This study examines how unique audience segments within the Canadian population think and act toward climate change, and explores whether and how the level of audience engagement moderates the effect of various messages on support for climate policy. Drawing on a random probability sample of Canadian residents (N = 1207) conducted in October 2017, we first identify and describe five distinct audiences that vary in their attitudes, perceptions and behaviours with respect to climate change: the Alarmed (25%), Concerned (45%), Disengaged (5%), Doubtful (17%) and Dismissive (8%). We then explore how each segment responds to different messages about carbon pricing in Canada. We find that messages alluding to earmarking (i.e., “Invest in solutions”) or leveling the playing field for alternative energy sources (i.e., “Relative price”) increase support for a higher carbon price among the population as a whole. However, these messages decreased support for carbon pricing among more engaged audiences (e.g., Alarmed) when a low carbon price was specified to the respondent. Meanwhile, the “Relative price” is the only message that increased policy support among less engaged audiences–the Concerned and the Doubtful. In addition to highlighting the importance of tailoring and targeting messages for differently engaged segments, these results suggest that communicating around the specific consequences of carbon taxes for the prices of some goods may be a fruitful way to enhance support for carbon taxes among relatively less engaged audiences.

No abstract

Despite decades of warning from climate scientists, the international community has largely failed at reining in planet-warming greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In this context, scientific assessments of climate change—like those periodic reviews provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—are repeatedly faced with the challenge of communicating the rapidly closing window for securing a livable future on Earth. Yet, it remains unclear whether sounding “code red for humanity” fosters climate action or climate paralysis. The ongoing debate among climate change communication scholars about the (in)effectiveness of fear-based messaging sheds light on three intertwined and often overlooked aspects of emotional appeals in communication: the content of the message frame, the emotional arousal it induces, and the values and dispositions of the audiences receiving the message. While previous work has addressed questions related to one or two of these aspects, this study examines the role of positive and negative messaging in (de)motivating climate action, with particular attention to how messages, emotions and audiences interact in the process of communication. Leveraging data drawn from a sample of environmental group supporters in Canada (N = 308), we first identify and describe four unique audiences within supporters of Canada's environmental movement that vary in their levels of engagement and radicalism. We then examine how negative and positive messaging influence emotional arousal and climate action across audience segments. We find that negative messages about climate change (e.g., sounding “code red for humanity”) can be less mobilizing than positive messaging, even when the message is directed toward relatively engaged audiences and followed by the opportunity to take a specific, actionable and effective action. These findings help shed light on the potential limits of fear-based messaging in the context of a global public health pandemic while further highlighting the importance of communicating in ways that inspire people through hopeful and optimistic messages.

No abstract