Climate Change Advocacy and Engagement on Social Media

Abstract

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.

Keywords

climate change advocacy public engagement Facebook strategic science communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al-Rawi

(2019). Viral news on social media. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1387062

Auxier

Anderson

(2021, April 7). Social media use in 2021. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03

Berger

Milkman

K. L.

(2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353

Bieniek-Tobasco

McCormick

Rimal

R. N.

Harrington

C. B.

Shafer

Shaikh

(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

Bode

(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

Borah

(2011). Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61, 246–263.

Boulianne

Lalancette

Ilkiw

(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

Boykoff

M. 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.

Brady

W. J.

Wills

J. A.

Jost

J. T.

Tucker

J. A.

Van Bavel

J. 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.

Brosch

(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.

Chadwick

A. 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.

Chang

C. H.

Armsworth

P. R.

Masuda

Y. 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.

Chen

Molder

A. L.

Duan

Boulianne

Eckart

Mallari

Yang

(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.

Chinn

Hart

P. S.

Soroka

(2020). Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985-2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019900290

16.

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

17.

Core Writing Team, Lee

Romero

(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.

Dunlap

R. E.

(2013). Climate change skepticism and denial: An introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 691–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213477097

19.

Dunlap

R. E.

McCright

A. M.

Yarosh

J. 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

20.

Feinberg

Willer

(2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612449177

21.

Feldman

Hart

P. 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.

Feldman

Hart

P. 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.

Feldman

Hart

P. 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.

Feldman

Hart

P. 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.

Feldman

Hart

P. S.

Milosevic

(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

26.

Fine

J. A.

Hunt

M. F.

(2023). Negativity and elite message diffusion on social media. Political Behavior, 45(3), 955–973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09740-8

27.

Geiger

Dwyer

Swim

J. K.

(2023). Hopium or empowering hope? A meta-analysis of hope and climate engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1139427. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1139427

28.

Hansen

L. K.

Arvidsson

Nielsen

F. A.

Colleoni

Etter

(2011). Good friends, bad news—Affect and virality in Twitter. In Park

J. J.

Yang

L. T.

Lee

(Eds.), Future information technology (pp. 34–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22309-9_5

29.

Hart

P. S.

Feldman

(2014). Threat without efficacy? Climate change on U.S. network news. Science Communication, 36(3), 325–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013520239

30.

Hart

P. S.

Feldman

(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.

Hart

P. S.

Nisbet

E. 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.

Heiss

Schmuck

Matthes

(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.

Hestres

L. 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.

Hestres

L. 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.

Hodder

Martin

(2009). Climate crisis? The politics of emergency framing. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(36), 53–60.

36.

Jang

S. 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.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

38.

Katz-Kimchi

Manosevitch

(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.

Kim

Yang

S.-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.

Kim

D. H.

Weeks

B. E.

Lane

D. S.

Hahn

L. B.

Kwak

(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.

Kim

J. 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.

Kite

Foley

B. C.

Grunseit

A. C.

Freeman

(2016). Please like me: Facebook and public health communication. PLOS ONE, 11(9), Article e0162765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162765

43.

Kotcher

Feldman

Luong

K. T.

Wyatt

Maibach

(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.

León

Bourk

Finkler

Boykoff

Davis

L. 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.

Marcus

G. E.

MacKuen

Neuman

W. 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

46.

Miller

J. M.

Krosnick

J. A.

(2004). Threat as a motivator of political activism: A field experiment. Political Psychology, 25(4), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00384.x

47.

Moser

S. C.

Dilling

(2004). Making climate HOT. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 46(10), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139150409605820

48.

Myers

T. A.

Nisbet

M. C.

Maibach

E. W.

Leiserowitz

A. 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.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12–23.

51.

Oeldorf-Hirsch

Sundar

S. 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’Neill

S. J.

Nicholson-Cole

(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’Neill

S. J.

Williams

H. T. P.

Kurz

Wiersma

Boykoff

(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.

Painter

Ashe

(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.

Pierce

J. J.

Peterson

H. L.

Jones

M. D.

Garrard

S. P.

(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.

Rode

J. B.

Dent

A. L.

Benedict

C. N.

Brosnahan

D. B.

Martinez

R. L.

Ditto

P. 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.

Rösner

Winter

Krämer

N. 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.

Ryan

T. 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.

Schäfer

M. 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

60.

Segerberg

(2017). Online and social media campaigns for climate change engagement. In Segerberg

(Ed.), Oxford research Encyclopedia of climate science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.398

61.

Segerberg

Bennett

W. 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.

Stieglitz

Dang-Xuan

(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-Galley

Rossini

Hemsley

Bolden

S. E.

McKernan

(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.

Swani

Labrecque

L. 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.

Tannenbaum

M. B.

Hepler

Zimmerman

R. S.

Saul

Jacobs

Wilson

Albarracín

(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.

Thier

Lin

(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.

Trussler

Soroka

(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.

Valenzuela

Piña

Ramírez

(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.

H. T.

Blomberg

Seo

Liu

Shayesteh

H. 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

70.

Weber

(2013). Emotions, campaigns, and political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912449697

71.

Witte

(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.

Wolsko

Ariceaga

Seiden

(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.

Yuan

Chen

Vojta

Chen

(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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB