Communicating efficacy: How the IPCC, scientists, and other communicators can facilitate adaptive responses to climate change without compromising on policy neutrality

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adopts a solution-oriented approach to communicating climate change, but does not advocate any specific mitigation or adaptation options. While this helps to maintain a neutral stance in relation to policy advocacy, this approach may also create reluctance amongst IPCC scientists to communicate affective information about climate change, which could help to facilitate behavioural and societal transitions to manage climate risks. Research from the social sciences demonstrates that communications can influence cognitive, affective, and behavioural engagement with climate change. Specifically, there is ample evidence that people’s sense of ‘efficacy’ — beliefs about personal or collective capacity to respond, and effectiveness of responses — must be appealed to sufficiently alongside communication about the threats posed by climate change, to help facilitate mitigation and adaptation responses. This essay draws on a range of research findings to argue that the IPCC’s scientists and communications personnel can nurture efficacy beliefs about climate change, without compromising on values of policy neutrality, or undermining public trust. Specifically, the essay draws on communications strategies related to vicarious learning, mastery experiences, highlighting success stories, and use of language and imagery, which have been shown to increase efficacy. The essay has implications for how IPCC scientists and the organisation as a whole engages with a range of audiences, and suggestions also have relevance for other communicators of climate change, such as governments, academics, journalists, health professionals, community leaders, and creative practitioners.

Changing behavioral responses to heat risk in a warming world: How can communication approaches be improved?

“…For instance, the influence of perceived response effectiveness appears to be mitigated by peoples' perceptions of risk, such that individuals who do not perceive themselves to be at risk are less likely to take protective actions they know to be effective (L. Williams, Erens, et al, 2019). This aligns with evidence that action is motivated by heatwave warnings when they influence perceived effectiveness (Lefevre et al, 2015) and when climate messages appeal to both threat and coping appraisals (Kotcher et al, 2021; McLoughlin, 2021; McLoughlin & Corner, 2020).…”

Do trust and renewable energy use enhance perceived climate change efficacy in Europe?

“…Much research has been devoted to unpacking which predictors shape climate change awareness within populations, which means believing that climate change is both happening and anthropogenic (Capstick et al, 2015;Choi & Hart, 2021;Hornsey et al, 2016;Poortinga et al, 2019;Tuitjer et al, 2022;Yilmaz & Can, 2020). Climate change efficacy research builds on this by extending the focus from an acceptance that anthropogenic climate change is happening, to a focus on whether people believe that something can be done about climate change (McLoughlin, 2021;Milfont, 2012;Milfont et al, 2015;Tuitjer & Dirksmeier, 2021). Efficacy beliefs in the context of climate change are hence dependent on a person's climate change awareness (Hornsey et al, 2021;Milfont et al, 2015).…”

National Climate Change Risk Assessments to inform adaptation policy priorities and environmental sustainability outcomes: a knowledge systems perspective

“…It also requires continuing science-policy dialogue on risk framing and descriptors, reconciling scientific validity with evolving decision contexts. Target audience and participation may thus change through successive CCRA cycles, especially to decipher complex relationships of risks and adaptive responses that characterise systemic risks (Simpson et al 2021 ), and to improve communication through stronger focus on agency and efficacy (McLoughlin 2021 ). For example, issues regarding modification of residual risk through managed coastal retreat remain confounded by barriers other than knowledge limitations (Lawrence et al 2020b ), particularly manifest in the UK at local rather than national policy level (Brown 2022 ).…”

“…This has meant strategic policy and research interactions are overlooked, notably for systematic monitoring and evaluation of existing adaptation actions and cross-sectoral systemic risks. In sustainability terms, linkages may be facilitated by an increased emphasis on research to enable adaptive change rather than just research about change, highlighting additional beneficial actions to reach defined objectives (Fazey et al 2020 ; McLoughlin 2021 ).…”