How Scientist Identity Shapes Engagement with Environmental Activism: Findings from a Multinational Survey

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3581291/v1

Scientists are increasingly joining environmental movements. As knowledge producers and influential figures in society, scientists are uniquely positioned to drive change. The present study explored how “scientist identity” shapes engagement in environmental activism. Participants were 329 scientists from 41 countries. Scientist identity content, specifically perception of the science-activism relationship, was a more significant predictor than mere strength of identification as a “scientist”. Perceiving a harmonious relationship between science and activism, endorsing environmental stewardship as a scientist’s duty, and believing objectivity and impartiality remained uncompromised by activism, each had significant correlations with engagement. These components formed a composite variable, which remained a strong predictor of engagement even when accounting for the influence of activist identity. Scientists embracing this scientist-activist compatibilism were also less inclined to view new technologies as a panacea for the climate crisis. This research underscores the vital role of scientist identity content in shaping climate actions and perspectives.

Climate change and biodiversity loss pose major threats to both human¹ and ecological² systems. In response, scientists are increasingly joining social movements to support transformative change. While there is a rich history of individual scientist-activists like Albert Einstein, Jane Goodall, and Carl Sagan, the urgency of the climate crisis has brought to the forefront the question of whether scientists should engage as a collective in advocacy and activism. This paper explores the motivations driving scientists to engage in climate action.

2017’s worldwide March for Science served as a catalyst for scientist activism, with demonstrators marching in defense of scientific research and evidence-based policymaking³. It marked a significant moment in the broader discussion surrounding the role of scientists as advocates and activists. Traditionally, scientists have been represented as impartial observers, conducting research, and offering evidence-based knowledge to inform policy-making and societal decision-making. This perception has fueled an ongoing discussion about whether preserving a position of scientific detachment is morally and intellectually sound. Some argue that separating science and advocacy is crucial for upholding the integrity^4,5, and credibility^6–9, of scientific inquiry. However, others challenge these social norms by arguing that scientists have a social and intellectual responsibility to act, and that maintaining scientific detachment is morally unsustainable^10–12. This tension is evident in interviews with IPCC scientists who navigate the challenge of being politically active while maintaining objectivity and credibility¹³. Despite this tension, scientists engage in advocacy and activism^14–16. Not only are climate and earth systems scientists engaged in such actions¹⁷, but groups such as Scientists for Extinction Rebellion¹⁸ and Scientist Rebellion¹⁹ include a variety of natural and social scientists. During public actions such as symbolically pasting scientific papers to government buildings¹⁴, blocking private aircraft²⁰, and even chaining oneself to the White House’s railings¹⁶, scientist identity is often explicitly invoked by wearing white lab-coats. Some even risk, and in some cases are, being arrested for engaging in civil disobedience as part of their activism.

To understand the motivations driving scientists to engage in climate action, it is helpful to draw insights from the broader literature on collective action. Social identity theory suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in collective action when they strongly identify with a particular social group^21,22. This theory posits that psychological identification with a group can be a stronger predictor of participation in collective action than individual perceptions of injustice or beliefs about action effectiveness. Applying this theoretical lens to scientists concerning climate action, the extent to which someone identifies as a scientist and the content of their scientist identity concerning values of objectivity, impartiality, and duty to act on scientific information, may be crucial factors. Amid the growing visibility of scientist-activists, the pivotal question is does an individual’s identity as a scientist significantly contribute to engagement in climate action? Specifically, does scientist identity play a unique role in motivating action, beyond the influence of established factors? Past research highlights other factors influencing climate action, including perceptions of psychological closeness of climate change²³, personal and collective pro-environmental identities^24,25, social^24,26 and ingroup norms²⁴, having activist friends²⁶, and a sense of collective efficacy^24,27. Within the university context, high work demands and potential negative perceptions from colleagues and academic institutions¹¹ may also pose barriers to action.

Furthermore, scientists possessing an identity less aligned with collective action may be inclined towards ‘techno-solutionism’²⁸. This is the idea that all problems, including social, political, and cultural, are best solved by technology²⁹, which might attract certain scientists as a more controllable and less disruptive approach to addressing complex issues like climate change. From this viewpoint, climate change mitigation could be achieved via a ‘technical fix’³⁰ without the need for action outside the remit of science. Consequently, ‘techno-solutionism’ could act as a countervailing force to collective action as far as scientists are concerned.

Study aims and hypotheses

This pre-registered study aimed to understand the role of a scientist’s social identity on activism engagement. Our research offers valuable insights into the determinants of scientists' involvement in climate change activism and their perceptions of the interplay between science and activism.

We hypothesized that:

Stronger identification with a scientist identity will be positively associated with greater engagement in climate change activism.
Stronger identification with an activist identity will be positively associated with participation in climate change activism.
Increased perceptions of compatibility between science and activism (science-activism will be positively associated with participation in climate change activism.
Participants who strongly identify as scientists but perceive incompatibility between science and activism will be more likely to endorse techno-solutionism as a response to climate change.

To explore the relationship between a scientist’s identity, both in terms of strength and content, and engagement in environmental activism, a sample of 329 natural and social scientists from 41 countries (41.64% UK; 14.29% USA; 7.3% Germany; 4.56% Australia; 3.65 % Ireland) was recruited. Approximately half the sample (53%) indicated that they were part of an activist group, such as Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace, and Scientist Rebellion. Participants responded to measures of the strength of their identification with a scientist identity, the strength of their identification with an activist identity, their beliefs about the compatibility of science and activism (reflecting the content of their scientist identity, including values related to objectivity, impartiality, and a scientist's duty to advocate for the environment), their perceptions of whether activism compromised a scientist’s reputation or credibility, and their level of engagement in environmental activism. In addition, a measure was included to assess beliefs about ‘techno-solutionism’. Last of all, participants reported on the impact of potential barriers to collective action including perceptions of action efficacy, personal connections with activists (having activist friends or family), work commitments, and family commitments (see Methods for full list). These items were included to explore the relative impact of scientist identification when considered against more traditional structural impediments to action. Open-ended questions were included to provide additional context regarding perceived obstacles to, and benefits of, action.

To determine the relative importance of scientist identification, activist identification, scientist-activism compatibilism beliefs, and potential structural barriers to activism, we built a set of regression models. These sought to predict both frequency of climate change activism and willingness to endorse techno-solutionism as a response to climate change. This allowed us to analyze not only the potential relationship between our measured variables and our outcome measures, but also the relative explanatory weight of each variable within the model. Given the approximately even split between activist group members and non-members, we conducted additional analyses to compare the factors influencing scientists' activism between these two distinct groups. This comparison helped explore differences and also assessed the robustness of our analyses, as group membership serves as another measure of activism engagement.

Activism engagement

Contrary to Hypothesis 1, scientist identity did not significantly correlate with activism engagement, r(327) = .08, p = .17. The belief that activism can harm a scientist’s reputation and credibility did not significantly correlate with activism engagement, r(327) = -.09, p = .09. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, endorsement of scientist-activist compatibilism contributed to engagement. Believing objectivity and impartiality were uncompromised by activism, endorsing environmental stewardship as a scientist’s duty, and that it is possible to be a scientist and an activist, were all positively associated r(327) = .25 to .36 (all p’s < .001). Principal components analysis revealed that these different aspects of scientist-activist compatibilism formed a single composite variable showing good internal consistency (α = .76) and had an overall strong association with activism engagement, r(327) = .42, p < .001.

A final model 52, F(4, 324) = 90.13, p < .001, including age, scientist-activist compatibilism, level of interest in activism, and activist identity significantly predicted activism engagement (see Table 1). All variables in the final model were robust to multiple testing and the influence of activist identity (all variables satisfied the Bonferroni corrected alpha level of .009 for the final model). A large effect size³¹ was observed for the model. There were no issues of multicollinearity (all VIFs < 3). To check the stability of the model, we performed bootstrapped regressions with 10,000 iterations, revealing that all confidence intervals closely mirrored the original model's findings, further affirming the model's reliability.

Consistent with Hypothesis 2, activist identity contributed the largest amount of variance in activism engagement, but other factors explained additional variance. In addition to the positive effects of age, and accounting for the level of interest in activism, scientist-activist compatibilism was a significant predictor. Also, scientist-activist compatibilism was unrelated to scientist identification r(327) = .02, p = .70, suggesting scientist identity strength and the content of scientist identity are separate constructs.

All potential barriers were assessed for relationships with activism engagement (see Table 2). Uncertainty about the effectiveness of action, uncertainty about which actions to take, and not knowing others who are taking action were negatively correlated with activism engagement. Experiencing family commitments, and the impact of COVID-19, were positively correlated with engagement. Financial and work commitments, transport access, and visa and residency concerns exhibited weakly positive but non-significant correlations with engagement.

Techno-solutionism

Most participants disagreed with (n = 243, 74%) or expressed uncertainty about techno-solutionism (n = 50, 15%), while 11% (n= 36) endorsed it. Contrary to Hypothesis 4, scientist-identity strength was not associated with techno-solutionism, X²(1, N = 329) = 2.67, OR = 1.02 [1.00, 1.05], p = .10. However, higher scientist-activist compatibility scores uniquely predicted lower likelihood of techno-solutionism (see Table 3), X²(1, N = 329) = 36.76, OR = 0.80 [0.74, 0.86], p < .001, supporting Hypothesis 4 that scientists who viewed science and activism as incompatible were more likely to endorse techno-solutionism.

Comparison of activist group members with non-group members

Compared to scientists that are members of an activist group, non-group-member scientists expressed significantly less interest in and engaged less in activism (see Table 4 for all results). They also tended to be younger, significantly identified less as activists, were less certain about action effectiveness, were less likely to construe the scientist identity as compatible with activism, were more worried of what others might think of them, and were relatively more supportive of techno-solutionism (though on average still disagreed with it).

Scientist identity strength did not differ between the activist group and non-activist-group scientists. However, for activist group members, scientist-identity strength correlated with activism, r(172) = .25, p < .001. This was not the case for non-group members, r(153) = - .01, p = .91. Scientist-identity strength was a significant independent predictor of activism (see Table 5). The overall model was significant, .31, F(6, 167) = 13.78, p < .001. A large effect size³¹ was observed for the model. There were no issues of multicollinearity (all VIFs < 3). When including activist identity, the overall model improved F(7, 166) = 20.75, p < .001, a large effect size. However, scientist-identity strength was no longer significant, which further highlights the important role of activist identity for activism engagement.

Thematic analysis of open responses

Thematic analysis of the open responses (see Supplements for table of themes; see Methods for full analysis procedure) on factors preventing action (n = 292) complemented and expanded upon the quantitative analysis. For example, on the topic of scientist-activist compatibilism, some participants expressed that activism was incompatible with science as it contradicted the value of objectivity (“A researcher/scientist should be objective, and activism threatens scientific integrity”), while others emphasized the moral responsibility of a scientist to act:

For me it is a moral duty. I would not feel I was doing right by my responsibilities as a scientist, as someone who understands the risks, if I was not doing my best to create change and activism is an effective avenue for this.

The current research highlights the importance of scientist-identity construction for both activism engagement and inclination toward techno-solutionism.

Scientist Identity, Environmental Activism, and Techno-Solutionism

Our findings demonstrate that the strength of a scientist's identification as a “scientist” did not significantly correlate with activism across the sample, nor did concerns over potential damage to a scientist’s reputation and credibility. A more influential predictor was how scientists constructed the content of their scientist identity. While our findings align with previous research^24,25 indicating that pro-environmental identity strongly predicts environmental activism, they also reveal that scientist-identity content contributes additional variance. Those who considered activism to be compatible with science, felt a responsibility as a scientist to protect the environment, believed that activism does not compromise scientific objectivity and impartiality, reported greater engagement in activism. Furthermore, belief in scientist-activist compatibility was largely orthogonal to identifying as a scientist. Overall, these results suggest that the relationship between scientist identity and environmental activism is far from straightforward and hinges significantly around scientist identity construction. Arguments for^10,32,33 and against^7,8 scientist advocacy illustrate the diverse conceptualizations of the scientist identity. This emphasizes the importance of understanding the unique ways in which scientists construct their identities as these constructions can significantly impact on willingness to take action.

While our participants, in general, did not strongly support techno-solutionism, those who viewed their scientist identity as incompatible with activism tended to endorse techno-solutionism more frequently. While emerging technologies such as novel forms of carbon capture and storage³⁴, solar geoengineering³⁵, and nuclear fusion³⁶ are touted as potential solutions, scaling them up poses ethical^37,38 and practical challenges^34,39. Some argue that putting too much stock in technological “myths” that have yet to deliver can promote inaction⁴⁰. For instance, exposure to mitigation solutions like greenhouse-gas removal may discourage measures to mitigate climate change such as reducing emissions⁴¹. This emphasizes the importance of scientists' self-conception in shaping the strategies they support for addressing climate change.

Although the strength of scientist identity did not significantly influence environmental activism in the overall sample, a distinction emerged when considering scientists who reported joining an activist group as part of their climate change activism. In this subgroup, strength of scientist identity predicted increased engagement in activism. One possible explanation is that through involvement in activism, scientists' identity becomes intertwined with their activist identity. This may be particularly true within activist groups that utilize the “scientist” identity. For example, when UK scientists protested planned fossil fuel expansion, they wore white lab coats with the message "I'm a Scientist" alongside their pro-environmental message "New Oil and Gas = Death"¹⁴. This foregrounding of the scientist identity during action may help facilitate the integration of scientist and activist roles.

Other Factors Impacting Environmental Activism

Our findings revealed that older individuals were more likely to actively participate in climate activism. This finding aligns with potential challenges faced by younger scientists, such as academic precarity, including contract insecurities, power-imbalances, and heavy workloads⁴², which may limit opportunities for activism. Conversely, more established scientists might feel secure enough to act on longstanding convictions, possibly invigorated by the recent wave of climate activism. Another explanation could be that older adults feel a sense of legacy and inter-generational obligation, implying that this is a different part of a life-cycle rather than a generational divide⁴³.

Several other factors, identified in prior research, correlated negatively with activism, including uncertainty about action effectiveness, lack of knowledge about what to do, and not knowing other activists. The present findings combine with past research to emphasize the importance of collective efficacy²¹, personal efficacy⁴⁴, and proximity to activist networks⁴⁵ and a supportive social context²⁶ in fostering pro-environmental behaviors and climate advocacy^24,45.

The weak relationship activism had with many pragmatic barriers suggests that motivated scientists find ways to manage potential limitations^26,46. Financial and work commitments, transport access, visa and residency concerns, and fears about others’ perceptions, did not significantly hinder scientists' activism. This aligns with previous research showing that, despite potential impediments, scientists are politically active. For instance, a survey on general political advocacy with the Union of Concerned Scientists found that scientists were far more politically active than the general public¹⁵. Half of respondents had attended one or more demonstrations, in addition to other forms of advocacy such as petition signing and financial donations.

Rather than posing strict barriers to activism, the present study found positive associations between activism and both family commitments and experiencing COVID-19 impacts. One interpretation of these relationships is that highly engaged activists are more attuned to the inherent tensions between activism and potential barriers, such as the time demands of activism conflicting with family responsibilities. Of course, the present study cannot establish whether activists actually experience these impediments more often than non-activists. Active and non-active individuals may experience the same impediments to action²⁶, but it is plausible that certain factors, such as scientist identity content, might play a role in motivating action, although this is speculative.

Future Research Directions

This study has identified several promising avenues for future research. One important area of investigation involves unraveling how scientists construct their scientist identity, and how these constructions may align or misalign with their values and engagement in advocacy. By examining diverse constructions of scientist identity, researchers could uncover how different values, beliefs, and experiences influence scientists' approaches to climate change. Longitudinal research could examine the dynamic nature of identities by tracking changes in scientists’ identities before and after engagement in climate action. Exploring how individual scientists interpret and reconcile core scientific values of objectivity and impartiality with their moral convictions could offer a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between scientist identity content, moral responsibility, and motivations for climate action. This might also reveal why scientist identity strength became a relevant predictor of activism for activist-group-member scientists.

This study offers important insights into the complex interplay of factors shaping scientists' engagement in climate change activism. Despite challenges and potential risks to reputation or career, a significant number of scientists engage in activism, reflecting a growing trend within the scientific community that views activism as a legitimate response to the global climate crisis. This research underscores the pivotal role that scientists' identity contents encompassing their values related to objectivity, impartiality, and their sense of duty to address environmental issues, significantly influence their public climate change actions and perspectives on techno-solutionism. In conclusion, this research offers a crucial starting point for a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities of scientists’ identities as scholars and activists in a world confronting the escalating threats of climate change.

Pörtner, H.-O. et al. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge University Press, 2022). doi:10.1017/9781009325844.
Bongaarts, J. IPBES, 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Popul. Dev. Rev. 45, 680–681 (2019).
Reardon, S. et al. What happened at March for Science events around the world. Nature 544, 404–405 (2017).
Betz, G. In defence of the value free ideal. Eur. J. Philos. Sci. 3, 207–220 (2013).
Nielsen, L. A. Science and Advocacy Are Different - And We Need to Keep Them That Way. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 6, 39–47 (2001).
Castree, N. An alternative to civil disobedience for concerned scientists. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1499–1499 (2019).
Lackey, R. T. Science, Scientists, and Policy Advocacy. Conserv. Biol. 21, 12–17 (2007).
Nelson, M. P. & Vucetich, J. A. On Advocacy by Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How. Conserv. Biol. 23, 1090–1101 (2009).
Sedlak, D. Crossing The Imaginary Line. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 9803–9804 (2016).
Capstick, S. et al. Civil disobedience by scientists helps press for urgent climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 773–774 (2022).
Gardner, C., Thierry, A., Rowlandson, W. & Steinberger, J. From Publications to Public Actions: The Role of Universities in Facilitating Academic Advocacy and Activism in the Climate and Ecological Emergency. Front Sustain 2, (2021).
Rodgers, B. The climate emergency demands scientists take action and here’s how. Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 549–550 (2023).
Gundersen, T. Value-Free yet Policy-Relevant? The Normative Views of Climate Scientists and Their Bearing on Philosophy. Perspect. Sci. 28, 89–118 (2020).
Gayle, D. XR scientists glue hands to business department in London climate protest. The Guardian (2022).
Tormos-Aponte, F. & Frickel, S. Scientists Are Becoming More Politically Engaged: Here’s what that means beyond the 2020 elections. Scientific American (2020).
Quackenbush, S. The climate scientists are not alright. Washington Post (2022).
Vidal Valero, M. Outcry as scientists sanctioned for climate protest. Nature 614, 604–605 (2023).
Scientists for Extinction Rebellion. People. Scientists for Extinction Rebellion https://www.scientistsforxr.earth/people (2023).
Scientist Rebellion. Home. Scientist Rebellion http://scientistrebellion.org/ (2023).
Patel, V. Climate Activists, Including Scientists, Are Arrested in Protests at Private Airports. The New York Times (2022).
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. & Spears, R. Toward an Integrative Social Identity Model of Collective Action: A Quantitative Research Synthesis of Three Socio-Psychological Perspectives. Psychol. Bull. (2008) doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504.
Thomas, E. F., Mavor, K. I. & McGarty, C. Social identities facilitate and encapsulate action-relevant constructs: A test of the social identity model of collective action. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 15, 75–88 (2012).
Sparks, A. C. Climate Change in Your Backyard: When Climate is Proximate, People Become Activists. Front. Polit. Sci. 3, 75 (2021).
Mackay, C. M. L., Schmitt, M. T., Lutz, A. E. & Mendel, J. Recent developments in the social identity approach to the psychology of climate change. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42, 95–101 (2021).
Vesely, S. et al. Climate change action as a project of identity: Eight meta-analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 70, 102322 (2021).
Klandermans, B. & Stekelenburg, J. V. Why People Don’t Participate in Collective Action. J. Civ. Soc. 10, 341–352 (2014).
Fritsche, I. & Masson, T. Collective climate action: When do people turn into collective environmental agents? Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42, 114–119 (2021).
Morozov, E. To Save Everything, Click Here: Technology, Solutionism, and the Urge to Fix Problems that Don’t Exist. (Penguin Books Limited, 2013).
Johnston, S. F. Alvin Weinberg and the Promotion of the Technological Fix. Technol. Cult. 59, 620–651 (2018).
Weinberg, A. M. The first nuclear era: The life and times of a technological fixer. (1994).
Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. (Routledge, 1988). doi:10.4324/9780203771587.
Douglas, H. E. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2009). doi:10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78.
Oppenheimer, M. et al. Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for Environmental Policy. (University of Chicago Press, 2019).
Smith, S. M. et al. The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal - 1st Edition. 1–108 Available at: https://www.stateofcdr.org (2023).
Irvine, P. et al. Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 295–299 (2019).
Mathew, M. D. Nuclear energy: A pathway towards mitigation of global warming. Prog. Nucl. Energy 143, 104080 (2022).
Biermann, F. et al. Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement. WIREs Clim. Change 13, e754 (2022).
Hamilton, C. Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering. (Yale University Press, 2013).
Clifford, C. Fusion power is still decades and billions of dollars away, even after this week’s major scientific breakthrough. CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/14/fusion-power-wont-be-widespread-for-at-least-a-decade.html (2022).
Peeters, P., Higham, J., Kutzner, D., Cohen, S. & Gössling, S. Are technology myths stalling aviation climate policy? Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 44, 30–42 (2016).
McLaren, D., Willis, R., Szerszynski, B., Tyfield, D. & Markusson, N. Attractions of delay: Using deliberative engagement to investigate the political and strategic impacts of greenhouse gas removal technologies. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 251484862110662 (2021) doi:10.1177/25148486211066238.
Albayrak-Aydemir, N. & Gleibs, I. H. A social-psychological examination of academic precarity as an organizational practice and subjective experience. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. n/a, (2022).
Nemčok, M. & Wass, H. Generations and Political Engagement. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics https:// (2021) doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1756.
Meijers, M. H. C., Wonneberger, A., Azrout, R., Torfadóttir, R. “Heather” & Brick, C. Introducing and testing the personal-collective-governmental efficacy typology: How personal, collective, and governmental efficacy subtypes are associated with differential environmental actions. J. Environ. Psychol. 85, 101915 (2023).
Latkin, C. et al. Perceived Barriers to Climate Change Activism Behaviors in the United States Among Individuals Highly Concerned about Climate Change. J. Prev. (2022) doi:10.1007/s10935-022-00704-0.
Klandermans, B. & Oegema, D. Potentials, Networks, Motivations, and Barriers: Steps Towards Participation in Social Movements. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52, 519 (1987).

Table 1

Comparison of multiple regression models with activism-engagement as criterion

Predictor

b

Std. Error

beta

Std. Error

r

Fit

Difference

95% CI

[LL, UL]

(Intercept)

-9.71

[-21.92, 2.51]

6.209

0

[-0.09, 0.09]

0.046

Impact on self

2.6

[-0.43, 5.63]

1.542

0.13

[-0.02, 0.27]

0.075

.19***

Impact on close others

-0.02

[-3.26, 3.22]

1.646

0

[-0.15, 0.15]

0.076

.23***

Age

0.25***

[0.15, 0.34]

0.049

0.26***

[0.16, 0.36]

0.051

.24***

Scientist-activist compatibility

1.26***

[0.85, 1.66]

0.205

0.32***

[0.22, 0.42]

0.052

.42***

Uncertainty about effectiveness of action

0.04

[-0.92, 1]

0.487

0

[-0.1, 0.11]

0.052

-.20***

Family commitments

0.83

[0.09, 1.57]

0.376

0.1

[0.01, 0.2]

0.047

.17**

Lack of interest

-2.56***

[-3.66, -1.46]

0.561

-0.25***

[-0.35, -0.14]

0.054

-.38***

Uncertainty about which actions to take

-0.68

[-1.64, 0.29]

0.491

-0.07

[-0.18, 0.03]

0.053

-.15**

Not knowing others taking action

-0.02

[-0.95, 0.9]

0.471

0

[-0.1, 0.1]

0.05

-.15**

R² = .32 ***

(Intercept)

-12.57

[-22.81, -2.33]

5.204

0.01

[-0.07, 0.08]

0.038

Impact on self

2.29

[-0.25, 4.83]

1.291

0.11

[-0.01, 0.23]

0.062

.19***

Impact on close others

-0.91

[-3.62, 1.81]

1.38

-0.04

[-0.17, 0.08]

0.063

.23***

Age

0.14***

[0.05, 0.22]

0.042

0.14

[0.06, 0.23]

0.044

.24***

Scientist-activist compatibility

0.48**

[0.11, 0.84]

0.184

0.12

[0.03, 0.21]

0.046

.42***

Uncertainty about effectiveness of action

0.4

[-0.41, 1.2]

0.409

0.04

[-0.04, 0.13]

0.044

-.20***

Family commitments

0.38

[-0.24, 1.01]

0.317

0.05

[-0.03, 0.13]

0.04

.17**

Lack of interest

-1.27**

[-2.22, -0.32]

0.482

-0.12

[-0.21, -0.03]

0.046

-.38***

Uncertainty about which actions to take

-0.39

[-1.2, 0.42]

0.412

-0.04

[-0.13, 0.04]

0.044

-.15**

Not knowing others taking action

0.01

[-0.77, 0.78]

0.394

0

[-0.08, 0.08]

0.042

-.15**

Activist identity

0.61***

[0.51, 0.71]

0.052

0.56

[0.46, 0.65]

0.048

.70***

R² = .52***

ΔR² = .20***

(Intercept)

-5.61

[-12.64, 1.43]

3.577

-0.5

[-1.08, 0.08]

0.295

Age

0.13***

[0.06, 0.21]

0.038

0.14***

[0.06, 0.22]

0.04

.24***

Scientist-activist compatibility

0.47**

[0.12, 0.82]

0.179

0.12**

[0.01, 0.07]

0.016

.42***

Lack of interest

-1.25**

[-2.13, -0.37]

0.447

-0.12**

[-0.19, -0.03]

0.04

-.38***

Activist identity

0.62***

[0.52, 0.72]

0.051

0.57***

[0.48, 0.66]

0.047

.70***

R² = .52***

ΔR² = .00

Note. A significant b-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also significant. b represents unstandardized regression weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. r represents the zero-order correlation. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively. * indicates p < .03. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001.

Table 2

Activism engagement correlations with barrier items

Means, standard deviation and Pearson correlations for activism frequency and barrier variables

Variable

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1. Activism frequency

28.92

11.18

___

2. Work commitments

3.23

1.32

0.12

___

3. Financial commitments

2.20

1.24

0.08

0.24***

___

4. Transport access

1.98

1.09

0.10

0.2***

0.48***

___

5. Unsure about effectiveness of action

2.67

1.20

-0.2***

-0.03

-0.05

___

6. Family commitments

2.53

1.41

0.17**

0.36***

0.15**

0.12

-0.01

___

7. Visa residency concerns

1.64

1.28

0.05

0.12

0.18***

0.21***

-0.05

0.06

___

8. Worried about others might think about you

1.96

1.04

-0.06

0.15**

0.03

0.01

0.18***

0.12

0.02

___

9. Lack of interest

1.86

1.08

-0.38***

-0.13*

-0.08

0.41***

-0.07

0

0.21***

___

10. Unsure about which actions to take

2.60

1.20

-0.15**

0.16**

0.24***

0.3***

0.07

0.1

0.23***

0.19***

___

11. Lack of energy

2.88

1.23

0.04

0.3***

0.23***

0.12

0.07

0.01

0.11

0.01

0.19***

___

12. Covid-19

2.48

1.30

0.16**

0.27***

0.29***

0.31***

-0.06

0.16**

0.11

0.08

-0.11

0.14*

0.23***

___

13. Don’t know any friends or family involved

2.05

1.19

-0.15**

-0.02

0.22***

0.19***

0.16**

0.02

0.16***

0.18***

0.36***

0.23***

0

Note. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. * indicates p < .03. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001

Table 4
Comparison of key variables by group membership
	Part of a group (N = 174)		Not part of a group (N = 155)
	M	SD	M	SD	T Test (Welch)	Wilcoxon rank sum test
Predictors
Scientist Identity	41.6	8.33	42.5	7.64	1.05	NA
Activist Identity	42.3	8.52	32.9	9.62	-9.31***	NA
Scientist-activist compatibility	17.46	2.29	16.05	3.15	-4.59***	NA
Impact on self	4.69	0.54	4.63	0.54	-1.07	12572
Impact on close others	4.79	0.47	4.66	0.55	-2.26*	11883*
Age	42.19	12.89	37.66	9.92	-3.61***	NA
	Part of a group (N = 174)		Not part of a group (N = 155)
	M	SD	M	SD	T Test (Welch)	Wilcoxon rank sum test
Dependent measures
Activism engagement	35.13	9.2	21.95	8.87	-13.21***	NA
Inventing new technologies is the only way to successfully tackle climate change	1.87	0.93	2.23	1.16	3.11**	15762***
Changing political systems is the only way to successfully tackle climate change	3.96	1.09	3.7	1.17	-2.1	11702
Changing human behaviour is the only way to successfully tackle climate change	3.59	1.17	3.75	1.17	1.22	14564
	Part of a group (N = 174)		Not part of a group (N = 155)
	M	SD	M	SD	T Test (Welch)	Wilcoxon rank sum test
Barriers
Work commitments.	3.34	1.28	3.12	1.36	-1.53	12198
Financial limitations.	2.26	1.2	2.14	1.29	-0.98	12480
Transport access	2.14	1.12	1.81	1.02	-2.74**	11192**
Unsure about effectiveness of activism.	2.48	1.18	2.88	1.19	3.06**	16079**
Family commitments.	2.62	1.41	2.43	1.41	-1.25	12342
Concerns about visa/residency.	1.6	1.23	1.68	1.34	0.61	13881
Fears/worries about what other people might think of you.	1.84	0.97	2.1	1.1	2.24*	15228
Lack of interest in activism.	1.56	0.86	2.21	1.18	5.61***	17846***
Unsure about what actions you can take.	2.49	1.14	2.73	1.26	1.81	14862
Lack of energy	2.9	1.2	2.85	1.27	-0.37	13158
Concern about Covid-19.	2.52	1.24	2.43	1.37	-0.63	12696
Don’t know any family, friends, or colleagues engaged in climate action.	1.98	1.13	2.12	1.25	1.11	14035
Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed for all likert items as an additional robustness check under the assumption that any relationships present should appear using both parametric and non-parametric tests * indicates p < .03. indicates p < .01. * indicates p < .001.

Table 5
Comparison of multiple regression models with activism frequency as criterion for activist group members (N = 174)
Predictor	b	b	Std. Error	beta	beta	Std. Error	r	Fit	Difference
		95% CI			95% CI
		[LL, UL]			[LL, UL]
(Intercept)	-11.74	[-26.7, 3.22]	7.576	0.38	[0.27, 0.49]	0.057
Impact on self	2.05	[-1.2, 5.3]	1.645	0.1	[-0.06, 0.26]	0.08	0.14
Impact on close others	0.91	[-2.85, 4.67]	1.906	0.04	[-0.13, 0.21]	0.088	.23***
Age	0.21**	[0.11, 0.31]	0.05	0.22	[0.12, 0.32]	0.052	.30***
Scientist-activist compatibility	1.11**	[0.58, 1.65]	0.272	0.28	[0.14, 0.42]	0.068	.38***
Lack of interest	-2.5**	[-3.9, -1.1]	0.707	-0.24	[-0.38, -0.11]	0.068	-.28***
Scientist Identity	0.21**	[0.07, 0.35]	0.071	0.15	[0.05, 0.25]	0.051	.25***
								R² = .31 ***

(Intercept)	-11.9	[-25.3, 1.5]	6.786	0.25	[0.14, 0.36]	0.055
Impact on self	2.55	[-0.37, 5.46]	1.475	0.12	[-0.02, 0.26]	0.071	0.14
Impact on close others	-0.54	[-3.94, 2.86]	1.721	-0.02	[-0.18, 0.13]	0.079	.23***
Age	0.13**	[0.04, 0.22]	0.046	0.13	[0.04, 0.23]	0.049	.30***
Scientist-activist compatibility	0.67**	[0.17, 1.17]	0.253	0.17	[0.04, 0.29]	0.064	.38***
Lack of interest	-1.8**	[-3.07, -0.53]	0.642	-0.17	[-0.3, -0.05]	0.062	-.28***
Scientist Identity	0.08	[-0.06, 0.21]	0.067	0.05	[-0.04, 0.15]	0.048	.25***
Activist identity	0.48***	[0.33, 0.62]	0.074	0.44	[0.3, 0.57]	0.067	.61***
								R² = .44***	ΔR² = .13***
Note. A significant b-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also significant. b represents unstandardized regression weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. r represents the zero-order correlation. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively.* indicates p < .03. indicates p < .01. * indicates p < .001.

There is NO Competing Interest.

How Scientist Identity Shapes Engagement with Environmental Activism: Findings from a Multinational Survey

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Study aims and hypotheses

Results

Activism engagement

Techno-solutionism

Comparison of activist group members with non-group members

Thematic analysis of open responses

Discussion

Scientist Identity, Environmental Activism, and Techno-Solutionism

Other Factors Impacting Environmental Activism

Future Research Directions

Conclusion

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1