Differentiated Trust Strategies and Rebellious Acceptance: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the Trust Strategies Used by Scientist Communicators and Citizen Science Communicators in Chinese Online Climate Communication

Abstract

Trust is a core issue in online climate communication where communicators are found to be diverse. This study explores the trust strategies used by different communicators and their audience acceptance in climate communication on Zhihu through Qualitative Comparative Analysis. The results indicate there are structured differences in the trust strategies adopted by scientist communicators and citizen science communicators when facing climate change issues. In terms of audience acceptance, audiences have shown considerable initiative and exhibited an acceptance characteristic with certain Chinese cultural features which highlights the context of acceptance in the research and practices of trust issues in climate communication.

Keywords

trust strategies audience acceptance climate communication citizen science communicators qualitative comparative analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahluwalia

S. C.

Edelen

M. O.

Qureshi

Etchegaray

J. M.

(2021). Trust in experts, not trust in national leadership, leads to greater uptake of recommended actions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 12(3), 283–302.

Almassi

(2012). Climate change, epistemic trust, and expert trustworthiness. Ethics & the Environment, 17(2), 29–49.

Alves

Wagner Mainardes

(2017). Self-efficacy, trust, and perceived benefits in the co-creation of value by consumers. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(11), 1159–1180.

Anderson

(2015). Reflections on environmental communication and the challenges of a new research agenda. Environmental Communication, 9(3), 379–383.

Basurto

Speer

(2012). Structuring the calibration of qualitative data as sets for qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Field Methods, 24(2), 155–174.

Beck

(2012). Between tribalism and trust: The IPCC under the “public microscope.” Nature and Culture, 7(2), 151–173.

Besley

J. C.

Lee

N. M.

Pressgrove

(2021). Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication, 43(1), 3–32.

Besley

J. C.

Tiffany

L. A.

(2023). What are you assessing when you measure “trust” in scientists with a direct measure? Public Understanding of Science, 32(6), 709–726.

Bogren

(2019). “But I’m not a doctor”: pending trust in science among laypeople discussing the brain disease model of addiction. Addiction Research & Theory, 27(4), 337–346.

10.

Borchelt

Nielsen

K. H.

(2014). Public relations in science: Managing the trust portfolio. In: Bucchi

Trench

(Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 58–69). Routledge.

11.

Brewer

P. R.

Ley

B. L.

(2013). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication, 35(1), 115–137.

12.

Brondi

Pellegrini

Guran

Fero

Rubin

(2021). Dimensions of trust in different forms of science communication: The role of information sources and channels used to acquire science knowledge. Journal of Science Communication, 20(3), Article A08.

13.

Cao

Y. P.

(2014) The impact of the social function of popular science websites on the spread of science and technology-taking Zhihu.com as an example. Science and Technology Communication, 20, 129–131.

14.

Castelfranchi

Falcone

(2010). Trust theory: A socio-cognitive and computational model. John Wiley & Sons.

15.

Coen

Meredith

Woods

Fernandez

(2021). Talk like an expert: The construction of expertise in news comments concerning climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 30(4), 400–416.

16.

Collins

H. M.

Evans

(2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.

17.

Comfort

S. E.

Park

Y. E.

(2018). On the field of environmental communication: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. Environmental Communication, 12(7), 862–875.

18.

Corner

Roberts

Chiari

Völler

Mayrhuber

E. S.

Mandl

Monson

(2015). How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(5), 523–534.

19.

Cox

Spence

Pidgeon

(2020). Incumbency, trust and the Monsanto effect: Stakeholder discourses on greenhouse gas removal. Environmental Values, 29(2), 197–220.

20.

Davis

Fähnrich

Nepote

A. C.

Riedlinger

Trench

(2018). Environmental communication and science communication—Conversations, connections and collaborations. Environmental Communication, 12(4), 431–437.

21.

De Cremer

. (2015, February 11). Understanding trust, in China and the West. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/02/understanding-trust-in-china-and-the-west

22.

Downes

Lange

(2015). What you see is not always what you get: A qualitative, comparative analysis of ex ante visualizations with ex post photography of landscape and architectural projects. Landscape and Urban Planning, 142, 136–146.

23.

Drummond

Fischhoff

(2017). Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(36), 9587–9592.

24.

Eiser

J. R.

Stafford

Henneberry

Catney

(2009). “Trust me, I’m a scientist (not a developer)”: Perceived expertise and motives as predictors of trust in assessment of risk from contaminated land. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 29(2), 288–297.

25.

Fage-Butler

Ledderer

Nielsen

K. H.

(2022). Public trust and mistrust of climate science: A meta-narrative review. Public Understanding of Science, 31(7), 832–846.

26.

Fähnrich

Riedlinger

Weitkamp

(2020). Activists as “alternative” science communicators—Exploring the facets of science communication in societal contexts. Journal of Science Communication, 19(6), Article C01.

27.

Fawcett

S. E.

Jin

Y. H.

Fawcett

A. M.

Magnan

(2017). I know it when I see it: The nature of trust, trustworthiness signals, and strategic trust construction. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 28(4), 914–938.

28.

Fiske

S. T.

Dupree

(2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593–13597.

29.

Forchtner

(2019). Far-right articulations of the natural environment: An introduction. In Forchtner

(Eds.), The far right and the environment (pp. 1–17). Routledge.

30.

Goodwin

Dahlstrom

M. F.

(2014). Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(1), 151–160.

31.

Grasswick

(2014). Climate change science and responsible trust: A situated approach. Hypatia, 29(3), 541–557.

32.

Griggs

D. J.

Kestin

T. S.

(2011). Bridging the gap between climate scientists and decision makers. Climate Research, 47(1–2), 139–144.

33.

Hamilton

L. C.

Hartter

Saito

(2015). Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. Sage Open, 5(3), Article 2158244015602752.

34.

Herrera-Lima

(2020). Socioenvironmental activism and emerging science communicators in Mexico. Journal of Science Communication, 19(6), Article C04.

35.

Huang

Sun

(2020). Dual mediation and success of environmental protests in China: A qualitative comparative analysis of 10 cases. Social Movement Studies, 19(4), 408–425.

36.

Intemann

(2023). Science communication and public trust in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48(2), 350–365.

37.

Irwin

Horst

(2016). Communicating trust and trusting science communication―Some critical remarks. Journal of Science Communication, 15(6), Article L01.

38.

Ismatullayeva

N. R.

(2022). Content of the philosophical term “Golden mean” “中庸” in confucius doctrine. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 9(3), 224–229.

39.

Jin

J. B.

(2018). Science communication: The social cognition and changes of controversial technologies [科学传播：争议性科技的社会认知及其改变]. Tsinghua University Press.

40.

Johnston

K. A.

Taylor

(2018). Engagement as communication: Pathways, possibilities, and future directions. In: Johnston

Taylor

(Eds.), The handbook of communication engagement (pp. 1–15). Wiley-Blackwell.

41.

Y. H.

(2019). An analysis of the characteristics of popular science communication in the social question-answer community - Taking Zhihu as an example. Audiovisual, 10, 45–51.

42.

Kahan

(2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463(7279), 296–297.

43.

Kelsall

(2021). The trust-based communicative obligations of expert authorities. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 38(2), 288–305.

44.

Kim

Konieczna

Yoon

H. Y.

Friedland

L. A.

(2016). Sustainability factors of emergent civic news websites: A qualitative comparative analysis approach. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(4), 750–769.

45.

Larson

H. J.

Clarke

R. M.

Jarrett

Eckersberger

Levine

Schulz

W. S.

Paterson

(2018). Measuring trust in vaccination: A systematic review. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 14(7), 1599–1609.

46.

Legge

(1971). Confucian analects: The great learning, and the doctrine of the mean. Courier Corporation.

47.

Leiserowitz

Roser-Renouf

Marlon

Maibach

(2021). Global warming’s six Americas: A review and recommendations for climate change communication. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 97–103.

48.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

Maibach

E. W.

Roser-Renouf

Smith

Dawson

(2013). Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 818–837.

49.

Qian

(2022). Polarization of public trust in scientists between 1978 and 2018: Insights from a cross-decade comparison using interpretable machine learning. Politics and the Life Sciences, 41(1), 45–54.

50.

X. D.

Zhang

Z. Y.

(2017). A discourse analysis of Chinese newspapers’ reports on the climatic research unit email controversy event [对中国报纸关于“气候门”事件的报道的话语分析]. Science and Society, 7(01), 95–107.

51.

X. M.

Chen

Z. Y.

(2014). Trust calculation model in knowledge community. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 631, 161–164.

52.

Liang

Liu

Zhang

(2019). Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science, 28(8), 991–1004.

53.

Lindgreen

(2003). Trust as a valuable strategic variable in the food industry: Different types of trust and their implementation. British Food Journal, 105(6), 310–328.

54.

Lucas

Leith

Davison

(2015). How climate change research undermines trust in everyday life: A review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(1), 79–91.

55.

Lukanda

I. N.

(2020). Activists as strategic science communicators on the adoption of GMOs in Uganda. Journal of Science Communication, 19(6), Article C06.

56.

Maeseele

(2009). NGOs and GMOs: A case study in alternative science communication. Javnost-The Public, 16(4), 55–72.

57.

McLoughlin

(2021). Communicating efficacy: How the IPCC, scientists, and other communicators can facilitate adaptive responses to climate change without compromising on policy neutrality. Climatic Change, 169(1–2), Article 5.

58.

Motta

(2018). The enduring effect of scientific interest on trust in climate scientists in the United States. Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 485–488.

59.

Nicolaisen

P. B.

(2022). A state of emergency or business as usual in climate science communication? A three-dimensional perspective on the role perceptions of climate scientists, climate journalists, and citizens. Science Communication, 44(6), 667–692.

60.

O’Brien

T. C.

Palmer

Albarracin

(2021). Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, Article 104184.

61.

O’keefe

D. J.

(2015). Persuasion: Theory and research. Sage.

62.

Oreskes

(2019). Why trust science? In Macedo

(Ed.), Why trust science? (pp. 15–69). Princeton University Press.

63.

Pagliarin

La Mendola

Vis

(2023). The “qualitative” in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Research moves, case-intimacy and face-to-face interviews. Quality & Quantity, 57(1), 489–507.

64.

Pornpitakpan

(2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.

65.

Robbins

B. G.

(2016). What is trust? A multidisciplinary review, critique, and synthesis. Sociology Compass, 10(10), 972–986.

66.

Rödder

(2020). The ambivalent role of environmental NGOs in climate communication. Journal of Science Communication, 19(6), Article C03.

67.

Rowland

Estevens

Krzewińska

Warwas

Delicado

(2022). Trust and mistrust in sources of scientific information on climate change and vaccines: Insights from Portugal and Poland. Science & Education, 31(5), 1399–1424.

68.

Schäfer

M. S.

Kessler

S. H.

Fähnrich

Leßmöllmann

Dascal

Gloning

(2019). Analyzing science communication through the lens of communication science: Reviewing the empirical evidence. In Leßmöllmann

Dascal

Gloning

(Eds.), Handbooks of communication science (pp. 77–104). De Gruyter.

69.

Seebauer

Babcicky

(2018). Trust and the communication of flood risks: Comparing the roles of local governments, volunteers in emergency services, and neighbours. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11(3), 305–316.

70.

Stone

J. A.

Can

S. H.

(2020). Linguistic analysis of municipal twitter feeds: Factors influencing frequency and engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), Article 101468.

71.

Thomann

Maggetti

(2020). Designing research with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Approaches, challenges, and tools. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(2), 356–386.

72.

Thomas

O’Mara-Eves

Brunton

(2014). Using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in systematic reviews of complex interventions: A worked example. Systematic Reviews, 3(1), 1–14.

73.

Van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Rosenthal

Maibach

. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), Article 1600008.

74.

VanDyke

M. S.

Lee

N. M.

(2020). Science public relations: The parallel, interwoven, and contrasting trajectories of public relations and science communication theory and practice. Public Relations Review, 46(4), Article 101953.

75.

Weitkamp

Milani

Ridgway

Wilkinson

(2021). Exploring the digital media ecology: Insights from a study of healthy diets and climate change communication on digital and social media. Journal of Science Communication, 20(3), Article A02.

76.

Windfeldt

(2020). Activists as alternative science communicators. The NGO “Danish seed savers”: Science communicators and activists but questionably alternative. Journal of Science Communication, 19(6), Article C05.

77.

(2006). Early Confucian principles: The potential theoretic foundation of democracy in modern China. Asian Philosophy, 16(2), 135–148.

78.

Yang

(2016). The practice of new media in the field of science communication—Analysis based on Zhihu. Chinese Popular Science Theory and Practice Exploration, 1(1), 6–10.

79.

Yang

(2021). Deconstruction of the discourse authority of scientists in Chinese online science communication: Investigation of citizen science communicators on Chinese knowledge sharing networks. Public Understanding of Science, 30(8), 993–1007.

80.

Yang

(2022a). More than just an audience: The new approach to public engagement with climate change communication on Chinese knowledge-sharing networks. Environmental Communication, 16(6), 757–772.

81.

Yang

(2022b). Similar attitudes, different strategies: A limited survey of the discourse strategies to oppose genetically modified organisms conspiracy theories by Chinese scientist communicators and citizen communicators on Zhihu. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 926098.

82.

Yang

S. K.

Smith

G. L.

(1985). Further study on atmospheric lapse rate regimes. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 42(9), 961–966.

83.

K. K.

(2023). College students’ Twitter usage and psychological well-being from the perspective of generalised trust: Comparing changes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Library Hi Tech, 41(1), 152–173.

84.

Yuan

Rui

Peng

(2023). Trust in scientists on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccine intention in China and the US. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 86, Article 103539.

85.

Zhang

Werner

J. P.

García-Bustamante

González-Rouco

Wagner

Zorita

Fraedrich

Jungclaus

J. H.

Ljungqvist

F. C.

Zhu

Xoplaki

Chen

Duan

Hao

Ivanov

Schneider

Talento

Wang

. . . Luterbacher

(2018). East Asian warm season temperature variations over the past two millennia. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 7702. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26038-8

86.

Zhang

Y. X.

Y. H.

(2014). Comparison and enlightenment of trust views between China and the West [中西方信任观比较及其启示]. Lanzhou Academic Journal, 245(02), 6–11.

87.

Zhao

Yuan

Zhou

(2018). How knowledge contributor characteristics and reputation affect user payment decision in paid Q&A? An empirical analysis from the perspective of trust theory. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 31, 1–11.

88.

Zucker

(1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53–111.