Climate change news narratives have been criticized for perpetuating fear and sensationalism without due attention to and critical emphasis on constructive dialogue and solutions. This study investigates the potential of solutions journalism, a novel journalistic approach that emphasizes credible narratives about the threats and societal responses to those threats, to facilitate collective social responses to climate change. Using a sample N = 482, the study manipulated news stories as solutions-oriented or conventional problem-oriented. Exposure to solutions stories only increased intentions for pro-environmental action when fully mediated by positive affect and higher collective efficacy. These results offer insights for journalism and climate communication.
AitamurtoT.VarmaA. (2018). The constructive role of journalism: Contentious metadiscourse on constructive journalism and solutions journalism. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 695–713.
2.
AkerlofK. L.BoulesC.Ban RohringE.RohringB.KappalmanS. (2020). Governmental communication of climate change risk and efficacy: Moving audiences toward “danger control.”Environmental Management, 65, 678–688.
3.
AjzenI. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 26(9), 1113–1127.
4.
ArchimbaudA.NordhausenK.Ruiz-GazenA. (2018). ICS for multivariate outlier detection with application to quality control. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 128, 184–199.
5.
BadenD.McIntyreK.HombergF. (2019). The Impact of constructive news on affective and behavioural responses. Journalism Studies, 20(13), 1940–1959. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1545599
6.
BanduraA. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. Advances in Psychological Science, 1(1), 51–71.
7.
BanduraA. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.000
BetakovaD.BoomgaardenH.LechelerS.SchäferS. (2024). I do not (want to) know! The relationship between intentional news avoidance and low news consumption. Mass Communication and Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2024.2304759
BoukesM.VliegenthartR. (2017). News consumption and its unpleasant side effect: Studying the effect of hard and soft news exposure on mental well-Being over time. Journal of Media Psychology, 29(3), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000224
12.
BroschT. (2021). Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: A review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.001
13.
BrysbaertM. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047
14.
ChenG.GlenD. R.SaadZ. S.Paul HamiltonJ.ThomasonM. E.GotlibI. H.CoxR. W. (2011). Vector autoregression, structural equation modeling, and their synthesis in neuroimaging data analysis. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 41(12), 1142–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2011.09.004
15.
ChenM.-F. (2015). Self-efficacy or collective efficacy within the cognitive theory of stress model: Which more effectively explains people’s self-reported proenvironmental behavior?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.02.002
16.
ChenM.BarghJ. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 215–224.
17.
Coleman, R., Thorson, E., Jimenez, C., & Vinton, K. ( 2022). Reaching science skeptics: how adaptive framing of climate change leads to positive responses via persuasion knowledge and perceived behavioral control. Communication Research, 009365022210849. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221084925
18.
CoppockA.LeeperT. J.MullinixK. J. (2018). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12441–12446. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808083115
19.
CrandonT. J.ScottJ. G.CharlsonF. J.ThomasH. J. (2022). A social–ecological perspective on climate anxiety in children and adolescents. Nature Climate Change, 12(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01251-y
20.
CrispimA. C.CruzR. M.BaaschD.AmorimL.TrevisanR. L.Da SilvaM. A. (2015). Measurement of affect: From theoretical and instrumental perspectives. Psychol Res, 5(2), 96–107.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.ChristianL. M. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (4th ed.). Wiley Publishing.
23.
FairbrotherM. (2022). Public opinion about climate policies: A review and call for more studies of what people want. PLOS Climate, 1(5), e0000030. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000030
24.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2016). Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism: The mediating role of emotions. Science Communication, 38(1), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015617941
FredricksonB. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1378. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
27.
GaltungJ.RugeM. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336500200104
28.
GeigerN.DwyerT.SwimJ. K. (2023). Hopium or empowering hope? A meta-analysis of hope and climate engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1139427.
29.
GiffordR.NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review: Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental behaviour. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
30.
GoddardR. D.HoyW. K.HoyA. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13.
31.
GreenleesI. A.GraydonJ. K.MaynardI. W. (1999). The impact of collective efficacy beliefs on effort and persistence in a group task. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17(2), 151–158.
32.
HackettR. A.FordeS.GunsterS.Foxwell-NortonK. (2017). Journalism and climate crisis: Public engagement, media alternatives. Taylor & Francis.
33.
HalpernD.ValenzuelaS.KatzJ. E. (2017). We face, I tweet: How different social media influence political participation through collective and internal efficacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(6), 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12198
34.
HanelP. H. P.VioneK. C. (2016). Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public?PLoS ONE, 11(12), Article e0168354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168354
35.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2014). Threat without efficacy? Climate change on US network news. Science Communication, 36(3), 325–351.
38.
HornseyM. J.FieldingK. S.McStayR.ReserJ. P.BradleyG. L.GreenawayK. H. (2015). Evidence for motivated control: Understanding the paradoxical link between threat and efficacy beliefs about climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.02.003
39.
HornseyM. J.FieldingK. S. (2016). A cautionary note about messages of hope: Focusing on progress in reducing carbon emissions weakens mitigation motivation. Global Environmental Change, 39, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.003
40.
HornseyM. J.ChapmanC. M.OelrichsD. M. (2021). Ripple effects: Can information about the collective impact of individual actions boost perceived efficacy about climate change?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, 104217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104217
41.
HuangH. (2016). Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2206–2212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.031
42.
HungL.-S.BayrakM. M. (2020). Comparing the effects of climate change labelling on reactions of the Taiwanese public. Nature Communications, 11(1), 6052. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19979-0
43.
JangS. M.HartP. S. (2015). Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Global Environmental Change, 32, 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.010
44.
JugertP.GreenawayK. H.BarthM.BüchnerR.EisentrautS.FritscheI. (2016). Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 12–23.
45.
KavanaghD. J.BowerG. H. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9(5), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173005
46.
KesternichM.OsberghausD.BotzenW. J. W. (2022). The Intention-Behavior gap in climate change adaptation (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4288341). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4288341
47.
KinnickK. N.KrugmanD. M.CameronG. T. (1996). Compassion fatigue: Communication and burnout toward social problems. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(3), 687–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909607300314
48.
KoletsouA.MancyR. (2011). Which efficacy constructs for large-scale social dilemma problems? Individual and collective forms of efficacy and outcome expectancies in the context of climate change mitigation. Risk Management, 13(4), 184–208.
49.
LandmannH.RohmannA. (2020). Being moved by protest: Collective efficacy beliefs and injustice appraisals enhance collective action intentions for forest protection via positive and negative emotions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101491.
50.
LaurenN.SmithL. D. G.LouisW. R.DeanA. J. (2019). Promoting spillover: How past behaviors increase environmental intentions by cueing self-perceptions. Environment and Behavior, 51(3), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517740408
51.
LoughK.McIntyreK. (2023). A systematic review of constructive and solutions journalism research. Journalism, 24(5), 1069-1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211044559
52.
LüdeckeD.MakowskiD.WaggonerP.PatilI. (2020). Performance: Assessment of regression models performance. R Package Version 0.4, 4.
53.
MacKinnonD. P.KrullJ. L.LockwoodC. M. (2000). Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding and Suppression Effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371
54.
MadunemeE. (2024). Some slice of climate anxiety . . . Is good: A cross-sectional survey exploring the relationship between college students media exposure and perceptions about climate change. Journal of Health Communication, 29(Suppl. 1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2024.2354370
55.
MaiellaR.La MalvaP.MarchettiD.PomaricoE.Di CrostaA.PalumboR.CetaraL.Di DomenicoA.VerrocchioM. C. (2020). The psychological distance and climate change: A systematic review on the mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 568899. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568899
56.
MorrisB. S.ChrysochouP.KargS. T.MitkidisP. (2020). Optimistic vs. Pessimistic endings in climate change appeals. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 82. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00574-z
57.
MyersT. A.Roser-RenoufC.MaibachE. (2023). Emotional responses to climate change information and their effects on policy support. Frontiers in Climate, 5:1135450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1135450
58.
MzimelaJ. H.MoyoI. (2023). A systematic review of collective efficacy for supporting adaptation-related responses to climate hazards. Sustainability, 15(12), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129256
59.
McIntyreK. (2019). Solutions Journalism: The effects of including solution information in news stories about social problems. Journalism Practice, 13(1), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1409647
60.
McIntyreK. (2020). “Tell me something good”: Testing the longitudinal effects of constructive news using the google assistant. Electronic News, 14(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1177/1931243120910446
McIntyreK.LoughK. (2023). Evaluating the effects of solutions and constructive journalism: A systematic review of audience-focused research. Newspaper Research Journal, 07395329231187622. https://doi.org/10.1177/07395329231187622
63.
McIntyreK.LoughK.ManzanaresK. (2018). Solutions in the shadows: The effects of photo and text congruency in solutions journalism news stories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(4), 971–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018767643
64.
MedranoL. A.Flores-KanterE.MorettiL.PerenoG. L. (2016). Effects of induction of positive and negative emotional states on academic self-efficacy beliefs in college students. Psicología Educativa, 22(2), 135–141.
65.
MeierK.KrausD.MichaelerE. (2018). Audience engagement in a post-truth age: What it means and how to learn the activities connected with it. Digital Journalism, 6(8), 1052–1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1498295
66.
MillerL. B.RiceR. E.GustafsonA.GoldbergM. H. (2022). Relationships among environmental attitudes, environmental efficacy, and pro-environmental behaviors across and within 11 countries. Environment and Behavior, 54(7–8), 1063–1096. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165221131002
67.
MyrickJ. G.ChenJ. (2022). Schadenfreude after watching the news: How audiences respond to media coverage of partisans disclosing illnesses. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 99(1), 135–155.
68.
OgunbodeC. A.PallesenS.BöhmG.DoranR.BhullarN.AquinoS.MarotT.SchermerJ. A.WlodarczykA.LuS.JiangF.Salmela-AroK.HanssD.MaranD. A.ArdiR.ChegeniR.TahirH.GhanbarianE.ParkJ.. . . LomasM. J. (2023). Negative emotions about climate change are related to insomnia symptoms and mental health: Cross-sectional evidence from 25 countries. Current Psychology, 42(2), 845–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01385-4
69.
O’neillS.Nicholson-ColeS. (2009). “Fear won’t do it” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355–379.
70.
OvergaardC. S. B. (2021). Constructive journalism in the face of a crisis: The effects of social media news updates about COVID-19. Journalism Studies, 22(14), 1875–1893.
71.
PetersE.LipkusI.DiefenbachM. A. (2006). The Functions of affect in health communications and in the construction of health preferences. Journal of Communication, 56(suppl_1), S140–S162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00287.x
72.
PetersE.SlovicP. (2007). Affective asynchrony and the measurement of the affective attitude component. Cognition & Emotion, 21(2), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600911440
73.
PopovaL. (2012). The extended parallel process model: Illuminating the gaps in research. Health Education & Behavior, 39(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198111418108
R. Developement Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software].
76.
Roser-RenoufC.StenhouseN.Rolfe-ReddingJ.MaibachE.LeiserowitzA. (2014). Engaging diverse audiences with climate change: Message strategies for global warming’s six americas. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2410650
77.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
78.
SandersC.GibsonK.LammA. (2022). Perceived government control and its influence on climate change knowledge and perceptions: Applications for effective communication. Journal of Applied Communications, 106(3). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2441
79.
Sarrina LiS.-C.HuangL.-M. S. (2020). Fear appeals, information processing, and behavioral intentions toward climate change. Asian Journal of Communication, 30(3–4), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2020.1784967
80.
SchuldtJ. P.KonrathS. H.SchwarzN. (2011). “Global warming” or “climate change”? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(1), 115–124.
SilversteinM. C.LeeC. N.SchererL. D.PhommasathitC.MerrillA. L.PetersE. (2023). Operating on anxiety: Negative affect toward breast cancer and choosing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Medical Decision Making, 43(2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X221121134
84.
SkurkaC.TroyC.CuiZ.GildeZúñigaH. (2023). Efficacy constructs in media use and effects: Organizing and appraising the literature. Annals of the International Communication Association, 47(1), 114–149
85.
SternP. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S.UllmanJ. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 6). Pearson.
88.
TannenbaumM. B.HeplerJ.ZimmermanR. S.SaulL.JacobsS.WilsonK.AlbarracínD. (2015). Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1178–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039729
89.
ThakerJ.HoweP.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2019). Perceived collective efficacy and trust in government influence public engagement with climate change-related water conservation policies. Environmental Communication, 13(5), 681–699.
90.
ThierK. (2021). Solutions journalism reporting on the response is just as newsworthy as reporting on the problem. In McIntyre HopkinsonK.DahmenN. S. (Eds.), Reporting Beyond the Problem. Peter Lang.
91.
ThierK.AbdenourJ.WalthB.DahmenN. S. (2019). A narrative solution: The relationship between solutions journalism, narrative transportation, and news trust. Journalism, 1464884919876369. https://doi.org/10.1177/146488491987636
92.
ThierK.LinT. (2022). How solutions journalism shapes support for collective climate change adaptation. Environmental Communication, 16(8), 1027–1045.
93.
ThierK.NamkoongK. (2023). Identifying major components of solutions-oriented journalism: A review to guide future research. Journalism Studies, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2230314
van AntwerpenN.SearstonR. A.TurnbullD.HermansL.KovacevicP. (2023). The effects of constructive journalism techniques on mood, comprehension, and trust. Journalism, 24(10), 2294–2317. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849221105778
96.
WangX. (2018). The role of attitudinal motivations and collective efficacy on Chinese consumers’ intentions to engage in personal behaviors to mitigate climate change. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(1), 51–63.
97.
WenzelA.GersonD.MorenoE.SonM.Morrison HawkinsB. (2018). Engaging stigmatized communities through solutions journalism: Residents of South Los Angeles respond. Journalism, 19(5), 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917703125
98.
WhitmarshL.PlayerL.JiongcoA.JamesM.WilliamsM.MarksE.Kennedy-WilliamsP. (2022). Climate anxiety: What predicts it and how is it related to climate action?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 83, 101866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101866
99.
WitteK.AllenM. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591–615.
100.
WitteK. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, 61(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376328
101.
XuL.HymanM. R. (2022). Mitigation versus adaptation: Climate-change-related appeals and pondering the future. Journal of Social Marketing, 12(4), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-01-2022-0006
102.
XueW.HineD. W.MarksA. D. G.PhillipsW. J.NunnP.ZhaoS. (2016). Combining threat and efficacy messaging to increase public engagement with climate change in Beijing, China. Climatic Change, 137(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1678-1
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.
