Evidence for three distinct climate change audience segments with varying belief-updating tendencies: implications for climate change communication

Abstract

Mounting evidence suggests members of the general public are not homogeneous in their receptivity to climate science information. Studies segmenting climate change views typically deploy a top-down approach, whereby concepts salient in scientific literature determine the number and nature of segments. In contrast, in two studies using Australian citizens, we used a bottom-up approach, in which segments were determined from perceptions of climate change concepts derived from citizen social media discourse. In Study 1, we identified three segments of the Australian public (Acceptors, Fencesitters, and Sceptics) and their psychological characteristics. We find segments differ in climate change concern and scepticism, mental models of climate, political ideology, and worldviews. In Study 2, we examined whether reception to scientific information differed across segments using a belief-updating task. Participants reported their beliefs concerning the causes of climate change, the likelihood climate change will have specific impacts, and the effectiveness of Australia’s mitigation policy. Next, participants were provided with the actual scientific estimates for each event and asked to provide new estimates. We find significant heterogeneity in the belief-updating tendencies of the three segments that can be understood with reference to their different psychological characteristics. Our results suggest tailored scientific communications informed by the psychological profiles of different segments may be more effective than a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Using our novel audience segmentation analysis, we provide some practical suggestions regarding how communication strategies can be improved by accounting for segments’ characteristics.

Diving into the divide: a systematic review of cognitive bias-based polarization on social media

“…Kim et al (2013) confirmed that the use of social media could enhance the diversity of online communication and promote diverse activities in civic life, supporting the notion that social media has a positive impact on promoting civic engagement. Consequently, Andreotta et al (2022) investigated the link between using social media platforms such as Facebook, exposure to varying perspectives and the expansion of discussion networks' diversity. Additionally, a separate study (Kim and Kim, 2017) found a positive correlation among network diversity, social capital (bridging or bonding) and subjective well-being.…”

“…Potential research directions Psychology of cognitive biases on user perception (Andreotta et al, 2022;Barbera et al, 2015;Beck and Clark, 1997;De Zuniga et al, 2022;Lee, 2022;Messing and Westwood, 2012) User psychological profiles and perceptions of controversial issues Impact of selective exposure on polarization Emotional reactions to the event Cognitive de-biasing techniques development In-group and out-group affiliation Changes in user behavior Distorted view of reality, reinforcing stereotypes and deepening polarization Technical aspects of quantifying polarization (Barrett et al, 2021;Burgers et al, 2023;Grover et al, 2019;Lu et al, 2022;Modgil et al, 2021;Park, 2021;Tornberg, 2021) Influence of cognitive biases on people's reading and sharing behavior Fact-checking tools Polarization's impact on people's mental health Interventions to recognize and counteract biases Development and spreading of biases in digital communities AI and machine learning in studying bias-based polarization Inventions include mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy techniques, or metacognitive strategies Information system (IS) perspective on polarization (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017, Au et al, 2021, Barfar, 2019Kaiser et al, 2022, Miller et al, 2022Vicario et al, 2019;Wang, 2015) Designing intelligent systems to mitigate polarization User interaction with personalized content The role of misinformation Longitudinal effects Evaluation of existing efforts The implications of decentralized social networks Comparative study across different platforms Management strategies on polarization (Feezell et al, 2021;Guan et al, 2023;Klein and Robison, 2019;Medaglia and Zhu, 2017) Reputation of organization in a polarized environment Education and media literacy Ethical considerations Crisis communication and response strategies for potential bias-based backlash Engagement management for balance among communities Internal communication and training to understand and recognize bias Content moderation and guidelines Source(s): Authors' own creation Table…”