Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-6
Reaching Science Skeptics: How Adaptive Framing of Climate Change Leads to Positive Responses Via Persuasion Knowledge and Perceived Behavioral Control
This study extends framing theory by identifying two causal mechanisms and one contingent condition for a new type of frame to be used with issues where people dispute scientific claims. This new “adaptive frame” focuses on adapting to climate change impacts without cueing deeply held beliefs by discussing causes. An experiment shows this frame works by reducing persuasion knowledge and increasing perceived behavioral control, resulting in science skeptics being significantly more likely to intend to take action, engage with the news, and agree with the story’s perspective. This effect is moderated by science skepticism, with adaptive frames working significantly better on the very people the news media are not reaching. We contribute to theory with an understanding of how a frame that eliminates references to deep-seated beliefs is more effective than the existing frames of conflict, attribution of responsibility, and possibly others.
AjzenI. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x
2.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
BrehmJ. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
5.
CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.IyengarS. (2016). The end of framing as we know it . . . and the future of media effects. Mass Communication & Society, 19, 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
6.
CampbellM. C.KirmaniA. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1086/314309
7.
ChapmanD. A.LickelB. (2016). Climate change and disasters: How framing affects justifications for giving or withholding aid to disaster victims. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615590448
8.
ChenG. M.NgY. M. M.RiedlM. J.ChenV. Y. (2020). Exploring how online political quizzes boost interest in politics, political news, and political engagement. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1680475
ColemanR.ThorsonE.WilkinsL. (2011). Testing the effect of framing and sourcing in health news stories. Journal of Health Communication, 16(9), 941–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.561918
11.
DavisS. (1999). The effects of audience reaction shots on attitudes towards controversial issues. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(4), 476–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159909364505
EgR.KrumsvikA. (2019). Personality filters for online news interest and engagement. Nordicom Review, 40(s1), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0021
14.
EntmanR.RojeckiA. (1993). Freezing out the public: Elite and media framing of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. Political Communication, 10(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962973
15.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
16.
EvansN. J.ParkD. (2015). Rethinking the persuasion knowledge model: Schematic antecedents and associative outcomes of persuasion knowledge activation for covert advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 36(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2015.1023873
17.
EvelandW. P.HayesA. F.ShahD. V.KwakN. (2005). Understanding the relationship between communication and political knowledge: A model comparison approach using panel data. Political Communication, 22(4), 423–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600500311345
18.
FitzgeraldK.ParavatiE.GreenM. C.MooreM. M.QianJ. L. (2020). Restorative narratives for health promotion. Health Communication, 35, 356–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1563032
19.
FriestadM.WrightP. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1086/209380
20.
FritscheI.JonasE.AblasserC.BeyerM.KubanJ.MangerA.-M.SchultzM. (2013). The power of we: Evidence for group-based control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.014
21.
GauchatG. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225
22.
Gil de ZúñigaH.JungN.ValenzuelaS. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement, and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
23.
GitlinT. (1980). The whole world is watching. University of California Press.
24.
GreenawayK. H.LouisW. R.HornseyM. J.JonesJ. M. (2014). Perceived control qualifies the effects of threat on prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(3), 422–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12049
25.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis, second edition: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
26.
HindmanD. B. (2012). Knowledge gaps, belief gaps, and public opinion about health care reform. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(4), 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699012456021
27.
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
28.
JacksonS. (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. The Guilford Press.
29.
KahanD. M.PetersE.WittlinM.SlovicP.OuelletteL. L.BramanD.MandelG. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
30.
KirmaniA.ZhuR. (. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: The effect of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.4.688
31.
MasudM. M.Al-AminA. Q.JunshengH.AhmedF.YahayaS. R.AkhtarR.BannaH. (2016). Climate change issue and theory of planned behaviour: Relationship by empirical evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 613–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.080
32.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E.Marquart-PyattS. T. (2016). Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environmental Politics, 25(2), 338–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1090371
33.
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
34.
Oeldorf-HirschA. (2018). The role of engagement in learning from active and incidental news exposure on social media. Mass Communication & Society, 21, 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1384022
35.
ProninE.GilovichT.RossL. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111, 781–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.781
36.
QuickB. L.ScottA. M.LedbetterA. M. (2011). A close examination of trait reactance and issue involvement as moderators of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Health Communication, 16(6), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.551989
37.
RasinskiK. A. (1989). The effect of question wording on public support for government spending. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 388–394. https://doi.org/10.1086/269158
38.
ScheufeleD. A.TewksburyD. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x
39.
SpringerS. A.HarwoodJ. (2015). The influence of episodic and thematic frames on policy and group attitudes: Mediational analysis. Human Communication Research, 41(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12045
ValloneR. P.RossL.LepperM. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
42.
VashishtD.RoyneM. B. (2016). Advergame speed influence and brand recall: The moderating effects of brand placement strength and gamers’ persuasion knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.022
43.
VulturiusG.SwartlingÅ. G. (2015). Overcoming social barriers to learning and engagement with climate change adaptation: Experiences with Swedish forestry stakeholders. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 30(3), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.1002218
44.
WhitmarshL. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 690–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016
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.
