This study examines how 21 leading environmental organizations framed climate change on Facebook and how these frames were associated with public engagement through reactions (e.g., likes), shares, and comments on the posts. We find that environmental nongovernmental organizations’ (NGOs) posts about climate change tend to emphasize the environmental impacts of climate change, political actions that are being taken by individuals and groups to address climate change, and political threats to climate progress. The results tentatively suggest that Facebook posts with an affective component—either positive or threat-based—are most likely to be associated with greater levels of engagement.
BergerJ.MilkmanK. L. (2012). What makes online content viral?Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353
5.
Bieniek-TobascoA.McCormickS.RimalR. N.HarringtonC. B.ShaferM.ShaikhH. (2019). Communicating climate change through documentary film: Imagery, emotion, and efficacy. Climatic Change, 154(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02408-7
6.
BodeL. (2017). Gateway political behaviors: The frequency and consequences of low-cost political engagement on social media. Social Media + Society, 3(4), 2056305117743349. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117743349
7.
BorahP. (2011). Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61, 246–263.
8.
BoulianneS.LalancetteM.IlkiwD. (2020). “School strike 4 climate”: Social media and the international youth protest on climate change. Media and Communication, 8(2), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2768
9.
BoykoffM. T. (2008). Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004. Climatic Change, 86(1–2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9299-3
10.
BradyW. J.WillsJ. A.JostJ. T.TuckerJ. A.Van BavelJ. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313–7318. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114
11.
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
12.
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(6), 598–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.916777
13.
ChangC. H.ArmsworthP. R.MasudaY. J. (2022). Twitter data reveal six distinct environmental personas. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 20(8), 481–487. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2510
14.
ChenK.MolderA. L.DuanZ.BoulianneS.EckartC.MallariP.YangD. (2023). How climate movement actors and news media frame climate change and strike: Evidence from analyzing Twitter and news media discourse from 2018 to 2021. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28(2), 384–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221106405
15.
ChinnS.HartP. S.SorokaS. (2020). Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985-2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019900290
Core Writing Team, LeeH.RomeroJ. (Eds.). (2023). IPCC, 2023: Summary for policymakers. In Climate change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1–34). IPCC.
18.
DunlapR. E. (2013). Climate change skepticism and denial: An introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 691–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213477097
19.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M.YaroshJ. H. (2016). The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995
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
22.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2018a). Broadening exposure to climate change news? How framing and political orientation interact to influence selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 68(3), 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy011
23.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2018b). Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Analysis, 38(3), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12868
24.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2021). Upping the ante? The effects of “emergency” and “crisis” framing in climate change news. Climatic Change, 169(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03219-5
25.
FeldmanL.HartP. S.MilosevicT. (2017). Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers’ coverage of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 26(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515595348
HansenL. K.ArvidssonA.NielsenF. A.ColleoniE.EtterM. (2011). Good friends, bad news—Affect and virality in Twitter. In ParkJ. J.YangL. T.LeeC. (Eds.), Future information technology (pp. 34–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22309-9_5
29.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2014). Threat without efficacy? Climate change on U.S. network news. Science Communication, 36(3), 325–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013520239
30.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2016). The impact of climate change–related imagery and text on public opinion and behavior change. Science Communication, 38(4), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016655357
31.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
32.
HeissR.SchmuckD.MatthesJ. (2019). What drives interaction in political actors’ Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors’ reactions. Information, Communication & Society, 22(10), 1497–1513. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1445273
33.
HestresL. E. (2015). Climate change advocacy online: Theories of change, target audiences, and online strategy. Environmental Politics, 24(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.992600
34.
HestresL. E. (2018). Take action now: Motivational framing and action requests in climate advocacy. Environmental Communication, 12(4), 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1424010
35.
HodderP.MartinB. (2009). Climate crisis? The politics of emergency framing. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(36), 53–60.
36.
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
37.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
38.
Katz-KimchiM.ManosevitchI. (2015). Mobilizing Facebook users against Facebook’s energy policy: The case of greenpeace unfriend coal campaign. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.993413
39.
KimC.YangS.-U. (2017). Like, comment, and share on Facebook: How each behavior differs from the other. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.006
40.
KimD. H.WeeksB. E.LaneD. S.HahnL. B.KwakN. (2021). Sharing and commenting facilitate political learning on Facebook: Evidence from a two-wave panel study. Social Media + Society, 7(3), 20563051211047876. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211047876
41.
KimJ. W. (2018). They liked and shared: Effects of social media virality metrics on perceptions of message influence and behavioral intentions. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.030
42.
KiteJ.FoleyB. C.GrunseitA. C.FreemanB. (2016). Please like me: Facebook and public health communication. PLOS ONE, 11(9), Article e0162765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162765
43.
KotcherJ.FeldmanL.LuongK. T.WyattJ.MaibachE. (2021). Advocacy messages about climate and health are more effective when they include information about risks, solutions, and a normative appeal: Evidence from a conjoint experiment. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 3, 100030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100030
44.
LeónB.BourkM.FinklerW.BoykoffM.DavisL. S. (2023). Strategies for climate change communication through social media: Objectives, approach, and interaction. Media International Australia, 188(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X211038004
45.
MarcusG. E.MacKuenM.NeumanW. R. (2011). Parsimony and complexity: Developing and Testing theories of affective intelligence. Political Psychology, 32(2), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00806.x
MoserS. C.DillingL. (2004). Making climate HOT. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 46(10), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139150409605820
48.
MyersT. A.NisbetM. C.MaibachE. W.LeiserowitzA. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113(3–4), 1105–1112.
49.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. The National Academies Press.
50.
NisbetM. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12–23.
51.
Oeldorf-HirschA.SundarS. S. (2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.024
52.
O’NeillS. J.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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201
53.
O’NeillS. J.WilliamsH. T. P.KurzT.WiersmaB.BoykoffM. (2015). Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nature Climate Change, 5(4), Article4. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2535
54.
PainterJ.AsheT. (2012). Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4), 044005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044005
55.
PierceJ. J.PetersonH. L.JonesM. D.GarrardS. P.VuT. (2017). There and back again: A tale of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 45(S1), S13–S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12197
56.
RodeJ. B.DentA. L.BenedictC. N.BrosnahanD. B.MartinezR. L.DittoP. H. (2021). Influencing climate change attitudes in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101623
57.
RösnerL.WinterS.KrämerN. C. (2016). Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.022
58.
RyanT. J. (2012). What makes us click? Demonstrating incentives for angry discourse with digital-age field experiments. The Journal of Politics, 74(4), 1138–1152. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000540
59.
SchäferM. S. (2012). Online communication on climate change and climate politics: A literature review. WIREs Climate Change, 3(6), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.191
SegerbergA.BennettW. L. (2011). Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review, 14(3), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597250
62.
StieglitzS.Dang-XuanL. (2014). Emotions and information diffusion in social media—Sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 217–248. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408
63.
Stromer-GalleyJ.RossiniP.HemsleyJ.BoldenS. E.McKernanB. (2021). Political messaging over time: A comparison of US presidential candidate Facebook posts and tweets in 2016 and 2020. Social Media + Society, 7(4), 20563051211063465. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211063465
64.
SwaniK.LabrecqueL. I. (2020). Like, comment, or share? Self-presentation vs. brand relationships as drivers of social media engagement choices. Marketing Letters, 31(2), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09518-8
65.
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
66.
ThierK.LinT. (2022). How Solutions Journalism Shapes Support for Collective Climate Change Adaptation. Environmental Communication, 16(8), 1027–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2143842
67.
TrusslerM.SorokaS. (2014). Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(3), 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161214524832
68.
ValenzuelaS.PiñaM.RamírezJ. (2017). Behavioral effects of framing on social media users: How conflict, economic, human interest, and morality frames drive news sharing. Journal of Communication, 67(5), 803–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12325
69.
VuH. T.BlombergM.SeoH.LiuY.ShayestehF.DoH. V. (2021). Social media and environmental activism: Framing climate change on Facebook by global NGOs. Science Communication, 43(1), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020971644
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
72.
WolskoC.AriceagaH.SeidenJ. (2016). Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.005
73.
YuanS.ChenY.VojtaS.ChenY. (2022). More aggressive, more retweets? Exploring the effects of aggressive climate change messages on Twitter. New Media & Society, 26, 4409–4428. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221122202
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.
