Abstract
A growing body of research has explored whether evoking hope or fear about climate change is more effective at catalyzing attitude and behavior change among the public. Prior studies on this topic have primarily tested responses to text and/or still image manipulations, finding mixed results. Amid the rapidly growing creation and consumption of climate change video content online, it is important that researchers also consider how the public may engage with hope and fear narratives presented in videos. This study aims to help fill this gap by examining how Americans respond to hope and doom and gloom climate change frames portrayed in short online videos. Participants who watched the hope and doom videos reported experiencing the respective emotions the videos sought to elicit (hope and fear). Participants with different political affiliations and with contrasting climate change attitudes across the Six Americas of Global Warming reported significantly different levels of fear, but only participants across the Six Americas reported significantly different levels of hope. However, despite these emotional responses, neither video was associated with significant differences in climate change risk perceptions, likelihood of behavior change, or likelihood of climate activism. These null results suggest that the impacts of a single hope or fear appeal can be overstated and caution against claims that either hopeful or fear-driven climate change communication strategies are necessarily optimal. Open-ended survey responses to the videos also suggest that ideological views about climate change may be associated with how individuals respond to specific video production elements, including music, editing, pacing, and visuals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available via openICPSR at https://doi.org/10.3886/E115302V1.
Notes
A detailed review of the literature on climate visuals is beyond the scope of this study.
This study originally included an additional efficacy video which has been removed from this analysis. Upon later reflection, we determined that categorizing efficacy as a distinct frame from hope and fear may be inappropriate given that efficacy information tends to be included directly within hope and fear appeals, rather than on its own.
Communicators can test their videos informally with family, friends, and colleagues or through a more rigorous approach using surveys and focus groups representative of their target audience.
References
Allgaier J (2019) Science and environmental communication on YouTube: strategically distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Front Commun 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036
Bengtsson M (2016) How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open 2:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
Bernauer T, McGrath LF (2016) Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat Clim Chang 6:680–683. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2948
Bloodhart B, Swim JK, Dicicco E (2019) “Be worried, be very worried:” preferences for and impacts of negative emotional climate change communication. Front Commun 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00063
Boykoff MT (2019) Creative (climate) communications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Brame CJ (2016) Effective educational videos: principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. LSE 15:es6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125
Brossard D, Lewenstein B (2010) A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: using practice to inform theory. In: In: communicating science: new agendas in communication, 11–39. Routledge, New York
Chadwick AE (2015) Toward a theory of persuasive hope: effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Commun 30:598–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.916777
Chandler J, Mueller P, Paolacci G (2014) Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behav Res Ther 46:112–130. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7
Chapman DA, Lickel B, Markowitz EM (2017) Reassessing emotion in climate change communication. Nat Clim Chang 7:850–852. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0021-9
Christensen J, 2017. Climate gloom and doom? Bring it on. But we need stories about taking action, too [online]. The Conversation, available from: https://theconversation.com/climate-gloom-and-doom-bring-it-on-but-we-need-stories-about-taking-action-too-79464 [Accessed September 7, 2020]
Clifford S, Jewell RM, Waggoner PD (2015) Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Res Polit 2:2053168015622072. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072
Corner A, Markowitz E, Pidgeon N (2014) Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values. WIREs Climate Change 5:411–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.269
Dahlstrom MF, Scheufele DA (2018) (Escaping) the paradox of scientific storytelling. PLoS Biol 16:e2006720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006720
de Hoog N, Stroebe W, de Wit JBF (2008) The processing of fear-arousing communications: how biased processing leads to persuasion. Soc Influ 3:84–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802185836
Doherty KL, Webler TN (2016) Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the Alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions. Nat Clim Chang 6:879–884. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3025
Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture. University of California Press, Berkeley
Erviti MC, Codina M, León B (2020) Pro-science, anti-science and neutral science in online videos on climate change, vaccines and nanotechnology. Media Commun 8:329–338. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2937
Feinberg M, Willer R (2010) Apocalypse soon?: dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychol Sci 22(1):34–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391911
Feldman L, Hart PS (2015) Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism: the mediating role of emotions. Sci Commun 38(1):99–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015617941
Feldman L, Hart PS (2018) Is there any hope? how climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Anal 38 (3):585–602
Funk C, Hefferon M (2019) US public views on climate and energy: democrats mostly agree the federal government should do more on climate, while republicans differ by ideology, Age and Gender. Pew Research Center
Goldberg MH, van der Linden S, Ballew MT, Rosenthal SA, Gustafson A, Leiserowitz A (2019) The experience of consensus: video as an effective medium to communicate scientific agreement on climate change. Sci Commun 41:659–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019874361
Goldberg MH, Gustafson A, Rosenthal S, Kotcher J, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A (2020) For the first time, the Alarmed are now the largest of Global Warming’s Six Americas. In: Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, New Haven
Gustafson A, Ballew MT, Goldberg MH, Cutler MJ, Rosenthal SA, Leiserowitz A (2020) Personal stories can shift climate change beliefs and risk perceptions: the mediating role of emotion. Commun Rep 33(3):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2020.1799049
Hart PS (2010) One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Sci Commun 33(1):28–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010366400
Hart PS, Feldman L (2016) The impact of climate change–related imagery and text on public opinion and behavior change. Sci Commun 38(4):415–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016655357
Hauser DJ, Schwarz N (2016) Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behav Res Ther 48:400–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z
Hornsey MJ, Fielding KS (2016) A cautionary note about messages of hope: focusing on progress in reducing carbon emissions weakens mitigation motivation. Glob Environ Chang 39:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.003
Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Janis I, Feshback S (1953) Effects of fear-arousing communications. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 48:78–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060732
Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14:147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Tarantola T, Silva CL, Braman D (2015) Geoengineering and climate change polarization: testing a two-channel model of science communication. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 658:192–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559002
Kim HS, Hodgins DC (2017) Reliability and validity of data obtained from alcohol, cannabis, and gambling populations on Amazon’s mechanical Turk. Psychol Addict Behav 31:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000219
Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108:480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C., 2009. Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ climate change beliefs, attitudes, policy preferences, and actions in November, 2008 [online]. Yale University and George Mason University. Available from: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/CC_American_Mind.pdf [Accessed September 7, 2020]
Leiserowitz, A, Maibach, E, Roser-Renouf, C, Rosenthal, S, Cutler, M, Kotcher, J., 2018. Climate change in the American mind [online]. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Available from: https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Climate-Change-American-Mind-March-2018.pdf [Accessed September 1, 2018]
León B, Bourk M (2018) Communicating science and technology through online video: researching a new media phenomenon. Routledge, New York
Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127(2):267–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
Maeseele, P, Pepermans, Y., 2017. Ideology in climate change communication [online]. In: Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science Available from: https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-578 [Accessed September 13, 2019]
Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Mertz CK, Akerlof K 2011. Global Warming’s Six Americas screening tools: survey instruments; instructions for coding and data treatment; and statistical program scripts [online]. Yale University and George Mason University Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, New Haven. Available from: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warmings-six-americas-screener-manual/ [Accessed April 14, 2020]
Mann ME, Hassol SJ, Toles T, 2017. Doomsday scenarios are as harmful as climate change denial [online]. The Washington post, Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/doomsday-scenarios-are-as-harmful-as-climate-change-denial/2017/07/12/880ed002-6714-11e7-a1d7-9a32c91c6f40_story.html [Accessed September 7, 2020]
Markowitz DM, Laha R, Perone BP, Pea RD, Bailenson JN (2018) Immersive virtual reality field trips facilitate learning about climate change. Front Psychol 9:2364. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02364
Marlon JR, Bloodhart B, Ballew MT, Rolfe-Redding J, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, (2019). How hope and doubt affect climate change mobilization. Front Commun 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00020
Maynard OM, Attwood A, O’Brien L, Brooks S, Hedge C, Leonards U, Munafò MR (2014) Avoidance of cigarette pack health warnings among regular cigarette smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend 136:170–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.01.001
McIntyre K, Sobel M (2017) Motivating news audiences: shock them or provide them with solutions? Commun Soc 30:39–56. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.30.1.39-56
Meijnders AL, Midden CJH, Wilke HAM (2001) Role of negative emotion in communication about CO2 risks. Risk Anal 21:955–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.215164
Metag J, Schäfer MS, Füchslin T, Barsuhn T, Kleinen-von Königslöw K (2016) Perceptions of climate change imagery: evoked salience and self-efficacy in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Sci Commun 38:197–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016635181
Morton TA, 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. Glob Environ Chang 21:103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013
Myers TA, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz AA (2012) A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Clim Chang 113:1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
Nabi RL, Gustafson A, Jensen R (2018) Framing climate change: exploring the role of emotion in generating advocacy behavior. Sci Commun 40(4):442–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018776019
Newman N, Fletcher F, Kalogeropoulos A, Nielsen RK, 2019. Reuters institute digital news report 2019. Reuters Institute for the Study of journalism. Available from: http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/ [Accessed September 11, 2019]
Ojala M (2012) Hope and climate change: the importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. Environ Educ Res 18:625–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.637157
O’Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S (2009) “Fear won’t do it”: promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Sci Commun 30:355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201
Peters GJY, Ruiter RAC, Kok G (2013) Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychol Rev 7:S8–S31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2012.703527
Reser J, Bradley G, 2017. Fear appeals in climate change communication. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Available from: http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-386 [Accessed September 7, 2020]
Roberts D, 2017. Does hope inspire more action on climate change than fear? We don’t know [online] Vox 5 December 2017. Available from: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/5/16732772/emotion-climate-change-communication [Accessed September 7, 2020]
Ruiter RAC, Abraham C, Kok G (2001) Scary warnings and rational precautions: a review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychol Health 16:613–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440108405863
Ruiter RAC, Kessels LTE, Peters G-JY, Kok G (2014) Sixty years of fear appeal research: current state of the evidence. Int J Psychol 49:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12042
Skurka C, Niederdeppe J, Romero-Canyas R, Acup D (2018) Pathways of influence in emotional appeals: benefits and tradeoffs of using fear or humor to promote climate change-related intentions and risk perceptions. J Commun 68:169–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx008
Smith N, Leiserowitz A (2014) The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Anal 34:937–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12140
Tannenbaum MB, Hepler J, Zimmerman RS, Saul L, Jacobs S, Wilson K, Albarracín D (2015) Appealing to fear: a meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychol Bull 141:1178–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039729
Thomas K, Clifford S (2017) Validity and Mechanical Turk: An assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Computers in Human Behavior 77:184–197
United States Census Bureau, (2016). 2016 American community survey [online]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/2016/ [Accessed August 30, 2018]
van Zomeren M, Spears R, Leach CW (2010) Experimental evidence for a dual pathway model analysis of coping with the climate crisis. J Environ Psychol 30:339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.006
Wallace-Wells D, (2017). The uninhabitable earth [online]. New York Magazine, 9 July 2017. Available from https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html [Accessed September 7, 2020]
Wilson EJ, Sherrell DL (1993) Source effects in communication and persuasion research: a meta-analysis of effect size. JAMS 21:101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894421
Witte K (1992) Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun Monogr 59:329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
Witte K, Allen M (2000) A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav 27:591–615F
Xue W, Hine DW, Marks ADG, Phillips WJ, Nunn P, Zhao S (2016) Combining threat and efficacy messaging to increase public engagement with climate change in Beijing, China. Clim Chang 137:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1678-1
Acknowledgments
The authors thank this study's participants, as well as the editors and reviewers for their helpful feedback.
Funding
This study was funded in part by a student grant from the University of Oxford Environmental Change Institute.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Study design, material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Joshua Ettinger, Peter Walton, and James Painter. Thomas DiBlasi assisted with the quantitative data analysis and writing of results. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Joshua Ettinger, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 1.99 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ettinger, J., Walton, P., Painter, J. et al. Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos. Climatic Change 164, 19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-02975-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-02975-8