Dr Samuel Finnerty

My latest: with @fdabl.bsky.social and JW Bolderdijk we argue that environmental psychology needs formal theory to make progress and increase real-world impact

doi.org/10.1016/j.co...

Part of special issue Behavioral Science for Climate Change by @madalina.bsky.social & @neurograce.bsky.social

Scientists are becoming more visible in public climate debates, but the effects of this engagement are far from straightforward. We often hear strong claims about credibility and trust, yet what does the evidence say? Our new preprint explores this osf.io/preprints/ps...

Thread 1/n

That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing

Great opportunity here to join the AI Accountability Lab with @abeba.bsky.social

This is top maternity leave productivity here, if I say so myself* 👇🏻
Our preprint is perfect as a quick recce of the research into scientists’ advocacy and activism - the motivations, barriers, tricky bits, and what different people think is good and not so good, and what we might need next.

⚠️ When “technology will save us” becomes a climate risk!

A new paper from great colleagues takes a careful look at techno-optimism — the belief that technology will largely solve climate change — and what it means for real-world climate action.
(1/4)👇
osf.io/preprints/ps...

Technological Optimism, Climate Action, and How Scientists Frame Solutions | Samuel Finnerty A new paper by Fabian Dablander Viktoria Cologna Maien Sachisthal Jonas Haslbeck finds that scientists who are most confident that technology will solve the climate crisis tend to take the least clima...

Find this topic super interesting. It's something we explored too in survey and interview research (and great to see converging evidence here too with such a large sample). www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...

Thank you. I am very happy to get this one out. Been something I have wanted to do for a while and this was the perfect time for it.

Thanks again to my co-authors @maiensachis.bsky.social @colognaviktoria.bsky.social @fdabl.bsky.social
@lydiamessling.bsky.social @christelvaneck.bsky.social and here is a link to the paper: osf.io/preprints/ps...

As climate and ecological risks intensify, questions about when and how scientists should engage will become more prominent. This review aims to support informed decisions about public engagement both for individual scientists and for the institutions that shape the conditions for scientist advocacy

Research gaps:
More work is also needed on how advocacy shapes career paths, professional identities, and influence, over the longer term.

Research gaps:
We still lack clear conceptual boundaries around what counts as advocacy, more consistent ways of measuring the effects of advocacy on trust and credibility, and better understanding of how policymakers and scientific organisations interpret scientists’ public engagement.

The review highlights that perceptions of scientist advocacy, and the benefits or drawbacks attributed to it, are highly context-dependent. The consequences of advocacy depend on how messages are framed, the specific issue at stake, the form of action, and the political and social environment

Why this matters:
The climate and ecological crisis is a defining challenge of our time. Scientists, as trusted knowledge producers, can play a crucial role in addressing it beyond just research. This is reflected in the rapid growth of (research on) climate advocacy and activism by scientists.

Effects on engaged scientists:
Advocacy can bring both challenges and forms of personal and professional growth. Ethnographic work shows identity shifts, renewed purpose, collective solidarity, and new communication and organisational skills, alongside careful management of credibility.

Effects on engaged scientists:
Advocacy can bring both challenges and forms of personal and professional growth. Ethnographic work shows identity shifts, renewed purpose, collective solidarity, and new communication and organisational skills, alongside careful management of credibility.

How scientists view advocacy:
Within the scientific community, views range from concern about impartiality to seeing advocacy as essential for defending scientific credibility. Evidence is limited and often qualitative, but many scientists believe climate scientists should be more publicly engaged.

Research on activism and civil disobedience also shows variation across contexts. Some studies find no change in trust, while others find negative reactions. This inconsistency necessitates more work to explore effects further.

Public responses:
Effects of advocacy on trust and credibility are mixed. Outcomes differ by policy content, ideological alignment, national context, action, and message framing. Many studies find small (negative & positive) or null effects, suggesting advocacy rarely drives large shifts in trust.

These contexts shape not only why scientists act, but also how their actions are interpreted.

Context matters:
Scientists operate within broader political and social conditions. Polarisation, misinformation, and in some settings the criminalisation of protest can increase both the sense of responsibility to act and the perceived risks of doing so.

What hold scientists back (continued): Scientists who believe climate problems will be solved primarily through technological innovation tend to be less engaged in advocacy. Other barriers relate to how personal behaviour (such as carbon footprint) may be judged by others, undermining legitimacy

What holds scientists back:
Concerns about objectivity, overstepping disciplinary boundaries, reputational risk, and career consequences are common. Uncertainty about expertise, lack of time or support, and worry about appearing biased also shape decisions not to engage.

Identity-aligned groups and collective environments, such as Scientist Rebellion, S4XR, or public science events, can support scientist advocacy by providing support, legitimacy, and clear roles for scientists to use their expertise.

Why scientists act:
Trust in science remains comparatively high, and many scientists see public engagement as part of their responsibility, especially in the face of climate risk. Motivations combine collective action factors with elements of scientific identity and moral duty.

Our narrative review synthesises the research, detailing why scientists speak out, what holds others back, and how their actions are interpreted by different audiences @maiensachis.bsky.social @colognaviktoria.bsky.social @fdabl.bsky.social @lydiamessling.bsky.social @christelvaneck.bsky.social

Scientists are becoming more visible in public climate debates, but the effects of this engagement are far from straightforward. We often hear strong claims about credibility and trust, yet what does the evidence say? Our new preprint explores this osf.io/preprints/ps...

Thread 1/n

Research Fellow Ref 42079 (Fixed Term) - Job page - University of Sussex Job Search

Research Fellow post on UKRI-funded interdisciplinary project on enhancing climate resilience among farming and pastoralist communities in eastern Africa

Come and work with us!
Please share

jobs.sussex.ac.uk/job/181bad99...

'These group processes are much more in play at night' | BPS Our journalist, Ella Rhodes, meets Mark Levine, Professor of Social Psychology at Lancaster University.

'These group processes are much more in play at night…'

@ellarhodespsych.bsky.social meets Mark Levine, Professor of Social Psychology at Lancaster University.

www.bps.org.uk/psychologist...

typo but can't edit now without deleting it. Should read "... tend to take the least climate-related action (civic or lifestyle).