Towards an understanding of when non-climate frames can generate public support for climate change policy

Abstract

There is a growing tendency for policy makers to frame climate change action in terms of non-climate benefits, raising important empirical questions regarding the utility of such approaches. Across three studies we explore whether (and when) non-climate frames can lead to greater support for climate policy relative to climate frames. In Study 1 we framed a car-use reduction policy in relation to climate change or public health and showed that non-climate frames can stimulate greater support for climate policy. Study 2 explored frame relevance as a potential boundary condition to the efficacy of non-climate frames. Study 3 found that attempts to frame climate policy in relation to non-climate issues that affect participants personally can fail if that issue is not seen as being sufficiently relevant. We suggest that non-climate frames can be an effective tool in stimulating support for climate policy, however greater consideration of the key mechanisms is required.

Keywords

framing climate change communication co-benefits climate policy non-climate benefits

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aklin

Urpelainen

(2013). Debating clean energy: Frames, counter frames and audiences. Global Environment Change, 23, 1225-1232. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.007

Asch

S. E.

(1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290. doi:10.1037/h0055756

Atkinson

Chhetri

Freed

Galiana

Green

Hayward

. . . Shellenberger

(2011). Climate pragmatism: Innovation, resilience and no regrets. Oakland, CA: The Breakthrough Institute.

Bain

P. G.

Hornsey

M. J.

Bongiorno

Jefferies

(2012). Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change, 2, 600-603. doi:10.1038/nclimate1532

Bain

P. G.

Milfont

T. L.

Kashima

Bilewicz

Doron

Garðarsdóttir

R. B.

. . . Saviolidis

N. M.

(2016). Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Climate Change, 6, 154-157. doi:10.1038/nclimate2814

Bernauer

McGrath

L. F.

(2016). Simple reframing unlikely to boost policy support for climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6, 680-683. doi:10.1038/nclimate2948

Bolderdijk

J. W.

Steg

Geller

E. S.

Lehman

P. K.

Postmes

(2013). Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nature Climate Change, 3, 413-416. doi:10.1038/nclimate1767

Chapman

(2007). Transport and climate change: A review. Journal of Transport Geography, 15, 354-367. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.008

Chong

Druckman

J. N.

(2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637-655. doi:10.1017/S0003055407070554

10.

Compston

Bailey

(2012). Climate clever: How governments can tackle climate change (and still win elections). London, England: Routledge.

11.

Corner

(2013). Moral case for sustainability more effective than economic? Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/campaigns-moral-sustainability-effective-economic

12.

Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2013). DECC public attitudes tracker—Wave 5. London, England: Author.

13.

Dietz

Dan

Shwom

(2007). Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology, 72, 185-214. doi:10.1526/003601107781170026

14.

Druckman

J. N.

(2011). What’s it all about? Framing in political science. In Gideon

(Ed.), Perspectives on framing (pp. 279-302). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

15.

Dunlap

R. E.

Saad

(2001, April 16). Only one in four Americans are anxious about the environment. Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1801/only-one-four-americans-anxious-about-environment.aspx

16.

Evans

Maio

G. R.

Corner

Hodgetts

C. J.

Ahmed

Hahn

(2013). Self-interest and pro-environmental behavior. Nature Climate Change, 3, 122-125. doi:10.1038/nclimate1662

17.

Goldstein

N. J.

Cialdini

R. B.

Griskevicius

(2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472-482. doi:10.1086/586910

18.

Haugtvedt

C. P.

Wegener

D. T.

(1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude-strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 205-218.

19.

Hayes

A. F.

(2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

20.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

21.

High Speed 2 Limited. (2014). What is HS2? Retrieved from http://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hs2

22.

Hogarth

R. M.

Einhorn

H. J.

(1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1-55. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-J

23.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Jones

C. R.

Eiser

J. R.

Gamble

T. R.

(2012). Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK. Energy Policy, 41, 451-465. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.006

25.

Jordan

Rayner

Schroeder

Adger

Anderson

Bows

. . . Whitmarsh

(2013). Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options. Climate Policy, 13, 751-769. doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.835705

26.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

(2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 25, 1433-1442. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x

27.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

(2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery and values. Climatic Change, 77, 45-72. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9

28.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

Maibach

Roser-Renouf

Smith

(2010). Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in January 2010. New Haven, CT: Yale University and George Mason University.

29.

Lindenberg

Steg

(2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 117-137. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00499.x

30.

Lockwood

(2011). Does the framing of climate policies make a difference to public support? Evidence from marginal constituencies in the UK. Climate Policy, 12, 197-1112. doi:10.1080/14693062.2011.579301

31.

Lorenzoni

Pidgeon

(2006). Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77, 73-95. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9072-z

32.

Maibach

E. W.

Nisbet

Baldwin

Akerlof

Diao

(2010). Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health, 10, 299-310. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-299

33.

Miller

D. T.

(1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053-1060.

34.

Myers

T. A.

Nisbet

M. C.

Maibach

E. W.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

(2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113, 1105-1112. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6

35.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23. doi:10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23

36.

Nolan

J. M.

Schultz

P. W.

Cialdini

R. B.

Goldstein

N. J.

Griskevicius

(2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913-923. doi:10.1177/0146167208316691

37.

O’Connor

R. E.

Bord

R. J.

Yarnal

Wiefek

(2002). Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Social Science Quarterly, 83, 1-17. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00067

38.

O’Neill

S. O.

Hulme

(2009). An iconic approach for representing climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19, 402-410. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.004

39.

Poortinga

Pidgeon

N. F.

Lorenzoni

(2006). Public perceptions of nuclear power, climate change and energy options in Britain: Summary findings of a survey conducted during October and November 2005 (Technical report, Understanding Risk Working Paper 06-02). Norwich, UK: Centre for Environmental Risk.

40.

Pralle

S. B.

(2006). Branching out, digging in: Environmental advocacy and agenda setting. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

41.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 40, 879-891.

42.

Ratner

R. K.

Miller

D. T.

(2001). The norm of self-interest and its effects on social action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 5-16.

43.

Rucker

D. D.

Preacher

K. J.

Tormala

Z. L.

Petty

R. E.

(2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 359-371. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x

44.

Saad

(2014, March 18). A steady 57% in U.S. blame humans for global warming. Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx

45.

Scheufele

D. A.

Tewksbury

(2007). Framing, agenda setting and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x

46.

Spence

Leygue

Bedwell

O’Malley

(2014). Engaging with energy reduction: Does a climate change frame have the potential for achieving broader sustainable behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 17-28. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.006

47.

Spence

Poortinga

Pidgeon

(2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32, 957-972. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x

48.

Tobler

Visschers

V. H. M.

Siegrist

(2012). Addressing climate change: Determinants of consumers’ willingness to act and to support policy measures. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 197-207. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.02.001

49.

Upham

Whitmarsh

Poortinga

Purdam

Darnton

McLachlan

Devine-Wright

(2009). Public attitudes to environmental change: A selective review of theory and practice (A Research Synthesis for the Living with Environmental Change Research Programme). Available at: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/public-engagement/public-dialogues/full-report-public-attitudes-to-environmental-change/

50.

Walker

B. J. A.

Adger

W. N.

Russel

(2015). Institutional barriers to climate change adaptation in decentralised governance systems. Urban Studies, 52, 2250-2266. doi:10.1177/0042098014544759

51.

Walker

B. J. A.

Wiersma

Bailey

(2014). Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of wind farms. Energy Research and Social Science, 3, 45-54. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.003

52.

Whitmarsh

(2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21, 690-700. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016

53.

Whitmarsh

Seyfang

O’Neill

(2011). Public engagement with carbon and climate change: To what extent is the public “carbon capable”? Global Environmental Change, 21, 56-65. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.011

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.53 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB

0.02 MB

0.35 MB

0.03 MB