Communicating About Renewable Energy With Satire: The Influence of Gentle and Harsh Humor Tones on Perceived Message Credibility and Information Reliance

Abstract

Satire is often used in science communication, but it is unclear how it influences perceptions of message credibility and reliance on the information. We examine how two satire types (gentle, harsh) influence perceived message credibility and information reliance, which we define as using the information in discussions or for attitudinal and behavioral changes. Using a partial mediation model, we found no effects of gentle satire, but harsh satire negatively influenced message credibility, which was positively linked to information reliance. Contrary to previous research, we found that the satire type matters. Practical implications include being cautious when using harsh satire.

Keywords

energy environmental communication science communication satire message credibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aghahosseini

Breyer

(2020). From hot rock to useful energy: A global estimate of enhanced geothermal systems potential. Applied Energy, 279, 115769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115769

Anderson

A. A.

Becker

A. B.

(2018). Not just funny after all: Sarcasm as a catalyst for public engagement with climate change. Science Communication, 40(4), 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786560

Appelman

Sundar

S. S.

(2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015606057

Balaji

M. S.

Jiang

Jha

(2021). Nanoinfluencer marketing: How message features affect credibility and behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Research, 136, 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.049

Balzan-Alzate

López-Sánchez

Blessent

Raymond

Dezayes

Portela

J. P.

Restrepo

E. R.

Rendón

D. M.

Malo

Goderniaux

Daniele

Le Borgne

(2021). An online survey to explore the awareness and acceptance of geothermal energy among an educated segment of the population in five European and American countries. Geothermal Energy, 9(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-021-00188-x

Becker

Anderson

A. A.

(2019). Using humor to engage the public on climate change: The effect of exposure to one-sided vs. two-sided satire on message discounting, elaboration and counterarguing. Journal of Science Communication, 18(4), A07. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18040207

Beckers

K. F.

Kolker

Pauling

McTigue

J. D.

Kesseli

(2021). Evaluating the feasibility of geothermal deep direct-use in the United States. Energy Conversion and Management, 243, 114335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114335

Berger

A. A.

(2006). Anatomy of the joke. Journal of Communication, 26(3), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01913.x

Bidwell

(2016). Thinking through participation in renewable energy decisions. Nature Energy, 1(5), 16051. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.51

10.

Bore

I.-L. K.

Reid

(2014). Laughing in the face of climate change? Satire as a device for engaging audiences in public debate. Science Communication, 36(4), 454–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014534076

11.

Borum Chattoo

Feldman

. (2017). Storytelling for social change: Leveraging documentary and comedy for public engagement in global poverty. Journal of Communication, 67(5), 678–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12318

12.

Boudet

H. S.

(2019). Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nature Energy, 4(6), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0399-x

13.

Boukes

(2019). Agenda-setting with satire: How political satire increased TTIP’s saliency on the public, media, and political agenda. Political Communication, 36(3), 426–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1498816

14.

Boukes

Boomgaarden

H. G.

Moorman

de Vreese

C. H.

(2015). At odds: Laughing and thinking? The appreciation, processing, and persuasiveness of political satire. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 721–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12173

15.

Boukes

Hameleers

(2023). Fighting lies with facts or humor: Comparing the effectiveness of satirical and regular fact-checks in response to misinformation and disinformation. Communication Monographs, 90(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2022.2097284

16.

Boukes

LaMarre

H. L.

(2021). Narrative persuasion by corporate CSR messages: The impact of narrative richness on attitudes and behavioral intentions via character identification, transportation, and message credibility. Public Relations Review, 47(5), 102107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102107

17.

Brewer

P. R.

McKnight

(2017). “A statistically representative climate change debate”: Satirical television news, scientific consensus, and public perceptions of global warming. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 25(3), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2017.1324453

18.

Buijzen

Valkenburg

P. M.

(2004). Developing a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media Psychology, 6(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_2

19.

Burgers

Brugman

B. C.

(2022). How satirical news impacts affective responses, learning, and persuasion: A three-level random-effects meta-analysis. Communication Research, 49(7), 966–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211032100

20.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Becker

A. B.

Anderson

A. A.

Yeo

S. K.

(2020). Laughing with science: The influence of audience approval on engagement. Science Communication, 42(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020910749

21.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Yeo

S. K.

Y.-F.

McKasy

O’Neill

Qian

(2024). “That’s some positive energy”: How social media users respond to #funny science content. Journal of Science Communication, 23(01), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23010202

22.

Cao

Lye

Gonzalez

M. M.

Magalhaes

(2024). Exploring the synergy: Leveraging oil and gas drilling solutions for enhanced geothermal drilling. In Proceedings of the 49th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering (pp. 1–9). https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/GeoConf/papers/SGW/2024/Cao.pdf

23.

Carlson

K. A.

(2011). The impact of humor on memory: Is the humor effect about humor? Humor, 24(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2011.002

24.

Chan

Mak

M. K. F.

(2022). Mediation analysis and warranted inferences in media and communication research: Examining research design in communication journals from 1996 to 2017. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 99(2), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020961519

25.

Chang

Thorson

(2004). Television and web advertising synergies. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2004.10639161

26.

de la Garza

(2023, November 22). Geothermal energy could be huge. But we need oil and gas companies to build it. Time. https://time.com/collection-post/6338438/oil-gas-geothermal-energy/

27.

Dobmeier

C. M.

Brooks

J. J.

Walter

Holbert

R. L.

(2023). From punchlines to punches: A meta-analysis of the persuasive effects of Horatian and Juvenalian political satires. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231202698

28.

Erku

D. A.

Bauld

Dawkins

Gartner

C. E.

Steadman

K. J.

Noar

S. M.

Shrestha

Morphett

(2021). Does the content and source credibility of health and risk messages related to nicotine vaping products have an impact on harm perception and behavioural intentions? A systematic review. Addiction, 116(12), 3290–3303. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15473

29.

Falkenberg

Galeazzi

Torricelli

Di Marco

Larosa

Sas

Mekacher

Pearce

Zollo

Quattrociocchi

Baronchelli

(2022). Growing polarization around climate change on social media. Nature Climate Change, 12(12), 1114–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01527-x

30.

Feldman

Borum Chattoo

(2019). Comedy as a route to social change: The effects of satire and news on persuasion about Syrian refugees. Mass Communication and Society, 22(3), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1545035

31.

Feldman

Leiserowitz

Maibach

E. W.

(2011). The impact of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report on public attentiveness to science and the environment. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1838730

32.

Freiling

(2021). Misinformation on social media: A user perspective on information evaluation comparing Germany and the United States [Doctoral dissertation, University of Münster]. Proquest. https://www.proquest.com/openview/f6abfd46f1b9d074be46abe87457ed66/1?cbl=18750

33.

Hanus

Wong-Parodi

Hoyos

Rauch

(2018). Framing clean energy campaigns to promote civic engagement among parents. Environmental Research Letters, 13(3), 034021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa557

34.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Mediation analysis with a multicategorial antecedent. In Hayes

A. F.

(Ed.), Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (Vol. 2, pp. 187–216). Guilford Publications.

35.

Holbert

R. L.

Hmielowski

Jain

Lather

Morey

(2011). Adding nuance to the study of political humor effects: Experimental research on Juvenalian satire versus Horatian satire. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(3), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210392156

36.

Kahan

D. M.

(2016). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, part 1: What politically motivated reasoning is and how to measure it. In Scott

R. A.

Kosslyn

S. M.

(Eds.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 1–15). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0417

37.

Kapoor

P. S.

Jayasimha

K. R.

Sadh

Gunta

(2020). EWOM via social networking site: Source versus message credibility. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 14(1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijima.2020.106043

38.

Keib

Wojdynski

(2019). Staying alive: TV news Facebook posts, perceived credibility, and engagement intent. Electronic News, 13(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243118767733

39.

Kim

Shoenberger

Kwon

Ratneshwar

(2022). A narrative approach for overcoming the message credibility problem in green advertising. Journal of Business Research, 147, 449–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.024

40.

Kim

S. C.

Vraga

E. K.

Cook

(2021). An eye tracking approach to understanding misinformation and correction strategies on social media: The mediating role of attention and credibility to reduce HPV vaccine misperceptions. Health Communication, 36(13), 1687–1696. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1787933

41.

König

Jucks

(2019). Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519833903

42.

Lau

R. R.

Sigelman

Rovner

I. B.

(2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1176–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x

43.

Lee

(2012). Communication mediation model of late-night comedy: The mediating role of structural features of interpersonal talk between comedy viewing and political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 647–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2012.664239

44.

Lee

Jang

S. M.

(2017). Talking about what provokes us: Political satire, emotions, and interpersonal talk. American Politics Research, 45, 128–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x16657805

45.

Lin

H.-s.

Hong

Z.-R.

Huang

T.-C.

(2012). The role of emotional factors in building public scientific literacy and engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.551430

46.

Song

McComas

(2021). Seeking information about enhanced geothermal systems: The role of fairness, uncertainty, systematic processing, and information engagement intentions. Renewable Energy, 169, 855–864. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.01.031

47.

S.-M.

(2018). A global review of enhanced geothermal system (EGS). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 2902–2921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.097

48.

Lund

J. W.

Toth

A. N.

(2021). Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2020 worldwide review. Geothermics, 90, 101915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2020.101915

49.

Martin

R. A.

(2010). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Elsevier Academic Press.

50.

McHugh

M. L.

(2011). Multiple comparison analysis testing in ANOVA. Biochemia Medica, 21(3), 203–209.

51.

McKasy

Yeo

S. K.

(2021). Utah FORGE: Enhanced geothermal systems survey report. https://osf.io/swbxh

52.

Mutz

D. C.

Reeves

(2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051452

53.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041

54.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (2022). Renewable energy. https://www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy

55.

O’Neill

Nicholson-Cole

(2009). “Fear won’t do it”: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201

56.

Park-Ozee

(2019). Satire: An explication. Humor, 32(4), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2018-0009

57.

Peifer

J. T.

Meisinger

(2021). The value of explaining the process: How journalistic transparency and perceptions of news media importance can (sometimes) foster message credibility and engagement intentions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98(3), 828–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990211012953

58.

Qualtrics. (2019). ESOMAR: 28 questions to help buyers of online samples. https://www.iup.edu/arl/files/qualtrics/esomar.pdf

59.

Renoth

Buchner

Schmieder

Keim

Plechaty

Drews

(2023). Social acceptance of geothermal technology on a global view: A systematic review. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 13(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-023-00432-1

60.

Retzbach

Maier

(2015). Communicating scientific uncertainty: Media effects on public engagement with science. Communication Research, 42(3), 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534967

61.

Ricks

Voller

Galban

Norbeck

J. H.

Jenkins

J. D.

(2024). The role of flexible geothermal power in decarbonized electricity systems. Nature Energy. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01437-y

62.

Shamim

Islam

(2022). Digital influencer marketing: How message credibility and media credibility affect trust and impulsive buying. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 32(4), 601–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2022.2052342

63.

Skurka

Niederdeppe

Nabi

(2019). Kimmel on climate: Disentangling the emotional ingredients of a satirical monologue. Science Communication, 41(4), 394–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019853837

64.

Sokolova

Kefi

(2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011

65.

Speck

P. S.

(1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 13(1–2), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/01633392.1991.10504957

66.

Strielkowski

Civín

Tarkhanova

Tvaronavičienė

Petrenko

(2021). Renewable energy in the sustainable development of electrical power sector: A review. Energies, 14(24), 8240. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248240

67.

L. Y.-F.

McKasy

Cacciatore

M. A.

Yeo

S. K.

DeGrauw

A. R.

Zhang

J. S.

(2022). Generating science buzz: An examination of multidimensional engagement with humorous scientific messages on Twitter and Instagram. Science Communication, 44(1), 30–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211063902

68.

L. Y.-F.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Xenos

M. A.

(2021). Political and personality predispositions and topical contexts matter: Effects of uncivil comments on science news engagement intentions. New Media & Society, 23(5), 894–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820904365

69.

Tester

J. W.

Beckers

K. F.

Hawkins

A. J.

Lukawski

M. Z.

(2021). The evolving role of geothermal energy for decarbonizing the United States. Energy & Environmental Science, 14(12), 6211–6241. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EE02309H

70.

Thorson

Wicks

Leshner

(2012). Experimental methodology in journalism and mass communication research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(1), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699011430066

71.

Thorson

Vraga

Ekdale

(2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13(3), 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430903225571

72.

Yeo

S. K.

Anderson

A. A.

Becker

A. B.

Cacciatore

M. A.

(2020). Scientists as comedians: The effects of humor on perceptions of scientists and scientific messages. Public Understanding of Science, 29(4), 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520915359

73.

Yeo

S. K.

Becker

A. B.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Anderson

A. A.

Patel

(2022). Humor can increase perceived communicator effectiveness regardless of race, gender, and expertise—If you’re funny enough. Science Communication, 44(5), 593–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221132278

74.

Yeo

S. K.

Cacciatore

M. A.

L. Y.-F.

McKasy

O’Neill

(2021). Following science on social media: The effects of humor and source likability. Public Understanding of Science, 30(5), 552–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520986942

75.

Yeo

S. K.

McKasy

(2021). Emotion and humor as misinformation antidotes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), Article e2002484118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002484118

76.

Yeo

S. K.

L. Y.-F.

Cacciatore

M. A.

McKasy

Qian

(2020). Predicting intentions to engage with scientific messages on Twitter: The roles of mirth and need for humor. Science Communication, 42(4), 481–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020942512

77.

Yeo

S. K.

L. Y.-F.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Zhang

J. S.

McKasy

(2023). The differential effects of humor on three scientific issues: Global warming, artificial intelligence, and microbiomes. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 13(1), 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2022.2123259

78.

Yeo

S. K.

L. Y.-F.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Xenos

M. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2019). The effect of comment moderation on perceived bias in science news. Information, Communication & Society, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1356861

79.

Yuan

Besley

J. C.

(2019). Be mean or be nice? Understanding the effects of aggressive and polite communication styles in child vaccination debate. Health Communication, 34(10), 1212–1221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1471337

80.

Yuan

(2020). “It’s global warming, stupid”: Aggressive communication styles and political ideology in science blog debates about climate change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1003–1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020904791

81.

Zhang

A. L.

(2022). No laughing matter: Exploring the effects of scientists’ humor use on Twitter and the moderating role of superiority. Science Communication, 44(4), 418–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221114352