Who Do We Trust on Climate Change, and Why? Why We Listen to Neighbors More Than Scientists

Abstract

In the face of escalating climate volatility, the global consensus on remediation remains fractured. While traditional approaches to climate communication have focused on the dissemination of rigorous scientific data, emerging research indicates that the bottleneck to public action is not informational, but relational. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the 2026 study "Who do we trust on climate change, and why?" by MacInnes et al., published in Global Environmental Change (DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2025.103096). By synthesizing data from 6,479 participants across 13 countries with broader findings from the Edelman Trust Barometer, we explore the shifting hierarchy of epistemic authority. The analysis reveals that for skeptical audiences, trust is less dependent on credentials and more contingent on "relational features"—specifically, sincerity, shared identity, and the respectful acknowledgment of opposing views. This suggests that the path to a unified climate response lies not in louder megaphones for experts, but in the cultivation of trust within intimate social networks.

1. Introduction: The Paradox of Awareness and Climate Inaction

The scientific case for anthropogenic climate change is unequivocally established, yet the social consensus required to act on it remains elusive. For decades, science communicators have operated under the "deficit model"—the presumption that public skepticism is a product of ignorance, and that providing more accurate data will inevitably bridge the divide. However, the persistence of climate denial and delay, even in the face of increasingly visible environmental degradation, suggests that this model is fundamentally flawed. We are witnessing a crisis not of awareness, but of epistemic trust—the willingness to accept information as true and relevant based on the credibility of the source.¹

In their landmark 2026 study, "Who do we trust on climate change, and why?", researchers Sarah MacInnes, Matthew J. Hornsey, and colleagues challenge the assumption that scientific authority is universal. By analyzing the psychological "genome" of trust, they demonstrate that credibility is a dynamic negotiation between the messenger and the receiver, heavily mediated by ideological identity.³ The study, which utilizes extensive data from the Edelman Trust Barometer, offers a granular look at how different demographics construct their hierarchies of truth. It poses a critical question for the modern era: When the world is on fire, why do we often trust a neighbor over a climatologist?

This article dissects the findings of MacInnes et al. (2026) to provide a comprehensive overview of the current trust landscape. We examine the collapse of institutional credibility, the rise of "horizontal" trust networks, and the specific communicative traits—such as respect and sincerity—that determine whether a message penetrates or ricochets off an audience's psychological defenses.⁴

2. Methodology and Scope: Mapping the Global Mindset

To understand the mechanics of trust, MacInnes et al. leveraged a massive dataset derived from the 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer "Special Report: Trust and Climate Change." The study's sample included 6,479 participants drawn from 13 geographically and culturally diverse nations: Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.⁴ Notably, data from China was excluded from the final analysis due to specific constraints in the survey instrument regarding government trust.⁴

This methodological breadth is significant. By spanning the Global North and South, as well as varying political systems, the researchers were able to control for local cultural idiosyncrasies and identify universal human drivers of trust. The study categorized information sources into three distinct tiers:

1. Dedicated Climate Experts: Scientists, environmental NGOs, and activists.

2. General Societal Leaders: Government officials, journalists, and corporate leaders.

3. Proximate Sources: Friends, family, and "people like me".⁴

The researchers did not merely ask who was trusted; they probed why. Participants evaluated messengers based on a set of "trustworthiness features," including clarity, sincerity, shared values, and the possession of supporting data. This dual-layered approach allowed for the construction of a predictive model of credibility that transcends simple popularity contests.⁵

3. The Global Trust Landscape: A Crisis of Institutions

The findings of MacInnes et al. must be contextualized within the broader "institutional imbalance" identified by the Edelman Trust Barometer. We are currently navigating a historic low in vertical trust—faith in the institutions that traditionally manage societal risk.

Globally, the data paints a bleak picture for top-down communication. Trust in government to "do what is right" on climate change sits precariously at 50%, while the media fares even worse at 44%.⁶ Business, often touted as a driver of innovation, is trusted by only 49% of the population regarding climate action, with many respondents viewing corporate sustainability efforts as performative rather than substantive.⁶

This erosion of institutional authority has created a vacuum that is increasingly filled by "horizontal" trust. As citizens lose faith in elites, they turn to their peers. The Edelman data reveals that "friends and family" and "people like me" have emerged as the most trusted voices across the board, statistically rivaling or exceeding the credibility of CEOs and government officials.⁷ This shift from vertical to horizontal trust represents a fundamental restructuring of the information ecosystem. Truth is no longer solely validated by peer review; it is socially verified at the kitchen table.

4. The Hierarchy of Messengers: The Ideological Divide

The core analysis of the MacInnes study reveals a stark divergence in who is trusted, driven largely by the audience's belief in anthropogenic climate change. The "hierarchy of messengers" is not a fixed ladder but a branching path dependent on ideological orientation.

4.1 The Believer’s Hierarchy: Technocratic Authority

For individuals who accept the reality of climate change ("believers"), the trust hierarchy aligns with the traditional scientific model. This group grants the highest levels of epistemic trust to Dedicated Climate Experts—specifically climate scientists and environmental NGOs. To the believer, the climate crisis is a technical problem requiring technical expertise; therefore, credentials and specialized knowledge are the primary currencies of credibility. Scientists are viewed as benevolent authorities whose warnings are grounded in objective reality.⁴

4.2 The Skeptic’s Hierarchy: Relational Authority

For climate skeptics, the hierarchy is inverted. The MacInnes data shows that skeptics rely significantly less on dedicated experts. In fact, the "trust gap" between believers and skeptics is widest when evaluating scientists and NGOs.⁴ Instead, skeptics place their highest trust in Proximate Sources:

1. Friends and Family

2. "People Like Me"

3. Climate Scientists (ranking significantly lower).⁴

This finding is critical for understanding the resilience of climate denial. Skeptics do not necessarily reject the concept of expertise; rather, they reject the specific expertise of the scientific establishment, viewing it perhaps as an ideological out-group. Instead, they grant authority to those with whom they share a social bond. A skeptic may dismiss a consensus report from the IPCC as "alarmist" but listen intently to a neighbor expressing concern about local drought patterns. The "social distance" between the messenger and the receiver becomes the deciding factor in information acceptance.

4.3 The Universal Safety of the In-Group

Perhaps the most unifying finding is the high trustworthiness of "friends and family" across both groups. Even believers, who revere scientists, rate their immediate social circle as highly credible.⁴ This suggests that intimate networks act as a universal "safe harbor" in a complex information environment. When faced with conflicting data or existential anxiety, human beings instinctually turn to those with whom they share a history and a future—people who, presumably, lack an ulterior motive.

Audience Group	Primary Trusted Source	Secondary Trusted Source	Least Trusted Source
Believers	Climate Scientists / NGOs	Friends & Family	Government / Media
Skeptics	Friends & Family	"People Like Me"	Climate Scientists / NGOs
General Public	Peers / Scientists (Parity)	NGOs	Media / CEOs

Table 1: The Divergent Hierarchies of Trust. Synthesized from MacInnes et al. (2026) and Edelman Trust Barometer (2023).⁴

5. The "Why": Deconstructing the Features of Credibility

The most innovative contribution of the MacInnes study is its dissection of why certain messengers are trusted. The researchers identified specific communicative "features" that predict trustworthiness: Clarity, Shared Values, Sincerity, Respect, and Supporting Data.⁴

5.1 The Architecture of Trust

The analysis revealed that these features are not weighted equally by all audiences.

• For Believers: Trust is competence-driven. The strongest predictors of trust are "supporting data," "academic credentials," and "passion." Because believers view the messenger as an ally in a shared struggle, they prioritize the messenger's ability to effectively argue the case with facts and energy.⁴

• For Skeptics: Trust is relational and affective. While data still matters, the study identified a unique and powerful driver for this group: "not dismissing opposing views".⁴

5.2 The Demand for Respect

This finding regarding "not dismissing opposing views" is a profound insight into the mechanics of resistance. It suggests that skepticism is often fueled by a sense of intellectual or social marginalization. When a scientist or activist presents the science as "settled" and treats skepticism as a moral or intellectual failing, they violate the skeptic's requirement for Respect. This triggers a defensive reaction—"motivated skepticism"—where the individual rejects the message to protect their self-concept.¹

Skeptics appear to withhold trust not because they are incapable of understanding the data, but because they feel disrespected by the delivery. They seek a dialogue rather than a lecture. A messenger who acknowledges the validity of their doubts, or at least engages with them without condescension, is far more likely to be granted a hearing.

5.3 The Universal Value of Sincerity

Across all demographics, Sincerity emerged as a non-negotiable trait. In an era of "greenwashing" and politicized science, audiences are hyper-vigilant for hypocrisy. Edelman’s data supports this, noting that business leaders are distrusted largely because they are perceived as prioritizing profit over the planet.⁹ A messenger who appears to be "following a script," serving a corporate master, or advocating for a policy that doesn't affect them personally, loses the sincerity vote. This reinforces the power of "people like me"—their motives are transparent, and their "skin in the game" is visible.

Trust Feature	Definition	Importance to Believers	Importance to Skeptics
Supporting Data	Use of evidence/facts.	High	Moderate
Respect	Not dismissing opposing views.	Low	Critical
Sincerity	Perceived honesty/lack of agenda.	High	High
Clarity	Explaining simply.	Moderate	Moderate
Shared Values	Aligning with listener's morals.	Moderate	High

Table 2: Key Drivers of Trustworthiness by Ideological Group. Based on findings from MacInnes et al. (2026).⁴

6. Theoretical Framework: Epistemic Trust and Social Identity

To fully grasp the implications of these findings, it is useful to view them through the lens of Social Identity Theory and Epistemic Trust, frameworks central to the work of Matthew Hornsey.¹

6.1 Epistemic Trust as Vulnerability

Epistemic trust is defined as the "readiness to regard knowledge, communicated by another agent, as significant, relevant to the self, and generalizable".² It is an act of vulnerability. When a layperson trusts a climatologist, they are admitting their own lack of expertise and "outsourcing" their judgment to the expert.

Hornsey’s research suggests that this outsourcing only occurs when the audience feels "safe" with the expert. If the expert is perceived as a member of a rival political tribe (an "out-group"), the audience instinctively raises their epistemic defenses. They scan the expert’s message for errors, bias, or hidden agendas to justify rejecting the authority. This is why "shared values" and "people like me" are such potent drivers of trust for skeptics; they signal in-group status, which lowers the barrier to epistemic trust.¹

6.2 The In-Group Advantage

The preference for "people like me" is a manifestation of in-group bias. In the context of climate change, which has become a potent culture war signifier, "people like me" implies "people who share my economic anxieties, my political values, and my lifestyle".⁸ A coal miner in West Virginia is unlikely to grant epistemic authority to an environmentalist from a coastal city, regardless of the environmentalist's PhD. The social distance is too great, and the perceived threat to status is too high. However, a fellow miner discussing the changing seasons or the economic viability of renewables represents a "safe" source—a peer whose insights are validated by shared experience.

7. Implications for Science Communication

The findings of MacInnes et al. (2026) suggest that the current mode of climate advocacy—often characterized by high-urgency, high-certainty warnings delivered by elite experts—may be structurally unsuited to reach skeptical audiences.

7.1 From Monologue to Dialogue

Communicators must abandon the strategy of "overwhelming" skeptics with data. For the skeptical demographic, the barrier is relational. Strategies that emphasize the "97% consensus" can paradoxically backfire if they are perceived as an attempt to shut down debate or shame the dissenter. The study indicates that respectful engagement—acknowledging the skeptic's concerns, validating their economic anxieties, and avoiding dismissive language—is a prerequisite for trust.⁴

7.2 Leveraging the "Trusted Messenger"

The study highlights the immense, untapped potential of interpersonal communication. While national media campaigns are filtered through partisan lenses, conversations within social networks bypass these filters. Climate organizations might achieve more by equipping individuals to have constructive, respectful conversations with their conservative relatives than by funding broad-spectrum advertising. The message matters less than the messenger; if the messenger is a "friend or family member," the message is already halfway to acceptance.⁴

7.3 Humanizing the Expert

For scientists to regain trust among the skeptical public, they must adopt behaviors that signal "sincerity" and "respect." This involves stepping out of the role of the dispassionate lecturer and entering the role of the concerned citizen. Sharing personal motivations, acknowledging the uncertainty and complexity of policy decisions, and listening as much as speaking can help bridge the "trust gap." The goal is to transform from a distant "institutional elite" into a relatable "person like me" who happens to have specialized knowledge.

8. Conclusion

The research by MacInnes, Hornsey, and colleagues offers a sobering but actionable diagnosis of the climate communication crisis. We are washing aground not on a lack of science, but on a lack of relationship. The study decisively shifts the focus from the content of the message to the context of the messenger.

In a world where 13 countries show distinct yet converging patterns of institutional distrust, the solution lies in democratizing the message. Trust is no longer a broadcast signal; it is a peer-to-peer network. If we are to bridge the gap between climate awareness and climate action, we must recognize that for many, the truth of the message is inseparable from the respect they feel from the messenger. To win the argument on climate change, we may first have to win back the relationship.

Works cited

1. Full article: The Communication of Value Judgements and its Effects on Climate Scientists' Perceived Trustworthiness - Taylor & Francis Online, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2022.2153896

2. The role of epistemic trust and epistemic disruption in vaccine hesitancy, conspiracy thinking and the capacity to identify fake news | PLOS Global Public Health - Research journals, accessed January 13, 2026, https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0003941

3. Expert publications - About - The University of Queensland, accessed January 13, 2026, https://about.uq.edu.au/experts-publication/384/all

4. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #52 2025, accessed January 13, 2026, https://skepticalscience.com/new_research_2025_52.html

5. Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined, accessed January 13, 2026, https://skepticalscience.com/

6. 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Climate Change, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2023-11/2023%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Special%20Report%20Trust%20and%20Climate.pdf

7. Special Report — Trust and Climate Change 2023 - Edelman, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.edelman.com/trust/2023/trust-barometer/special-report-trust-climate

8. 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.edelman.com/trust/2024/trust-barometer

9. Trust and Climate Change Top Findings - Edelman, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2023-11/Trust%20and%20Climate%20Change%20Top%20Findings%202.pdf