Threatening
Messages in Climate Change Communication: Dissertation Summary
Tim
Scharks, Evans School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Washington
Climate
change will have disastrous consequences if left unchecked. Climate change
communication represents a means to encourage conservation behavior and support
for climate mitigation policies. One form of communication is to present a
threat in an effort to persuade; such threatening messages are often called
fear appeals. The use of fear appeals in climate change communication is
oft-discussed but little studied.
This
dissertation applies a popular model of fear appeals, the Extended Parallel
Process Model, to examine threatening messages in climate change communication.
The first chapter examines the use of threats and efficacy messages in
advertisements published in The New York
Times, The Times (London), and The
Economist (UK Edition) from 1980 to the end of 2009 in a quantitative
content analysis. While journalistic coverage of climate change has been
frequently studied, this chapter is the first systematic examination of climate
change-relevant advertising. It finds about half of all ads contained a mention
of a threat, but, different from many other studies of persuasive public
communications, threats were frequently paired with efficacy messages.
Significant differences between periodicals and between the US and UK are also
found, most especially that ads in the US featured a greater proportion of
“negative response efficacy” messages, that is, messages that supported
positions questioning or denying human agency in climate change or the risks it
posed. This helps to explain the observed polarization of views over climate
science and mitigation policy.
The
second chapter (under review) presents an experiment of US adults (n=845) where right-leaning
US respondents who viewed climate change fear appeals exhibited psychological reactance, a combination
of anger and counterarguments in response to a perceived threat to freedom.
Reactance suppresses support for climate mitigation policy: The net effect of a
threatening communication on policy support at first appeared to be zero. But
reactance polarized right-leaning respondents' support for mitigation policies,
moving some towards support and others farther from it, a phenomenon known as a
“boomerang effect”. This finding helps to explain some of the continued
polarization of views on climate science and climate change. In a revealed
preference element of the experiment, reactance also suppressed donation
behavior to both liberal and conservative causes.
Finally,
a third chapter examines the role of psychological distance (how closely
climate change is perceived) and collective efficacy (the belief everyone can
work together) on mitigation policy support in a climate change fear appeal. The experiment gives evidence that
left-leaning respondents increased their policy support with closer
psychological distance (an image of an American city vs. a city in the
Philippines). In another example of unintended outcomes, right-leaning respondents
experienced a boomerang effect to the inclusion of a “common sense” element of
an advertisement. Strong correlations between collective efficacy beliefs and
policy support imply collective efficacy messages should increase policy
support. Yet ads with a collective efficacy message decreased mitigation policy
support among right-leaning respondents.
In
sum, this dissertation has several policy implications: threatening ads have
been used in English-language print media, they may serve to polarize audiences
further by moving right-leaning readers farther away from mitigation policy
support, and threatening messages should be considered with caution, especially
through pilot testing for reactance and other unintended effects.