Build Trust
The research went beyond listing sources and investigated which intrinsic characteristics of a communicator make them trustworthy. Four attributes emerged as the universal pillars of credibility in the climate context:
-
Clarity in Communication: The ability to explain complex information in an accessible and understandable way. Technical jargon and ambiguity erode trust quickly.
-
Shared Values: The perception that the communicator operates from a set of ethical principles and community concerns similar to those of the audience. This is perhaps the most subjective and powerful factor.
-
Sincerity and Authenticity: The conviction that the communicator genuinely believes in what they are saying and is not just playing a role or following a script.
-
Respect for Opposing Views: The willingness to listen and engage civilly with different perspectives, without disdain or disregard. This characteristic is fundamental for reaching divided audiences.
These pillars function as a psychological filter through which every climate message passes. Information, even if scientifically impeccable, will be received with skepticism if it comes from a source perceived as obscure, with distant values, insincere, or dismissive.
How Audiences Evaluate Trust Differently
One of the study’s most important findings is that there is no single profile of a trustworthy communicator. Trust is deeply “audience-contingent“. The priorities of those who already believe in climate change and those who are skeptical are dramatically different.
-
For “Believers”: Trust is built primarily on competence and expertise. Climate scientists and environmental organizations are the preferred sources because they represent the pinnacle of specialized knowledge. Factual accuracy and scientific authority are their primary criteria.
-
For “Skeptics”: Trust is built primarily on affinity and shared values. They deeply distrust scientific and governmental institutions, often seen as part of a distant establishment. Instead, they place more trust in “people like me,” friends, family, or alternative media figures who seem to represent their values and worldview. For them, sincerity and respect for their views are more important than academic degrees.
This chasm explains why communication campaigns based solely on more scientific data often fail to reach skeptics. The message may be factually perfect, but if the messenger is perceived as belonging to a group with opposing values, the message will be rejected. It is a conflict of social identity, not an information deficit.
Building Bridges of Trust for Climate Action
Based on this evidence, the study suggests that effective communication strategies must abandon the “one-size-fits-all” approach and adopt segmented and strategic communication:
-
To Engage the General Public: Find and empower “trusted messengers” who already possess credibility within specific communities. This may include community leaders, local healthcare professionals, respected farmers, or progressive religious figures. The message should be delivered with absolute clarity and emphasize common values, such as protecting family health, local economic security, or community care.
-
To Consolidate and Motivate Those Who Already Believe: Continue to strengthen the voice of science, but by humanizing scientists. Personal stories, transparency about the scientific process, and a focus on practical solutions increase trust. Leverage “friends and family” networks to spread correct information through trusted word-of-mouth.
-
To Dialogue with Skeptical Audiences: Avoid frontal confrontations based solely on facts. Prioritize communicators who share identities or values with this audience. A message about energy efficiency may be more effective coming from a military veteran speaking about national security, or a religious leader speaking about stewardship (care for creation), than from a climate scientist. Genuine respect for the interlocutor is the gateway.
From the Laboratory to the Community
The study “Who do we trust on climate change, and why?” offers a crucial lesson: in climate communication, the messenger is the message. The battle for climate action will not be won only in laboratories and IPCC reports, but in the subjective field of interpersonal and community trust.
This requires a paradigm shift. Instead of just disseminating more information, communication efforts should invest in building and mapping trust networks, identifying credible messengers within each social segment, and equipping them with clear and authentic messages. The path to global climate action is paved not only with data but with trustworthy dialogues, respected messengers, and communication that recognizes and honors the diverse values of its audience. Credibility, the research concludes, is the scarcest and most valuable resource in the race against time for climate solutions.
Reference:
Who do we trust on climate change, and why? Sarah MacInnes, Matthew J. Hornsey, Christian Bretter, Samuel Pearson, Kelly S. Fielding, David Bersoff Global Environmental Change Volume 96, March 2026, 103096 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2025.103096
in EcoDebate, ISSN 2446-9394
[ Se você gostou desse artigo, deixe um comentário. Além disso, compartilhe esse post em suas redes sociais, assim você ajuda a socializar a informação socioambiental ]