Reaching Science Skeptics: How Adaptive Framing of Climate Change Leads to Positive Responses Via Persuasion Knowledge and Perceived Behavioral Control

Abstract

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.

Keywords

framing/framing theory media frames mediation/moderation climate change experiment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen

(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

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.

Bain

P. G.

Hornsey

M. J.

Bongiorno

Jeffries

(2012). Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change, 2(8), 600–603. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1532

Brehm

J. W.

(1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

Iyengar

(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

Campbell

M. C.

Kirmani

(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

Chapman

D. A.

Lickel

(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

Chen

G. M.

Y. M. M.

Riedl

M. J.

Chen

V. 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

Chong

Druckman

J. N.

(2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

10.

Coleman

Thorson

Wilkins

(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.

Davis

(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

12.

Edelman

(1993). Contestable categories and public opinion. Political Communication, 10(3), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962981

13.

Krumsvik

(2019). Personality filters for online news interest and engagement. Nordicom Review, 40(s1), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0021

14.

Entman

Rojecki

(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.

Entman

R. M.

(1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

16.

Evans

N. J.

Park

(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.

Eveland

W. P.

Hayes

A. F.

Shah

D. V.

Kwak

(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.

Fitzgerald

Paravati

Green

M. C.

Moore

M. M.

Qian

J. L.

(2020). Restorative narratives for health promotion. Health Communication, 35, 356–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1563032

19.

Friestad

Wright

(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.

Fritsche

Jonas

Ablasser

Beyer

Kuban

Manger

A.-M.

Schultz

(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.

Gauchat

(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 Zúñiga

Jung

Valenzuela

(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.

Gitlin

(1980). The whole world is watching. University of California Press.

24.

Greenaway

K. H.

Louis

W. R.

Hornsey

M. J.

Jones

J. 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.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis, second edition: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.

26.

Hindman

D. 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.

Hornsey

M. J.

Fielding

K. S.

McStay

Reser

J. P.

Bradley

G. L.

Greenaway

K. 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.

Jackson

(1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. The Guilford Press.

29.

Kahan

D. M.

Peters

Wittlin

Slovic

Ouellette

L. L.

Braman

Mandel

(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.

Kirmani

Zhu

(. (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.

Masud

M. M.

Al-Amin

A. Q.

Junsheng

Ahmed

Yahaya

S. R.

Akhtar

Banna

(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.

McCright

A. M.

Dunlap

R. E.

Marquart-Pyatt

S. 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.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. 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-Hirsch

(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.

Pronin

Gilovich

Ross

(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.

Quick

B. L.

Scott

A. M.

Ledbetter

A. 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.

Rasinski

K. 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.

Scheufele

D. A.

Tewksbury

(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.

Springer

S. A.

Harwood

(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

40.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

41.

Vallone

R. P.

Ross

Lepper

M. 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.

Vashisht

Royne

M. 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.

Vulturius

Swartling

Å. 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.

Whitmarsh

(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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB