Elsevier

Global Environmental Change

Volume 21, Issue 4, October 2011, Pages 1301-1307
Global Environmental Change

Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.004Get rights and content

Abstract

The effect of motivational versus sacrifice message framing on perceived climate change competence, engagement, and 15 mitigative behavioral intentions was examined in a large Canadian community sample (n = 1038). Perceived competence, engagement, and several behavioral intentions were significantly greater after exposure to motivational framing than after sacrifice framing. Gender, age, income, and educational level moderated some results, and moral engagement and agentic language also played a role. The results support the use of motivational frames rather than sacrifice frames to increase the climate-related engagement and activation of community members.

Highlights

► Climate change message framing was examined in a large community sample. ► Benefit framing produced stronger behavioural intentions than sacrifice framing. ► Benefit framing produced greater perceived competence than sacrifice framing. ► Benefit framing produced more climate change engagement than sacrifice framing. ► Gender, age, and agentic language moderated these outcomes.

Introduction

If climate change is to be mitigated, global emissions should not exceed the capacity of the biosphere to absorb them. One IPCC projection is for a 2 °C warming. To avoid that level of warming or more, global emissions must peak by 2015 and fall by 50–85% by 2050, an important threshold for ecosystems and people (IPCC, 2007). However, rather than declining, global emissions are projected to climb almost 60% by 2025 (World Resources Institute, 2008).

To achieve reductions relatively soon, new forms of discourse to support the emergence of a sustainability ethic will be required (Bandura, 2007, Corbett, 2006, Dale, 2005, Dietz et al., 1999, Jamieson, 2007, Jamieson, 2008, Leiserowitz and Fernandez, 2007, Moser and Dilling, 2007b, Phoenix, 2006). Social scientists, policy-makers, and non-governmental organizations are grappling with the question of how to increase citizen engagement in climate change issues (e.g., Dale and Onyx, 2005, Dilling and Moser, 2007). The primary purpose of this study was to assist in this effort by comparing the efficacy, in a large representative community sample, of message frames that emphasize sacrifice with those that emphasize motivation.

Households are one important target segment for attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Household energy use significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, in the United States, households account for about 32% of total energy use (Gardner and Stern, 2002). Apart from this direct use, households also use energy in many indirect ways, for example in the production, transportation, and disposal of goods and services (e.g., Vringer and Blok, 1995). In the Netherlands, for example, about 45% of total energy use by households involves direct energy use and about 55% involves indirect energy use (Noorman and Schoot Uiterkamp, 1998, Vringer and Blok, 1995).

Global climate change is a diffuse phenomenon that can even involve temporary local cooling, one that can seem beyond the control of individuals. Therefore, one would expect that an element of empowerment is required if social mobilization is to be achieved. To date, little evidence supports this statement, although studies with children suggest that increasing their knowledge can add to their sense of empowerment (Devine-Wright et al., 2004, Taber and Taylor, 2009). Messaging can be an important key to success in this endeavor.

Message framing refers to communication in words, images, and phrases for the purposes of relaying information about an issue or event (Chong and Druckman, 2007). Frames can be used to define problems, suggest who is responsible or guilty, and what the most effective solution might be (Corbett, 2006, Cox, 2006, McComas et al., 2001, Shanahan and Good, 2000). The present study primarily investigates the effect of sacrifice-oriented versus motivational-oriented message framing on priming the perceived competence, engagement, and intent to act on climate change of a general population. Demographic variations and the role of moral engagement are also considered.

A number of guidelines and strategies for effectively communicating climate change issues have begun to emerge (e.g., NESTA, 2008). Among these is the suggestion that messages should portray the possible benefits to the individual of climate action, such as positive changes in lifestyle and subsequent improvements in quality of life, rather than sacrifice or fear appeals. Some writers have begun to challenge environmental and governmental organizations for their frequent use of sacrifice-oriented messages and communications (e.g., Nordhaus and Shellenberger, 2007). For example, shifting discourse toward a motivational-oriented approach that involves “solutions, values, and visions” instead of sacrifices by citizens has been proposed as a more effective strategy for encouraging climate-change-related behaviors (Moser and Dilling, 2007a, p. 496). However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has empirically demonstrated this, particularly in a large community sample.

This study evaluated the influence of two environmental message frames (motivational or sacrifice, and a control condition) on perceived competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions for a series of residence- and transportation-based mitigative behaviors.

Hypothesis 1

Exposure to motivational framing will be associated with greater perceived competence to deal with climate change than will exposure to sacrifice framing.

Hypothesis 2

Exposure to motivational framing will be associated with greater climate change engagement than will exposure to sacrifice framing.

Hypothesis 3

Exposure to motivational framing will be associated with stronger intentions to change home- and transportation-based mitigative behaviors than will exposure to sacrifice framing.

Hypothesis 4

Demographic factors will (a) moderate the influence of priming frame on perceived competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions, and (b) be associated with variations in climate-related concern, knowledge, competence, engagement, and intentions.

Hypothesis 5

Motivational-oriented requests for justifications of pro-environmental behavior will elicit stronger elements of moral engagement than will sacrifice-oriented requests.

Section snippets

Overview

The study employed both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. An online questionnaire was used to administer the motivational and sacrifice priming frame conditions, plus a control condition in which neither frame was presented. The respondents were queried on their climate change concern, knowledge, perceived competence, engagement, intention to adopt a series of mitigative behaviors, and demographic items. The priming frame conditions were placed after the concern and knowledge items

Concern and Knowledge

The sample as a whole was quite concerned about climate change; on the 7-point scale from “not at all concerned” to “very concerned” the mean was 5.24 (SD = 1.53); just over three-quarters (75.4%) answered 5, 6, or 7. The means for the three framing conditions were very similar and not significantly different: 5.26 (motivational), 5.12 (sacrifice), and 5.34 (control), p > .05. The knowledge means for the three framing conditions were also very similar and not significantly different (p > .05): 37%

Discussion

New messaging frames capable of moving climate change efforts toward greater effectiveness are needed, particularly because at the time this was written, public credence was sinking. These results demonstrate, for the first time to our knowledge, the value of what some observers have been calling for: messages that employ motivational-oriented and causative language rather than the sacrifice framing that has been employed by some climate change advocates and agencies.

This study did so in a

References (34)

  • A.D. Eisler et al.

    Perception of human ecology: cross-cultural and gender comparisons

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (2003)
  • K. Vringer et al.

    The direct and indirect energy requirements of households in the Netherlands

    Energy Policy

    (1995)
  • A. Bandura

    Impeding ecological sustainability through selective moral disengagement

    International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development

    (2007)
  • D. Chong et al.

    A theory of framing and opinion formation in. competitive elite environments

    Journal of Communication

    (2007)
  • J.B. Corbett

    Communicating Nature: How We Create and Understand Environmental Messages

    (2006)
  • R. Cox

    Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere

    (2006)
  • A. Dale

    Social capital and sustainable community development: is there a relationship?

  • D. Davidson et al.

    Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review of available research

    Environment and Behavior

    (1996)
  • Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2004. Perceived competence scales. Retrieved September 24, 2007. From http://www. psych....
  • P. Devine-Wright et al.

    Situational influences upon children's beliefs about global warming and energy

    Environmental Education Research

    (2004)
  • P. Delhomme et al.

    Reducing air-pollution: a new argument for getting drivers to abide by the speed limit?

    Accident Analysis and Prevention

    (2009)
  • T. Dietz et al.

    A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism

    Human Ecology Review

    (1999)
  • L. Dilling et al.

    Introduction

  • G.T. Gardner et al.
  • R. Gifford

    Psychology's essential role in climate change

    Canadian Psychology/psychologie canadienne

    (2008)
  • R. Gifford et al.

    Individual differences in environmental attitudes

    Journal of Environmental Education

    (1982–83)
  • Cited by (189)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text