Substantial research examines the cognitive factors underlying proenviron-mental message effectiveness. In contrast, this study investigates the role of emotion, fear and hope specifically, in the gain/loss framing of environmental policy initiatives. The 2 (threat vs. no threat) × 2 (gain- vs. loss-framed efficacy) experiment revealed emotion, especially hope, as a key mediator between gain-framed messages and desired climate change policy attitudes and advocacy. Results further supported the value of sequencing emotional experiences to enhance persuasive effect. This research offers an inaugural test of emotional flow theorizing and highlights the need for additional research on emotional processes in environmental communication.
BainP. G.MilfontT. L.KashimaY.BilewiczM.DoronG.GarðarsdóttirR. B.Corral-VerdugoV. (2016). Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Climate Change, 6, 154-157. doi:10.1038/nclimate2814
2.
BauerM. W.AllumN.MillerS. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79-95. doi:10.1177/0963662506071287
3.
BilandzicH.KalchA.SoentgenJ. (2017). Effects of goal framing and emotions on perceived threat and willingness to sacrifice for climate change. Science Communication, 39, 466-491.
4.
BorahP. (2011). Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61, 246-263. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01539.x
5.
CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.IyengarS. (2016). The end of framing as we know it . . . and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 7-23. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
6.
ChadwickA. E. (2015). Toward a theory of persuasive hope: Effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Communication, 30, 598-611. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.916777
7.
ChoH.SandsL. (2011). Gain- and loss-frame sun safety messages and psychological reactance of adolescents. Communication Research Reports, 28, 308-317. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.616242
8.
CooperK. E.NisbetE. C. (2016). Green narratives: How affective responses to media messages influence risk perceptions and policy preferences about environmental hazards. Science Communication, 38, 626-654. doi:10.1177/1075547016666843
9.
DavisJ. J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 285-299. doi:10.1177/107769909507200203
10.
de VriesG.TerwelB. W.EllemersN. (2016). Perceptions of manipulation and judgments of illegitimacy: Pitfalls in the use of emphasis framing when communicating about CO2 capture and storage. Environmental Communication, 10, 206-226. doi:10.1080/17524032.2015.1047884
11.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
12.
FeinbergM.WillerR. (2011). Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychological Science, 22, 34-38. doi:10.1177/0956797610391911
13.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2016). Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism: The mediating role of emotions. Science Communication, 38, 99-127. doi:10.1177/1075547015617941
14.
FloydD. L.Prentice-DunnS.RogersR. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 407-429. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x
15.
GustafsonA.RiceR. E. (2016). Cumulative advantage in sustainability communication: Unintended implications of the knowledge deficit model. Science Communication, 38, 800-811. doi:10.1177/1075547016674320
16.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2014). Threat without efficacy? Climate change on US network news. Science Communication, 36, 325-351. doi:10.1177/1075547013520239
17.
HöijerB. (2010). Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 717-731. doi:10.1177/0963662509348863
18.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis: Contribution of working group 1 to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (Vol. 4). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
19.
KahanD. M.Jenkins-SmithH.BramanD. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147-174. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
20.
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, 732-735. doi:10.1038/nclimate1547
21.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. doi:10.2307/1914185
22.
KraftP. W.LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2015). Why people “don’t trust the evidence”: motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 121-133. doi:10.1177/0002716214554758
23.
KühneR.SchemerC. (2013). The emotional effects of news frames on information processing and opinion formation. Communication Research, 42, 387-407. doi:10.1177/0093650213514599
24.
LazarusR. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN:9780190281786
25.
LechelerS.BosL.VliegenthartR. (2015). The mediating role of emotions: News framing effects on opinions about immigration. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 812-838. doi:10.1177/1077699015596338
26.
LechelerS.SchuckA. R. T.de VreeseC. H. (2013). Dealing with feelings: Positive and negative discrete emotions as mediators of news framing effects. Communications, 38, 189-209. doi:10.1515/commun-2013-0011
27.
LevinI. P.SchneiderS. L.GaethG. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
28.
LewandowskyS.OberauerK. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217-222. doi:10.1177/0963721416654436
29.
MagalettaP. R.OliverJ. M. (1999). The hope construct, will, and ways: Their relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 539-551. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199905)55:5<539::AID-JCLP2>3.0.CO;2-G
30.
MeijndersA. L.MiddenC. J.WilkeH. A. (2001a). Communications about environmental risks and risk-reducing behavior: The impact of fear on information processing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 754-777.
31.
MeijndersA. L.MiddenC. J.WilkeH. A. (2001b). Role of negative emotion in communication about CO2 risks. Risk Analysis, 21, 955-955. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.215164
32.
MoserS. C. (2010). Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1, 31-53. doi:10.1002/wcc.11
33.
NabiR. L. (2002). Anger, fear, uncertainly, and attitudes: A test of the cognitive-functional model. Communication Monographs, 69, 204-216. doi: 10.1080/03637750216541
34.
NabiR. L. (2003). The framing effects of emotion: Can discrete emotions influence information recall and policy preference?Communication Research, 30, 224-247. doi:10.1177/0093650202250881
35.
NabiR. L. (2007). Emotion and persuasion: A social cognitive perspective. In Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.MonahanJ. (Eds.), Social cognition and communication: Theories and methods (pp. 377-398). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
NabiR. L. (2015). Emotional flow in persuasive health messages. Health Communication, 30, 114-124. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.974129
37.
NabiR. L.MyrickJ. G. (2018). Uplifting fear appeals: Considering the role of hope in fear-based persuasive messages. Health Communication, 9, 1-12. doi:10.1080/10410236.2017.1422847
38.
NisbetE. C.CooperK. E.EllithorpeM. (2015). Ignorance or bias? Evaluating the ideological and informational drivers of communication gaps about climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 285-301. doi:10.1177/0963662514545909
39.
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
40.
O’KeefeD. J.JensenJ. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Communication Yearbook, 30, 1-43. doi:10.1080/23808985.2006.11679054
41.
O’KeefeD. J.JensenJ. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623-644. doi:10.1080/10810730701615198
42.
O’KeefeD. J.JensenJ. D. (2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59, 296-316. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x
43.
O’NeillS.Nicholson-ColeS. (2009). “Fear Won’t Do It”: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30, 355-379. doi:10.1177/1075547008329201
44.
O’SullivanG. (2011). The relationship between hope, eustress, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction among undergraduates. Social Indicators Research, 101(1), 155-172. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9662-z
45.
OjalaM. (2012). Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. Environmental Education Research, 18, 625-642. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.637157
46.
OreskesN. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306, 1686-1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618
QuickB. L.BatesB. R. (2010). The use of gain-or loss-frame messages and efficacy appeals to dissuade excessive alcohol consumption among college students: A test of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Health Communication, 15, 603-628. doi:10.1080/10810730.2010.499593
49.
QuickB. L.KamJ. A.MorganS. E.Montero LiberonaC. A.SmithR. A. (2015). Prospect theory, discrete emotions, and freedom threats: An extension of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Communication, 65(1), 40-61. doi:10.1111/jcom.12134
50.
RiceR. E.GustafsonA.HoffmanZ. (2018). Frequent but accurate: A closer look at uncertainty and opinion divergence in climate change print news. Environmental Communication, 12, 301-321. doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1430046
51.
RoeserS. (2012). Risk communication, public engagement, and climate change: A role for emotions. Risk Analysis, 32, 1033-1040. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01812.x
52.
Roser-RenoufC.MaibachE. (2010). Communicating climate change. In PriestS. H. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of science and technology communication (pp. 141-147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
Roser-RenoufC.MaibachE.LeiserowitzA.FeinG.RosenthalS.KreslakeJ. (2014). Global warming’s Six Americas: Perceptions of the health consequences of global warming and update on key beliefs. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
54.
Roser-RenoufC.MaibachE. W.LeiserowitzA.ZhaoX. (2014). The genesis of climate change activism: From key beliefs to political action. Climatic Change, 125, 163-178. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1173-5
55.
SapiainsR.BeetonR. J.WalkerI. A. (2016). Individual responses to climate change: Framing effects on pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46, 483-493. doi:10.1111/jasp.12378
56.
ScheufeleD. A.IyengarS. (2014). The state of framing research: A call for new directions. In KenskiK.JamiesonK. H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political communication theories (pp. 1-28, online). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.47
57.
SmithN.LeiserowitzA. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis, 34, 937-948. doi:10.1111/risa.12140
58.
SpenceA.PidgeonN. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20, 656-667. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
59.
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, 1178-1204. doi:10.1037/a0039729
60.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1985). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. In Environmental impact assessment, technology assessment, and risk analysis (pp. 107-129). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-70634-9_6
61.
WitteK.AllenM. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 591-615. doi:10.1177/109019810002700506
62.
YechiamE.HochmanG. (2013). Losses as modulators of attention: Review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 497-518. doi:10.1037/a0029383
63.
ZillmannD. (1983). Transfer of excitation in emotional behavior. In CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (Eds.), Basic social psychophysiological research (pp. 215-240). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
