Meet Bob and Offset Your Flight: Optimising Explainer Videos to Promote Voluntary Carbon Offsetting

Abstract

In Germany, over 60% of people use YouTube as a search engine and watch explainer videos or tutorials at least occasionally. Two studies were conducted to determine how explainer videos can be optimised to promote sustainable minority behaviour such as voluntary carbon offsetting. A typical way to present information in explainer videos is by using exemplars (the “meet Bob” trope), which can change recipients’ judgements of the frequency of events. When an exemplar is included, the frequency of occurrence can be estimated to be higher, even if the actual base-rate information is given. Therefore, study one (<em>N</em> = 482) tested whether an exemplar could enhance the positive effects of a dynamic descriptive social norm appeal (DSNA), prevent the backfire effects of a static minority DSNA, and examine whether there were any differences depending on the narrative perspective. In study one, we conducted a 2 (narrative perspective: first vs. third person) × 2 (DSNA: static vs. dynamic) × 2 (travel destination: Europe vs. overseas; control factor) between-subjects experiment using six self-produced explainer videos about voluntary carbon offsetting (<em>N</em> = 270). The results show that the narrative perspective, different DSNAs, and the destination had no effect on persuasive outcomes. Study two (<em>N</em> = 270) focused on social norm appeals and supplemented minority DSNAs (DSNA: static vs. dynamic vs. absent) with an injunctive social norm appeal (ISNA: present vs. absent). The results show that a majority injunctive social norm appeal can improve attitudes towards voluntary carbon offsetting and perceived effectiveness.

They approve but they don’t act: promoting sustainable minority behavior with (conflicting) social norm appeals

“… Thøgersen, 2008 ; Jacobson et al, 2020 ). However, recent studies of environmental communication (e.g., Schorn and Wirth, 2023 ) and health communication (e.g., Habib et al, 2021 ) have found no evidence of social norm conflict. It is therefore unclear under which circumstances conflicting social norm appeals can promote or suppress sustainable behavior.…”

“… Loschelder et al (2019) , Mortensen et al (2019) , Schorn and Wirth (2023) , and Sparkman and Walton (2017) suggest that dynamic appeals work by reinforcing the perception of a trend, which can lead to preconformity. Following this reasoning, a dynamic appeal should also lead to an increased perception of a trend and be more effective than messages without a descriptive appeal, despite the mixed results of other studies.…”

“…Injunctive social norm appeals can adjust such misperceptions and increase perceived injunctive norms. However, few studies have used injunctive appeals that address minority behavior or vary the strength of the appeal (e.g., Schultz et al, 2008 ; de Groot and Schuitema, 2012 ; Smith et al, 2012 ; Schorn and Wirth, 2023 ). In addition, injunctive appeals are often operationalized differently, which makes it difficult to compare and classify the results ( Smith and Louis, 2009 ; Shulman et al, 2017 ; Schorn et al, 2023 ).…”

“…Nevertheless, injunctive appeals seem to be well suited to promote pro-environmental behavior ( Rhodes et al, 2020 ) and increase public support for climate policy measures ( Nolan, 2021 ) and the acceptance of a behavior ( de Groot and Schuitema, 2012 ; Schorn and Wirth, 2023 ). Although there are only a few studies examining injunctive appeals in the context of minority behavior (e.g., Smith et al, 2012 ; Schorn and Wirth, 2023 ), yielding partly contradictory results, we assume that injunctive majority appeals should have a positive effect overall. We hypothesize that a message containing an injunctive majority appeal will increase the perceived prevalence of approval and be more effective in promoting sustainable minority behavior than a message without an injunctive appeal.…”

“…However, Habib et al (2021) found positive effects of conflicting social norm appeals and reported that the combination of an injunctive majority appeal and a static descriptive minority appeal increased organ donation. Furthermore, only one study has investigated the combination of injunctive majority appeals and dynamic descriptive minority appeals, finding no interactions between an injunctive majority appeal and different descriptive minority appeals ( Schorn and Wirth, 2023 ). Nevertheless, most studies focusing on social norm conflict have not included dynamic descriptive appeals (e.g., Smith et al, 2012 ; Ge et al, 2020 ; Habib et al, 2021 ), whereas studies examining dynamic descriptive appeals have not addressed social norm conflict (e.g., Sparkman and Walton, 2017 ; Mortensen et al, 2019 ).…”