As the tenor of climate change debates continues to intensify, it is critical to understand how shifts in style and target affect individuals’ proenvironmental behaviors. Using two online experiments, we investigated how these changes can violate expectations in ways that affect persuasive power. The results suggest that an aggressive style is likely to expectancy violation, which negatively affects individuals’ private- and public-sphere behavioral intentions. Differences in the framing of responsibility between individuals and institutions had limited impacts. The findings offer insights and practical implications for environmental communicators on how communication styles and framing affect efforts to shift climate change behaviors.
AlisatS.RiemerM. (2015). The environmental action scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.006
2.
AndersonA. A.HuntingtonH. E. (2017). Social media, science, and attack discourse: How Twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication, 39(5), 598–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735113
BarrS.GilgA.ShawG. (2011). Citizens, consumers and sustainability: (Re)framing environmental practice in an age of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1224–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.07.009
6.
BarrS.PrillwitzJ. (2014). A smarter choice? Exploring the behaviour change agenda for environmentally sustainable mobility. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1201
7.
BlankenshipK. L.HoltgravesT. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X04273034
8.
BrooksD. J.GeerJ. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x
9.
BurgoonJ.HaleJ. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communications Monographs, 55(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376158
BurgoonM.DillardJ. P.DoranN. E. (1983). Friendly or unfriendly persuasion: The effects of violations of expectations by males and females. Human Communication Research, 10(2), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00018.x
12.
BurgoonM.MillerG. R. (1985). An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In GilesH.ClairR. N. St. (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication, and social psychology (pp. 199–229). Routledge.
13.
ChangJ. J.KimS-H.ShimJ. C.MaD. H. (2016). Who is responsible for climate change? Attribution of responsibility, news media, and South Koreans’ perceived risk of climate change. Mass Communication and Society, 19(5), 566–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1180395
14.
CornerA.RandallA. (2011). Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.002
15.
DiffenbaughN. S.SwainD. L.ToumaD. (2015). Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(13), 3931–3936. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422385112
16.
DolezalM.Ennser-JedenastikL.MüllerW. C. (2017). Who will attack the competitors? How political parties resolve strategic and collective action dilemmas in negative campaigning. Party Politics, 23(6), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068815619832
17.
FahyD.NisbetM. C. (2011). The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism, 12(7), 778–793.
18.
FergusonM. A.BranscombeN. R. (2010). Collective guilt mediates the effect of beliefs about global warming on willingness to engage in mitigation behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 135–142.
19.
GierthL.BrommeR. (2020). Attacking science on social media: How user comments affect perceived trustworthiness and credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 29(2), 230–247.
20.
GreenbergB. S. (1976). The effects of language intensity modification on perceived verbal aggressiveness. Communications Monographs, 43(2), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757609375923
21.
HagmannD.HoE. H.LoewensteinG. (2019). Nudging out support for a carbon tax. Nature Climate Change, 9(6), 484–489.
22.
HamiltonL. C.HartterJ.Lemcke-StamponeM.MooreD. W.SaffordT. G. (2015). Tracking public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLOS ONE, 10(9), Article e0138208. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138208
23.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
24.
HillerA. (2011). Climate change and individual responsibility. The Monist, 94(3), 349–368.
25.
InfanteD. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In McCroskeyJ.DalyJ. (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). SAGE.
26.
IyengarS. (1994). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press.
27.
JangS. M. (2013). Framing responsibility in climate change discourse: Ethnocentric attribution bias, perceived causes, and policy attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.003
28.
JanichN. (2020). What do you expect? Linguistic reflections on empathy in science communication. Media and Communication, 8(1), 107–117.
29.
KangY. A.BakerM. A. (2022). Which CSR message most appeals to you? The role of message framing, psychological ownership, perceived responsibility and customer altruistic values. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 106, Article 103287.
30.
KnookJ.DornerZ.Stahlmann-BrownP. (2022). Priming for individual energy efficiency action crowds out support for national climate change policy. Ecological Economics, 191, 107239.
31.
LacasseK. (2015). The importance of being green: The influence of green behaviors on Americans’ political attitudes toward climate change. Environment and Behavior, 47(7), 754–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513520491
32.
LacasseK. (2019). Can’t hurt, might help: Examining the spillover effects from purposefully adopting a new pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 51(3), 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517748164
33.
LangeF.DeWitteS. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009
34.
LarsonL. R.CooperC. B.StedmanR. C.DeckerD. J.GagnonR. J. (2018). Place-based pathways to proenvironmental behavior: Empirical evidence for a conservation–recreation model. Society & Natural Resources, 31(8), 871–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1447714
35.
LarsonL. R.StedmanR. C.CooperC. B.DeckerD. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.004
36.
LauR. R.SigelmanL.RovnerI. B. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1176–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x
37.
LevineA. S.KlineR. (2017). A new approach for evaluating climate change communication. Climatic Change, 142(1–2), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1952-x
38.
LiS.FengB.WingateV. S. (2019). Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot: The role of a support seeker’s reply in online support provision. Communication Monographs, 86(2), 251–270.
39.
LiangX.TsaiJ. Y.MattisK.KoniecznaM.DunwoodyS. (2014). Exploring attribution of responsibility in a cross-national study of TV news coverage of the 2009 United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(2), 253–271.
40.
LiangY. (Jake)HendersonL. K.KeeK. F. (2018). Running out of water! Developing a message typology and evaluating message effects on attitude toward water conservation. Environmental Communication, 12(4), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1288648
41.
LuH.YuanS. (2021). What motivates information sharing about disaster victims on social media? Exploring the role of compassion, sadness, expectancy violation, and enjoyment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 63, 102431.
42.
MakiA.CarricoA. R.RaimiK. T.TrueloveH. B.AraujoB.YeungK. L. (2019). Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0263-9
43.
ManiatesM. F. (2001). Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world?Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 31–52.
MoserS. C. (2010). Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.11
46.
MutzD. C.ReevesB. (2005). The new Videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051452
47.
MynattC.ShermanS. J. (1975). Responsibility attribution in groups and individuals: A direct test of the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6), Article 1111.
O’DonnellN. H.GuidryJ. P. (2022). Beyond personal responsibility: Analyzing how attributing responsibility for environmental protection can hinder action. Sustainability, 14(20), Article 13503.
50.
OlaussonU. (2011). “We’re the ones to blame”: Citizens’ representations of climate change and the role of the media. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 5(3), 281–299.
51.
OreskesN. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686–1686.
52.
OsakaS.BellamyR. (2020). Natural variability or climate change? Stakeholder and citizen perceptions of extreme event attribution. Global Environmental Change, 62, Article 102070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102070
53.
PaulooR.Escriva-BouA.DahlkeH.FenclA.GuillonH.FoggG. (2020). Domestic well vulnerability to drought duration and unsustainable groundwater management in California’s Central Valley. Environmental Research Letters, 15(4), Article 044010.
54.
PowerJ. G.MurphyS. T.CooverG. (1996). Priming prejudice: How stereotypes and counter-stereotypes influence attribution of responsibility and credibility among ingroups and outgroups. Human Communication Research, 23(1), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00386.x
55.
RickardL. N.YangZ. J.SeoM.HarrisonT. M. (2014). The “I” in climate: The role of individual responsibility in systematic processing of climate change information. Global Environmental Change, 26, 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.010
56.
SabherwalA.BallewM. T.van der LindenS.GustafsonA.GoldbergM. H.MaibachE. W.KotcherJ. E.SwimJ. K.RosenthalS. A.LeiserowitzA. (2021). The Greta Thunberg effect: Familiarity with Greta Thunberg predicts intentions to engage in climate activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(4), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12737
57.
SchuldtJ. P.RohS.SchwarzN. (2015). Questionnaire design effects in climate change surveys: Implications for the partisan divide. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 67–85.
SternP. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
60.
SupranG.OreskesN. (2021). Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil’s climate change communications. One Earth, 4(5), 696–719.
61.
SwainD. L.TsiangM.HaugenM.SinghD.CharlandA.RajaratnamB.DiffenbaughN. S. (2014). The extraordinary California drought of 2013/2014: Character, context, and the role of climate change. Bulletin of American Meteorological Society, 95(9), S3–S7.
62.
SydnorE. (2019). Disrespectful democracy: The psychology of political incivility. Columbia University Press.
63.
ThunbergG. (2019, September). Greta Thunburg to world leader: “How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood” [Speech]. https://youtu.be/TMrtLsQbaok
64.
Van’t RietJ.Van StekelenburgA. (2022). The effects of political incivility on political trust and political participation: A meta-analysis of experimental research. Human Communication Research, 48(2), 203–229.
65.
WeinerB. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543042002203
66.
WellsV. K.PontingC. A.PeattieK. (2011). Behaviour and climate change: Consumer perceptions of responsibility. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7–8), 808–833.
67.
WerfelS. H. (2017). Household behaviour crowds out support for climate change policy when sufficient progress is perceived. Nature Climate Change, 7(7), 512–515. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3316
68.
WiestS. L.RaymondL.ClawsonR. A. (2015). Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Global Environmental Change, 31, 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006
69.
YuanS.BesleyJ. C. (2018). Talking aggressively about GMOs? Examining the effect of aggressive risk communication with communicator’s facial expression and gender. Journal of Risk Research, 21(12), 1592–1607.
70.
YuanS.LuH. (2020). “It’s global warming, stupid”: Aggressive communication styles and political ideology in science blog debates about climate change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1003–1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020904791
71.
YuanS.MaW.BesleyJ. C. (2019). Should scientists talk about GMOs nicely? Exploring the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and preexisting attitude. Science Communication, 41, 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019837623
72.
ZhangA. L.LuH. (2022). No laughing matter: Exploring the effects of scientists’ humor use on Twitter and the moderating role of superiority. Science Communication, 44(4), 418–445.
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.
