A UNIGE study shows that campaigns designed to appeal to people’s emotions are more likely to inspire climate action.
Scientific Frontline: Extended "At a Glance" Summary: Climate Communication Efficacy
The Core Concept: A comprehensive meta-analysis revealing that climate communication strategies designed to evoke strong emotional responses are significantly more effective at inspiring pro-environmental action than the presentation of purely factual scientific data.
Key Distinction/Mechanism: While traditional factual communication aims to fill knowledge gaps, emotion-driven communication leverages storytelling, moral considerations, or awe to drive behavior. Conversely, messages emphasizing individual or collective responsibility often fail or produce negative behavioral reactance.
Major Frameworks/Components:
- Evaluation of fifteen distinct communication strategies, including factual data provision and bounded rationality approaches.
- Utilization of emotional appeals, such as storytelling and the evocation of wonder regarding natural beauty.
- Analysis of messaging formats, concluding that the integration of visual imagery consistently enhances communication efficacy.
- Integration of moral, ethical, and religious frameworks to emphasize a broader responsibility for environmental preservation.
Branch of Science: Environmental Psychology, Behavioral Science, and Affective Science.
Future Application: Guiding public authorities, non-governmental organizations, and scientific communicators in designing highly effective, emotion-centric climate action campaigns to translate scientific consensus into tangible behavioral changes.
Why It Matters: Millions of dollars are allocated annually to climate campaigns; optimizing these strategies ensures resources are utilized effectively to combat global climate change, avoiding counterproductive messaging paradigms.
What types of communication are most effective in motivating people to take action on climate change? To find out, a team from the University of Geneva (UNIGE) reviewed a vast body of research from Switzerland and abroad examining the impact of different climate communication campaigns. The findings suggest that messages designed to evoke emotions—such as a sense of wonder at the beauty of a landscape—are more effective than simply presenting scientific facts. By contrast, messages emphasizing individual and collective responsibility appear to have little or no effect. Published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, these findings offer practical guidance to public authorities and organizations seeking to communicate more effectively about climate change.
Every year, public authorities and nongovernmental organizations spend millions on communication campaigns designed to encourage people to take action on climate change. But which strategies work best? Should campaigns rely on fear or positive messages, prioritize facts or appeal to emotions, and focus on words or visuals?
A team from UNIGE’s Consumer Decision and Sustainable Behavior Lab, part of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences and the Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, conducted the first large-scale study of its kind. The researchers analyzed and synthesized the findings of 71 studies examining the impact of specific climate communication strategies, drawing on data from a total of 216,000 participants.
Almost All Strategies Have a Positive Effect
The strategies reviewed encompassed 15 different approaches, ranging from providing factual information to fill knowledge gaps to appealing to emotions—for example, by evoking a sense of wonder or awe at the beauty of nature. They also included approaches based on the principle of bounded rationality, which are designed to facilitate decision-making by highlighting specific aspects of climate change, such as its health or financial consequences.
"Our research shows that almost all of these strategies are likely to have a positive effect on people’s intentions and behaviors, as well as on their support for climate policies," explains Tobias Brosch, director of the laboratory, who led the study with Mario Herberz, a postdoctoral researcher. "Only strategies based on individual and collective responsibility—with messages such as 'success depends largely on you'—appear to have little or no effect. They may even foster reactance."
Stories Rather Than Facts
But not all effective strategies are equally effective. "Campaigns that evoke a strong emotional response—particularly through storytelling or by inspiring a sense of wonder at the beauty of nature—are significantly more effective than simply presenting facts and scientific evidence. Messages that draw on moral, ethical, or even religious considerations, highlighting our connection to something greater than ourselves that we have a responsibility to preserve, also achieve better results."
The researchers also found that messages are more effective when they include images.
"Despite these differences, the fact that almost all of these strategies can have a positive effect is encouraging," says Tobias Brosch. "This is particularly encouraging given that the studies reviewed mainly measured the effects of messages to which people were exposed only once. Yet we know that repeated exposure can strengthen their impact. At a time when the scientific evidence is well established and the challenge is to turn knowledge into action, there is considerable scope to improve climate communication."
Published in journal: Journal of Environmental Psychology
Title: A systematic review and meta-analysis of communication strategies to promote climate action
Authors: Mario Herberz, Fatih Uenal, Manon Delphine Gouiran, Morris Krainz, Laura Pagel, Désirée Schmid, Tobia Spampatti, Izïa Vallaeys Mora, and Tobias Brosch
Source/Credit: Université de Genève
Edited by: Scientific Frontline
Reference Number: psy090126_01