Social construction of scientifically grounded climate change discussions

“…Even those who are concerned about climate change talk about it infrequently, suggesting that this form of minimization is common (Leiserowitz et al, 2015). Talking about climate change is important for a wide range of reasons, including: (a) raising awareness and perceived importance of the topic, (b) disseminating scientifically sound information about climate change, (c) affecting social norms by diffusion of ideas through social networks, and (d) developing, encouraging, and implementing public commitment to actions on climate change (Swim, Geier, Sweetland, & Fraser, in press).…”

Section: Announcing Answersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the politicization of climate change has made it appear too difficult to teach people about climate science, research highlights the value of climate education programs and strong science communication in engaging both Democrats and Republicans (Geiger et al, 2017). Interdisciplinary efforts are needed to design effective messages about climate change and climate justice for dissemination across various speakers including religious leaders (Schaefer Caniglia et al, 2015), local TV weather forecasts (Bloodhart, Maibach, Myers, & Zhao, 2015), educators at zoos and aquariums (Swim, Geiger, Sweetland, & Fraser, in press), and artists (Roosen, Klöckner, & Swim, 2017).…”

Section: Moving Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The intergroup foundations of climate change justice

Swim

Bloodhart

2018

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is a global problem that is caused by humans and must be solved by humans, and while differences exist, many theories and research on prejudice and discrimination have direct connections to the psychological processes involved in climate change. Climate change is not only a geophysical issue, but an intergroup issue with justice implications. It impacts people who are most vulnerable to environmental degradation as well as social injustices. Arguably it not only violates human rights but also the rights of animals and nature. Thus, the study of group processes and intergroup relations is critical to understanding the myriad of barriers to addressing this large-scale problem. We explore influences on cognitive steps in perceiving climate change as a justice issue, using social psychology to understand minimization of harms and responsibilities for addressing climate change, and draw from the prejudice and discrimination literature to find ways of moving forward.

show abstract

“…Most research on emotions and climate change has focused on the use or inducement of emotions in communications directed at the public (e.g., Cismaru et al, 2011), but has not examined how members of the public choose to use emotions in their own communication. The latter is important when considering the critical role the public can play in addressing climate change via their interpersonal communication, their public expression of attitudes and beliefs, and their subsequent collective actions (Swim et al, 2018a), such as writing to public officials about the topic (Moyer et al, 2001). Individuals may want to express negative emotions to authentically convey feelings such as sadness, fear, or anger or to communicate urgency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Social construction of scientifically grounded climate change discussions

Cited by 30 publications

References 55 publications

Coronavirus, Climate Change, and a Bit of Hope

Coronavirus, Climate Change, and a Bit of Hope

The intergroup foundations of climate change justice

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About