What interventions are capable to
affect attitudes and behaviours
related to climate change?
TO M Á Š C H A B A D A
D E PA R T M E N T O F E N V I R O N M E N TA L S T U D I E S , FA C U LT Y O F S O C I A L S T U D I E S , M A S A R Y K
UNIVERSITY
I M PA C T E VA L U AT I O N M E A S U R E S F O R C A M PA I G N S F O C U S I N G O N R E D U C I N G I N D I V I D U A L
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
„Climate change is no longer
a scientist’s problem - it’s
now a salesman’s problem.“
(Futerra Sustainability Communications, 2010)
Information-based interventions
„Providing information is not wrong; relying on
information alone to change attitudes is wrong.“
(Futerra, 2005)
• information about the mechanism of GCC
• information about scientific consensus on GCC
• information about adaptation options to GCC
Provision of information about the
mechanism of GCC
„If you were to explain GCC chemical/physical
mechanism, could you?
Please try this for 40 seconds before reading
further“ (Ranney & Clark, 2016)
Provision of information about the
mechanism of GCC
„Earth transforms sunlight’s visible light energy
into infrared light energy, which leaves Earth
slowly because it is absorbed by greenhouse
gases. When people produce greenhouse gases,
energy leaves Earth even more slowly—raising
Earth’s temperature.“ (Ranney & Clark, 2016)
Provision of information about the
mechanism of GCC
Provision of information about the
mechanism of GCC
Acceptance of anthropogenic causes of GCC is
related to the mechanistic knowledge of GCC
Increasing the mechanical knowledge
→ increases the acceptance of anthropogenic
causes of GCC (Ranney & Clark, 2016)
The Consensus Gap
Provision of information about scientific
consensus on GCC
Provision of information about
adaptation options
Two competing hypothesis about the effect of adaptation
information on GCC attitude and behaviour (Carrico et al., 2015)
• risk compensation hypothesis
• risk salience hypothesis
Provision of information about adaptation options may
increase:
• intentions to mitigate GCC (Evans et al., 2014)
• support mitigation policies (Carrico et al., 2015)
Framing
„Setting of an issue within an appropriate context to achieve
a desired interpretation or perspective“ (Shome & Marx, 2009)
Ensure to select a frame that will resonate with the
audience:
• Climate change vs. Global warming
• Local vs. Distant frame
• Gain vs. Loss frame
Climate change vs. Global warming
Climate change is a better choice than the term global warming
(Shome & Marx, 2009)
Different perceptions by political groups (Villar & Krosnick, 2011)
X
No impact on national level in US or in Europe (Villar & Krosnick, 2011)
Jaskulsky & Besel (2013)
• ↑ climatic disruption
• ↓ climate crisis
Optimistic vs. Pessimistic framing
„Threats of climate hell haven’t seemed to hold us back from
running headlong towards it“ (Futerra Sustainability
Communications, 2010)
Feinberg & Willer, 2010: dire message about consequences of
GCC led to increased scepticism
X positive message about the potential solutions of GCC led
to increases in reported belief in GCC
Optimistic vs. Pessimistic framing
The year 2014 was the first time in 40 years that the planet
saw zero growth in emissions.
Hornsey & Fielding, 2016: whether this message of progress can be
effective in motivating people to engage in mitigation efforts?
• greater mitigation motivation after reading the pessimistic message
• optimistic message reduced participants’ sense that climate change
represented a risk to them, and the associated feelings of distress
Gains vs. Losses
• GCC mitigation can be discussed in:
•positive consequences of undertaking mitigation actions
(gains)
•negative consequences of not mitigating (losses)
•Spence & Pidgeon, 2010: gain frames unlike the loss frames
increased perceived severity of GCC impacts and attitudes
towards GCC mitigation
Proximal vs. Distant impacts of GCC
Use the attribute of distance to highlight the proximal
consequences of GCC and reduce its´ psychological
distance
→ it should increase the personal relevance +
motivation to respond (Brügger et al., 2016)
X Studies testing proximising approach have not
revealed the positive effects (Brügger et al., 2016;
Schoenefeld & McCauley, 2016; Shwom et al., 2008; Spence &
Pidgeon, 2010)
Summary
What could be effective strategy?
• information about the mechanism of GCC
• information about scientific consensus on GCC
• information about adaptation options
• positive message about the potential solutions of GCC
X not about the rate of progress in reducing global carbon
emissions
• „gain framing“ = positive consequences of undertaking mitigation
actions
References 1:
Brügger, A., Morton, T. A., & Dessai, S. (2016). “Proximising” climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 46, 125–142.
Carrico, A. R., Truelove, H. B., Vandenbergh, M. P., & Dana, D. (2015). Does learning about climate change adaptation change support for
mitigation? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 19–29.
Cook, J. (2013). The consensus gap. Skeptical Science. Retrieved from http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=78
Cook, J., & Jacobs, P. (2014). Scientists Are from Mars, Laypeople Are from Venus: An Evidence-Based Approach to Consensus Messaging.
In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts (Vol. 1, p. 06).
Evans, L., Milfont, T. L., & Lawrence, J. (2014). Considering local adaptation increases willingness to mitigate. Global Environmental
Change, 25, 69–75.
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2011). Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs.
Psychological Science, 22(1), 34–38.
Futerra Sustainability Communications. (2005). The rules of the game: The principals of climate change communication. Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London, UK.
Futerra Sustainability Communications. (2010). SIZZLE: The new climate message. Futerra, UK.
Hornsey, M. J., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). A cautionary note about messages of hope: Focusing on progress in reducing carbon emissions
weakens mitigation motivation. Global Environmental Change, 39, 26–34.
Jaskulsky, L., & Besel, R. (2013). Words That (Don’t) Matter: An Exploratory Study of Four Climate Change Names in Environmental
Discourse. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12(1), 38–45.
References 2:
Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes
responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 103–109.
Ranney, M. A., & Clark, D. (2016). Climate Change Conceptual Change: Scientific Information Can Transform Attitudes. Topics in Cognitive
Science, 8(1), 49–75.
Schoenefeld, J. J., & McCauley, M. R. (2016). Local is not always better: the impact of climate information on values, behavior and policy
support. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(4), 724–732.
Schuldt, J. P., Konrath, S. H., & Schwarz, N. (2011). “Global warming” or “climate change”? Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(1), 115–124.
Shome, D., & Marx, S. (2009). The psychology of climate change communication. Center for Research on Environmental Decisions.
Columbia University.
Shwom, R., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2008). The effects of information and state of residence on climate change policy preferences. Climatic
Change, 90(4), 343.
Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations.
Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656–667.
van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway
Belief: Experimental Evidence. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0118489.
Villar, A., & Krosnick, J. A. (2011). Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: Does word choice matter? Climatic Change, 105(1–
2), 1–12.
Thank you for your attention.
Research was supported by Technology Agency of the Czech Republic (grant no. TD03000282)