Climate change or catastrophe? Examining the use of fear appeals by climate scientists

Climate science communication is evolving towards a value-based model, leaving more room for advocacy and the use of emotions. However, some climate scientists are afraid that blending science with emotions may hurt their credibility and objectivity. This research tests whether emotional language, specifically fear, is effective in generating pro-environmental intentions without harming credibility, across two types of efficacy statements: an abstract and a concrete behavioural recommendation. Participants (N = 241) of an online experiment read a fictitious interview with a climate scientist, which was subject to a 2 (‘no fear’ vs fear) x 2 (abstract vs concrete recommendation) between-subjects design. Our results showed that a climate scientist could effectively employ fearful language without harming their credibility, if they balance fear with a concrete efficacy statement (a fear-hope appeal). Such behavioural advocacy led to stronger intentions to act pro-environmentally. This might, therefore, align with the public’s expectations of climate scientists.