Creating a climate for change: Interventions, efficacy and public discussion about climate change

Abstract

Interpersonal discussions about climate change among the public are important for creating positive social change to addressing the issue, yet a majority of the public does not regularly discuss the topic. Previous correlational research connects avoidance of climate change discussions to low efficacy about these discussions. The present research tests whether a knowledge-based intervention which 1) uses evidence-based communication techniques to increase science knowledge and 2) highlights community-level solutions can promote public discussion through improving efficacy beliefs. A lab experiment (N=173) with university students and a field quasi-experiment with two nationally representative samples of visitors to informal science learning centers (e.g., aquariums, N a =1068, N b =907) demonstrates that those that received a knowledge-based intervention (vs. those who do not receive this intervention) report higher efficacy beliefs, which subsequently enhance engagement in climate change discussion. Our results suggest the potential for national-level knowledge-based interventions which improve efficacy beliefs to catalyze public engagement.

Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks

“…It may also be relevant to consider a broader set of research on efficacy, for example, from related risk domains such as extreme weather hazards (Bubeck, Botzen, Kreibich, & Aerts, ; Bubeck et al., ). Recent experimental research examining knowledge interventions in museums finds important interactions between knowledge, self‐ and response efficacy, and actions such as talking with others about climate change (Geiger, Swim, & Fraser, ). A more nuanced understanding of such relationships might be developed by, for instance, comparing how well perceived self‐efficacy and response efficacy of geoengineering strategies predict support for geoengineering, with how well perceived self‐efficacy and response efficacy of greenhouse gas emissions reductions per se predict support for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.…”

“…Of course, even for those who support greenhouse gas emission reductions, the mechanism may matter (e.g., a fossil fuel tax vs. a cap‐and‐trade scheme), for which reason it may also be worthwhile to model perceived costs as a separate independent variable. More nuanced modeling of the influence of efficacy beliefs on specific policies might also provide further insight into how efficacy beliefs interact with other drivers of support for policies to reduce the risks from climate change, such as specific emotions (Böhm & Pfister, ; Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, & Johnson, ; Geiger et al., ; Leiserowitz, ; Smith & Leiserowitz, ).…”

Motivating landowners to recruit neighbors for private land conservation

“…In other contexts, our microinterventions may need modification, depending on the conservation problem and target population. Options include coupling microinterventions with activities such as participatory mapping (Ravnborg & Westermann 2002) or collective learning and experimentation (Graham & Rogers 2017) to ensure model landowners have sufficient knowledge of the problem and potential solutions to feel comfortable approaching others (Geiger et al 2017).…”

“…; Geiger et al. ). Collective efficacy suggests people are more likely to work with others when they perceive a group has the capacity to work together to achieve a collective goal (Bandura ).…”

“…Two types of efficacy are particularly relevant for recruitment and coordination. Expected reciprocity suggests individuals are more likely to approach others when they believe their actions will inspire others to contribute (Lubell et al 2007;Niemiec et al 2016;Geiger et al 2017). Collective efficacy suggests people are more likely to work with others when they perceive a group has the capacity to work together to achieve a collective goal (Bandura 1998).…”