Effects of message framing in policy communication on climate change

Abstract

In two studies, we investigated the framing effects of policy messages regarding climate change. In Study 1, we asked participants to read policy messages that envisioned positive consequences. Messages varied as to their outcome sensitivity (achievement of positive outcomes versus avoidance of negative outcomes), regulatory concern (growth versus safety) and goal‐pursuit strategy (investment in renewable energy versus intervention on greenhouse gas emissions). Participants showed the highest agreement with a policy message on renewable energy when it was formulated in terms of the achievement of positive, growth‐related outcomes and with a greenhouse gas emissions message when it was formulated in terms of the avoidance of negative, safety‐related outcomes. The same held for the intention to vote for candidates proposing those policies. In Study 2, participants' regulatory focus moderated these effects, with promotion‐focused participants preferring messages focused on the achievement of positive outcomes and prevention‐focused participants preferring messages focused on the avoidance of negative outcomes. Results show that the fit among the various levels of framing of a policy message regarding climate change, moderated by individual regulatory focus, increases the probability that recipients agree with the policy. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

When bats go viral: negative framings in virological research imperil bat conservation

“…Scientists unavoidably employ frames to communicate research findings to wider audiences. By emphasising certain dimensions or giving greater weight to some considerations over others, researchers can use frames to influence social attitudes (Bertolotti & Catellani 2014). In other words, framing a scientific topic in a particular way endows certain aspects of it with greater or lesser importance than they would have if the topic had been framed differently.…”

How do we Optimize Message Matching Interventions? Identifying Matching Thresholds, and Simultaneously Matching to Multiple Characteristics

“…Message matching ensures people receive only the most personally relevant information, and has been used to influence many types of behaviors, including physical health (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012;Noar et al, 2007), mental health (Lueck, 2018), consumer (Snyder & DeBono 1985), prosocial (Clary et al, 1994;1998), pro-environmental (Tangari & Smith, 2012, and political behaviors (Bertolotti & Catellani, 2014;Voelkel & Feinberg, 2018). However, beyond the general idea that matched messages are more persuasive, principles for how to design matched messages to maximize their effectiveness have yet to be specified (Updegraff & Rothman, 2013).…”

Effects of risk framing on earthquake risk perception: Life-time frequencies enhance recognition of the risk

“…(See also [22,29].) A few studies have applied positive and negative framing to risk judgments for earthquakes and climate change [2]. McClure Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr and Sibley [20] examined the effect of positive and negative framing on people's intentions to prepare for earthquakes (see also [21]).…”