Advice‐taking in carbon footprint assessments: How psychological and cultural factors shape reliance on experts' advice.
Saved in:
| Title: | Advice‐taking in carbon footprint assessments: How psychological and cultural factors shape reliance on experts' advice. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Sancar, Irmak (AUTHOR), Nera, Kenzo (AUTHOR), Schöpfer, Céline (AUTHOR), Tomas, Frédéric (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | British Journal of Psychology. Sep2026 Supplement 1, Vol. 117, pS157-S175. 19p. |
| Subjects: | Environmental health, Statistical power analysis, Ecological impact, Health attitudes, Statistical hypothesis testing, Climate change, Culture, Multiple regression analysis, Questionnaires, Decision making, Social theory, Descriptive statistics, Social attitudes, Experimental design, Trust, Theory of knowledge, Personality, Social skills, Statistics, Greenhouse gases, Narcissism, Judgment (Psychology), Data analysis software, Confidence intervals, Comparative studies, Critical thinking, Information-seeking behavior |
| Geographic Terms: | Türkiye, Netherlands |
| Abstract: | In this pre‐registered experiment conducted in the Netherlands and Türkiye (Ntotal = 550), we investigated how the source of advice (peer vs. expert) influences people's decision‐making when assessing the carbon footprint of a flight between two cities. We also examined whether this effect was influenced by their conspiracy mentality, collective narcissism, epistemic individualism, and climate change scepticism. Our findings suggest that people overall rely more on experts' advice than peers', especially in the Netherlands compared with Türkiye. Moreover, individuals high in conspiracy beliefs, epistemic individualism, and collective narcissism reduced the weight advantage typically given to expert advice over peer advice. Only a specific form of climate change scepticism (i.e., trend scepticism) showed similar effects. Overall, our results indicate that individuals who value their own opinion and harbour distrust towards experts or science tend to discount expert advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of British Journal of Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | In this pre‐registered experiment conducted in the Netherlands and Türkiye (Ntotal = 550), we investigated how the source of advice (peer vs. expert) influences people's decision‐making when assessing the carbon footprint of a flight between two cities. We also examined whether this effect was influenced by their conspiracy mentality, collective narcissism, epistemic individualism, and climate change scepticism. Our findings suggest that people overall rely more on experts' advice than peers', especially in the Netherlands compared with Türkiye. Moreover, individuals high in conspiracy beliefs, epistemic individualism, and collective narcissism reduced the weight advantage typically given to expert advice over peer advice. Only a specific form of climate change scepticism (i.e., trend scepticism) showed similar effects. Overall, our results indicate that individuals who value their own opinion and harbour distrust towards experts or science tend to discount expert advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00071269 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/bjop.70026 |
