“Be Worried, be VERY Worried:” Preferences for and Impacts of Negative Emotional Climate Change Communication

Abstract

While communication experts largely recommend avoiding climate change messages that create negative emotional states, little is known regarding how members of the public use emotions in their own communication about climate change. Given the important role individuals can play in addressing climate change via their interpersonal communication, it is important to understand preferences for using or avoiding communication framed with negative emotions, and their ultimate impact on taking action to address climate change. Further, social expectations about the use of emotions may influence whether individuals' gender and political identity impacts their preference for using specific types of emotions. Three studies tested preferences for and impacts of three negative emotions common to climate change responses: fear, sadness, and anger, in comparison to messages framed without emotion. Findings indicate that people generally prefer messages framed without emotion, although in line with predictions, women, and Democrats are more apt to prefer emotional messages than men and Republicans. Although participants say they prefer messages framed without emotion, climate change messages framed with negative emotions are more likely than messages framed without emotion to match participants' feelings on climate change, while messages framed with specific types of negative emotions are more likely than messages framed without emotion to convey impressions of the speaker as rational, strong, and caring, which in turn predict greater preference for emotional over non-emotional messages. Further, results from a petition-signing study indicate that communicating with negative emotions does not promote nor hinder behavioral engagement.

Fear Emotion Decelerates Outcomes of Climate Change Education

“…It may be that fear does not trigger consideration, but rather apathy for the future consequences of climate change. A recent study that tested preferences for and impacts of three negative emotions (fear, sadness, and anger) in comparison to messages framed without emotion, found that people generally preferred messages framed without emotion (Bloodhart et al 2018). Thus, an increasing recommendation found in academic research and literature is that participants prefer non-emotional messages to modi ed emotional messages about climate change (Bloodhart et al 2018).…”

“…Meanwhile, there is increasing debate on the effects of targeting speci c emotions on motivating or inhibiting public engagement with climate change, especially for the emotions of fear and hope (Ojala 2012;Lemanski and Villegas 2019). For example, a limited series of studies investigating actual behavior in response to fear appeals showed that the results were mixed (Hine and Gifford, 1991;Bloodhart et al 2018). Some researchers pointed out that instilling fear in people might cause avoidance and reductions in personal e cacy, whereas making people feel hopeful caused increased e cacy and engagement (O'Neill and Nicholson-Cole 2009).…”

Resistance to Change and Perceived Risk as Determinants of Water-Saving Intention

“…For instance, anger toward insufficient environmental protection or the waste of water acts as an activator of proenvironmental commitment [59,60]. However, perceptions of the global water crisis derived from climate change may also lead to just the opposite: if the problem is perceived as a "lost battle", then the negative emotions elicited-fear, powerlessness-may lead people to also lose their motivation and feel unable to deal with this challenge [61].…”

‘Although I use science, it’s an emotional thing’: conservation practitioners’ use of positive affect to frame messages about threatened birds

“…Milton (2002) suggests that the motivating force of an argument lies in its emotional impact, and that we need to recognise this, as well as its logic, if we are to understand how it moves people to action. Despite assumptions that negative emotions should be avoided, emotional messages conveying sadness or anger about climate change can be persuasive especially when they reflect the feelings of message recipients (Bloodhart, Swim, and Dicicco 2019). Elsewhere, positive emotional messages about the environment can be more effective than informational messages in arousing effects at a personal level, suggesting that socially desirable public policies should be promoted in ways that feature emotional appeals (Hoewe and Ahern 2017).…”

“…If conservation practitioners do not convey empathy for what they wish to conserve, they may be missing a vital opportunity to inspire the public to participate in conservation action. Public messages advocating for threatened bird conservation could be framed in positive ways that arouse emotions, since arguments motivate best when they induce feelings like hope, satisfaction, pleasure, excitement, interest, anger, sadness or distress (Milton 2002;Knight 2013;Bloodhart, Swim, and Dicicco 2019). Such framing strategies need to emphasise human agency (e.g.…”