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.
AklinM.UrpelainenJ. (2013). Debating clean energy: Frames, counter frames and audiences. Global Environment Change, 23, 1225-1232. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.007
2.
AschS. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290. doi:10.1037/h0055756
3.
AtkinsonR.ChhetriN.FreedJ.GalianaI.GreenC.HaywardS.. . . ShellenbergerM. (2011). Climate pragmatism: Innovation, resilience and no regrets. Oakland, CA: The Breakthrough Institute.
BainP. G.MilfontT. L.KashimaY.BilewiczM.DoronG.GarðarsdóttirR. B.. . . SaviolidisN. M. (2016). Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Climate Change, 6, 154-157. doi:10.1038/nclimate2814
6.
BernauerT.McGrathL. F. (2016). Simple reframing unlikely to boost policy support for climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6, 680-683. doi:10.1038/nclimate2948
7.
BolderdijkJ. W.StegL.GellerE. S.LehmanP. K.PostmesT. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nature Climate Change, 3, 413-416. doi:10.1038/nclimate1767
8.
ChapmanL. (2007). Transport and climate change: A review. Journal of Transport Geography, 15, 354-367. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.008
9.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637-655. doi:10.1017/S0003055407070554
10.
CompstonH.BaileyI. (2012). Climate clever: How governments can tackle climate change (and still win elections). London, England: Routledge.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2013). DECC public attitudes tracker—Wave 5. London, England: Author.
13.
DietzT.DanA.ShwomR. (2007). Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology, 72, 185-214. doi:10.1526/003601107781170026
14.
DruckmanJ. N. (2011). What’s it all about? Framing in political science. In GideonK. (Ed.), Perspectives on framing (pp. 279-302). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
GoldsteinN. J.CialdiniR. B.GriskeviciusV. (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.
HaugtvedtC. P.WegenerD. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude-strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 205-218.
19.
HayesA. 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.
HayesA. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
HogarthR. M.EinhornH. 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.
JonesC. R.EiserJ. R.GambleT. 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.
JordanA.RaynerT.SchroederH.AdgerN.AndersonK.BowsA.. . . WhitmarshL. (2013). Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options. Climate Policy, 13, 751-769. doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.835705
26.
LeiserowitzA. A. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous?Risk Analysis, 25, 1433-1442. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x
27.
LeiserowitzA. 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.
LeiserowitzA. A.MaibachE.Roser-RenoufC.SmithN. (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.
LindenbergS.StegL. (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.
LockwoodM. (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.
LorenzoniI.PidgeonN. (2006). Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77, 73-95. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9072-z
32.
MaibachE. W.NisbetM.BaldwinP.AkerlofK.DiaoG. (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.
MillerD. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053-1060.
34.
MyersT. A.NisbetM. C.MaibachE. W.LeiserowitzA. 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.
NisbetM. 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.
NolanJ. M.SchultzP. W.CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J.GriskeviciusV. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913-923. doi:10.1177/0146167208316691
37.
O’ConnorR. E.BordR. J.YarnalB.WiefekN. (2002). Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?Social Science Quarterly, 83, 1-17. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00067
38.
O’NeillS. O.HulmeM. (2009). An iconic approach for representing climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19, 402-410. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.004
39.
PoortingaW.PidgeonN. F.LorenzoniI. (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.
PralleS. B. (2006). Branching out, digging in: Environmental advocacy and agenda setting. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
41.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. 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.
RatnerR. K.MillerD. T. (2001). The norm of self-interest and its effects on social action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 5-16.
43.
RuckerD. D.PreacherK. J.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. 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
ScheufeleD. A.TewksburyD. (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.
SpenceA.LeygueC.BedwellB.O’MalleyC. (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.
SpenceA.PoortingaW.PidgeonN. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32, 957-972. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x
48.
ToblerC.VisschersV. H. M.SiegristM. (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
WalkerB. J. A.AdgerW. N.RusselD. (2015). Institutional barriers to climate change adaptation in decentralised governance systems. Urban Studies, 52, 2250-2266. doi:10.1177/0042098014544759
51.
WalkerB. J. A.WiersmaB.BaileyE. (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.
WhitmarshL. (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.
WhitmarshL.SeyfangG.O’NeillS. (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.
