Little is known about how journalists can engage audiences when providing news about the existential threat of climate change. This experiment tests several solutions stories against problem-oriented stories and an irrelevant control to explain how shifting the news frame may encourage climate policy support. Findings build on research showing solutions journalism increases positive affect and decreases negative affect, although these effects did not predict policy support. This study is the first to demonstrate that climate solutions news can increase readers’ individual and collective response efficacy perceptions. Results offer insight for scholars and practitioners seeking to advance pro-social climate change communication.
AbdenourJ.McIntyreK.DahmenN. S. (2021). Seeing eye to eye: A comparison of audiences’ and journalists’ perceptions of professional roles and how they relate to trust. Journalism Practice, 15(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1716828
2.
AglerR.De BoeckP. (2017). On the interpretation and use of mediation: Multiple perspectives on mediation analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1984. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01984
3.
AitamurtoT.VarmaA. (2018). The constructive role of journalism: Contentious metadiscourse on constructive journalism and solutions journalism. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 695–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1473041
4.
AkinH.ScheufeleD. A. (2017). Overview of the science of science communication. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, 25–33.
5.
AmielP.PowersM. (2019). A Trojan Horse for marketing? Solutions journalism in the French regional press. European Journal of Communication, 34(3), 233–247.
6.
BadenD. (2019). Solution-focused stories are more effective than catastrophic stories in motivating proenvironmental intentions. Ecopsychology, 11(4), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2019.0023
BanduraA. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychology and Health, 13(4), 623–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449808407422
BolsenT.ShapiroM. A. (2017). Strategic framing and persuasive messaging to influence climate change perceptions and decisions. In Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.385
BornsteinM. H.JagerJ.PutnickD. L. (2013). Sampling in developmental science: Situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Developmental Review, 33(4), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.003
14.
BorthA. C.CampbellE.MunsonS.PatzerS. M.YagatichW. A.MaibachE. (2021). Are journalists reporting on the highest-impact climate solutions? Findings from a survey of environmental journalists. Journalism Practice, 16(2–3), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.2002711
15.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P. (2021). The failings of conventional mediation analysis and a design-based alternative. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211047227
16.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933
17.
CampbellT.KayA. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963
18.
ChristiansC. G.GlasserT. L.McQuailD.NordenstrengK.WhiteR. A. (2009). Normative theories of the media: Journalism in democratic societies. University of Illinois Press.
19.
ClaytonS.KarazsiaB. T. (2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434
20.
ColemanR.ThorsonE.JimenezC.VintonK. (2022). Reaching science skeptics: How adaptive framing of climate change leads to positive responses via persuasion knowledge and perceived behavioral control. Communication Research, 51(4), 392–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221084925
21.
DasandiN.GrahamH.HudsonD.JankinS.vanHeerde-HudsonJ.WattsN. (2022). Positive, global, and health or environment framing bolsters public support for climate policies. Communications Earth & Environment, 3(1), 239. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00571-x
22.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.ChristianL. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
23.
Djerf-PierreM.EkströmM. (2025). Constructive journalism as practice—Storytelling in solutions-focused news reporting in mainstream news media. Journalism Practice, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2025.2461213
EllsworthP. C.SchererK. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In DavidsonR. J.GoldsmithH. H.SchererK. R. (Eds.), Handbook of the affective sciences (pp. 572–595). Oxford University Press.
26.
EngesserS.BrüggemannM. (2016). Mapping the minds of the mediators: The cognitive frames of climate journalists from five countries. Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 825–841. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515583621
27.
EttingerJ.WaltonP.PainterJ.DiBlasiT. (2021). Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos. Climatic Change, 164(1–2), 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-02975-8
28.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development & World Bank. (2013). Life in Transition Survey 2010 [Data set]. World Bank, Development Data Group. https://doi.org/10.48529/2CFA-ZF40
29.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
30.
FeinholdtA.SchuckA. R. T.LechelerS. K.de VreeseC. H. (2017). Shifting frames: Conditional indirect effects of contested issues on perceived effectiveness through multiple emotions. Journal of Media Psychology, 29(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000165
31.
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
32.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2018). 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
33.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2021). Upping the ante? The effects of “emergency” and “crisis” framing in climate change news. Climatic Change, 169(1–2), 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03219-5
34.
FredricksonB. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
35.
FredricksonB. L. (2004). The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
36.
FritzeJ. G.BlashkiG. A.BurkeS.WisemanJ. (2008). Hope, despair and transformation: Climate change and the promotion of mental health and wellbeing. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 2(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-4458-2-13
37.
GaltungJ.FischerD. (2013). High road, low road: Charting the course for peace journalism. In GaltungJ. (Ed.), Springer briefs on pioneers in science and practice, vol. 5. Springer.
GuentherL.BrüggemannM.ElkobrosS. (2021). From global doom to sustainable solutions: International news magazines’ multimodal framing of our future with climate change. Journalism Studies, 23, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.2007162
41.
HackettR. A.FordeS.GunsterS.Foxwell-NortonK. (2017). Journalism and climate crisis: Public engagement, media alternatives. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315668734
42.
HalpernD.ValenzuelaS.KatzJ. E. (2017). We face, I tweet: How different social media influence political participation through collective and internal efficacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(6), 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12198
43.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2014). Threat without efficacy? Climate change on US network news. Science Communication, 36(3), 325–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013520239
44.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2016a). 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
45.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2016b). The influence of climate change efficacy messages and efficacy beliefs on intended political participation. PLOS ONE, 11(8), Article e0157658. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157658
46.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
HopkinsonK. M.DahmenN. S. (2021). The case for productive and socially responsible reporting. In HopkinsonK. M.DahmenN. S (Eds.), Reporting beyond the problem: From civic journalism to solutions journalism (pp. 1–10). Peter Lang Publishing.
49.
HurlstoneM. J.LewandowskyS.NewellB. R.SewellB. (2014). The effect of framing and normative messages in building support for climate policies. PLOS ONE, 9(12), Article e114335. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114335
JinY.FraustinoJ. D.LiuB. F. (2016). The scared, the outraged, and the anxious: How crisis emotions, involvement, and demographics predict publics’ conative coping. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(4), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2016.1160401
53.
JinY.IlesI. A.AustinL.LiuB.HancockG. R. (2020). The infectious disease threat (IDT) appraisal model: How perceptions of IDT predictability and controllability predict individuals’ responses to risks. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 14(4), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2020.1801691
54.
JinY.PangA.CameronG. T. (2007). Integrated crisis mapping: Toward a publics-based, emotion-driven conceptualization in crisis communication. Sphera Publica, 7, 81–95. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=29720421006
55.
JugertP.GreenawayK. H.BarthM.BüchnerR.EisentrautS.FritscheI. (2016). Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.08.003
56.
KleemansM.DohmenR.SchlindweinL. F.TamboerS. L.de LeeuwR. N.BuijzenM. (2019). Children’s cognitive responses to constructive television news. Journalism, 20(4), 568–582.
57.
KogenL. (2019). News you can use or news that moves? Journalists’ rationales for coverage of distant suffering. Journalism Practice, 13(1), 1–15.
58.
KohlP. A.StenhouseN. (2021). 12 years left: How a climate change action deadline influences perceptions and engagement. Environmental Communication, 15(7), 986–1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1941175
59.
KovachB.RosenstielT. (2014). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect. Three Rivers Press.
60.
LazarusR. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill.
61.
LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
62.
LazarusR. S.SmithC. A. (1988). Knowledge and appraisal in the cognition—emotion relationship. Cognition & Emotion, 2(4), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699938808412701
63.
LecknerS. (2012). Presentation factors affecting reading behaviour in readers of newspaper media: An eye-tracking perspective. Visual Communication, 11(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357211434029
64.
LeiserowitzA. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006s-9059-9
65.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.RosenthalS.KotcherJ.GoddardE.BallewM.MarlonJ.VernerM.LeeS.CarmanJ.MyersT.GoldbergM.BadullovichN. (2023). Climate change in the American mind: Politics & policy, Spring 2023. Yale University, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and George Mason University, Center for Climate Change Communication. https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/all/climate-change-american-mind-politics-policy-spring-2023/
66.
LiM. (2021). The synergistic effects of solutions journalism and corporate social responsibility advertising. Digital Journalism, 9(3), 336–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1840407
67.
LoughK.McIntyreK. (2018). Journalists’ perceptions of solutions journalism and its place in the field. ISOJ Journal, 8(1), 33–52.
68.
LoughK.McIntyreK. (2023). A systematic review of constructive and solutions journalism research. Journalism, 24(5), 1069–1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211044559
69.
LuH.SchuldtJ. P. (2015). Exploring the role of incidental emotions in support for climate change policy. Climatic Change, 131(4), 719–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1443-x
70.
MadunemeE.CohenA. S. (2024). Solutions journalism stories boosts pro-environmental behavioral intentions through positive affect and collective efficacy beliefs. Environment and Behavior, 56(3–4), 244–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165241286874
MaibachE. W.NisbetM.BaldwinP.AkerlofK.DiaoG. (2010). Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-299
73.
MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (2008). Communication and marketing as climate change–intervention assets. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.016
74.
MaiellaR.La MalvaP.MarchettiD.PomaricoE.Di CrostaA.PalumboR.CetaraL.Di DomenicoA.VerrocchioM. C. (2020). The psychological distance and climate change: A systematic review on the mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 568899. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568899
75.
MaranD. A.BegottiT. (2021). Media exposure to climate change, anxiety, and efficacy beliefs in a sample of Italian university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17), 9358. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179358
76.
MarlonJ. R.BloodhartB.BallewM. T.Rolfe-ReddingJ.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2019). How hope and doubt affect climate change mobilization. Frontiers in Communication, 4, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00020
77.
MayerA.SmithE. K. (2019). Unstoppable climate change? The influence of fatalistic beliefs about climate change on behavioural change and willingness to pay cross-nationally. Climate Policy, 19(4), 511–523.
78.
McIntyreK. (2020). “Tell me something good”: Testing the longitudinal effects of constructive news using the Google assistant. Electronic News, 14(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243120910446
79.
McIntyreK.GyldenstedC. (2018a). Constructive journalism: An introduction and practical guide for applying positive psychology techniques to news production. The Journal of Media Innovations, 4(2), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.5617/jomi.v4i2.2403
80.
McIntyreK.GyldenstedC. (2018b). Positive psychology as a theoretical foundation for constructive journalism. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 662–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1472527
81.
McIntyreK.LoughK. (2023). Evaluating the effects of solutions and constructive journalism: A systematic review of audience-focused research. Newspaper Research Journal, 44, 276–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/07395329231187622
82.
McIntyreK.SobelM. (2017). Motivating news audiences: Shock them or provide them with solutions?Communication & Society, 30(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.30.1.39-56
83.
McIntyreK. E.LoughK. (2021). Toward a clearer conceptualization and operationalization of solutions journalism. Journalism, 22(6), 1558–1573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918820756
84.
MeierK. (2018). How does the audience respond to constructive journalism? Two experiments with multifaceted results. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 764–780. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1470472
85.
MeijersM. H. C.WonnebergerA.AzroutR.TorfadóttirR.“Heather”BrickC. (2023). Introducing and testing the personal-collective-governmental efficacy typology: How personal, collective, and governmental efficacy subtypes are associated with differential environmental actions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 85, 101915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101915
86.
MeijndersA. L.MiddenC. J. H.WilkeH. A. M. (2001). Role of negative emotion in communication about CO2 risks. Risk Analysis, 21(5), 955–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.215164
MellorN.NguyenA. (2023). Engaging audiences with local news: Can solutions journalism be a solution to local media crisis?International Journal of Communication, 17, 19.
89.
MyersT. A.NisbetM. C.MaibachE. W.LeiserowitzA. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change: A letter. Climatic Change, 113(3–4), 1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
NabiR. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference?Communication Research, 30(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881
92.
NabiR. L.GustafsonA.JensenR. (2018). Framing climate change: Exploring the role of emotion in generating advocacy behavior. Science Communication, 40(4), 442–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018776019
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. 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
95.
O’KeefeD. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x
96.
O’KeefeD. J. (2023). Comparison conditions in research on persuasive message effects: Aligning evidence and claims about persuasiveness. Communication Methods and Measures, 17(3), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2023.2214949
97.
OlaussonU. (2009). Global warming—Global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507081242
98.
OlofssonK. L.WeibleC. M.HeikkilaT.MartelJ. C. (2018). Using nonprofit narratives and news media framing to depict air pollution in Delhi, India. Environmental Communication, 12(7), 956–972. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1309442
99.
O’NeillS.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
100.
O’RourkeH. P.MacKinnonD. P. (2018). Reasons for testing mediation in the absence of an intervention effect: A research imperative in prevention and intervention research. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 79(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2018.79.171
101.
OvergaardC. S. B. (2021). Constructive journalism in the face of a crisis: The effects of social media news updates about COVID-19. Journalism Studies, 22(14), 1875–1893. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1971107
102.
OvergaardC. S. B. (2022). Mitigating the consequences of negative news: How constructive journalism enhances self-efficacy and news credibility. Journalism, 24, 1424–1441. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211062738
PowersE.CurryA. (2019). NO QUICK FIX: How journalists assess the impact and define the boundaries of solutions journalism. Journalism Studies, 20(15), 2237–2257. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1586565
105.
ReserJ. P.BradleyG. L. (2020). The nature, significance, and influence of perceived personal experience of climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11(5), e668. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.668
106.
RohrerJ. M.HünermundP.ArslanR. C.ElsonM. (2022). That’s a lot to process! Pitfalls of popular path models. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/251524592210958
RosenberryJ. (2021). Civic journalism: Current journalism innovations can trace their ancestry to civic journalism. In McIntyre HopkinsonK.DahmenN. S. (Eds.), Reporting beyond the problem: From civic journalism to solutions journalism (pp. 11–28). Peter Lang Verlag.
109.
SchäferS.GreberH.SülflowM.LechelerS. (2022). A matter of perspective: An experimental study on potentials of constructive journalism for communicating a crisis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 101(3), 774–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221095751
110.
SchererK. R. (1999). Appraisal theory. In DalgleishT.PowerM. (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 637–663). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013494.ch30
111.
SellnowT. L.SeegerM. W. (2021). Theorizing crisis communication (2nd ed). Wiley-Blackwell.
112.
SimM.KimS.-Y.SuhY. (2022). Sample size requirements for simple and complex mediation models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 82(1), 76–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644211003261
113.
SimisM. J.MaddenH.CacciatoreM. A.YeoS. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
SkurkaC.TroyC.CuiZ.& Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2023). Efficacy constructs in media use and effects: Organizing and appraising the literature. Annals of the International Communication Association, 47, 114–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2022.2142150
116.
SlovicP.FinucaneM. L.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
117.
SmithN.LeiserowitzA. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 937–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12140
118.
SoJ. (2013). A further extension of the Extended Parallel Process Model (E-EPPM): Implications of cognitive appraisal theory of emotion and dispositional coping style. Health Communication, 28(1), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.708633
SpenceA.PidgeonN. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
122.
StanleyS. K.HoggT. L.LevistonZ.WalkerI. (2021). From anger to action: Differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and wellbeing. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 1, 100003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100003
123.
ThierK. (2016). Opportunities and challenges for initial implementation of solutions journalism coursework. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 71(3), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695816666078
124.
ThierK. (2021). Solutions journalism: Reporting on the response is just as newsworthy as reporting on the problem. In McIntyre HopkinsonK.DahmenN. S. (Eds.), Reporting beyond the problem: From civic journalism to solutions journalism (pp. 49–62). Peter Lang Verlag.
125.
ThierK.LinT. (2022). How solutions journalism shapes support for collective climate change adaptation. Environmental Communication, 16, 1027–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2143842
126.
ThierK.NamkoongK. (2023). Identifying major components of solutions-oriented journalism: A review to guide future research. Journalism Studies, 24(12), 1557–1574. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2230314
127.
TroyC. L. (2024). The potential of solutions journalism for climate risk mitigation: A mixed methods investigation. The Pennsylvania State University.
128.
van der LindenS. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012
129.
van ProoijenJ.-W.KrouwelA. P. M.PolletT. V. (2015). Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614567356
130.
WagemansA.WitschgeT.HarbersF. (2019). Impact as driving force of journalistic and social change. Journalism, 20(4), 552–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918770538
131.
WenzelA.GersonD.MorenoE.SonM.Morrison HawkinsB. (2018). Engaging stigmatized communities through solutions journalism: Residents of South Los Angeles respond. Journalism, 19(5), 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917703125
132.
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
133.
WitteK. (1996). Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health Communication, 1(4), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/108107396127988
134.
Wong-ParodiG.FeyginaI. (2021). Engaging people on climate change: The role of emotional responses. Environmental Communication, 15(5), 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1871051
135.
YoungbloodS. (2021). Peace journalism: Reporting nonviolent resolutions to conflict. In McIntyre Hopkinson & N. S. DahmenK. (Eds.), Reporting beyond the problem: From civic journalism to solutions journalism (pp. 127–152). Peter Lang Verlag.
ZhaoX.JacksonD.NguyenA. (2022). The psychological empowerment potential of solutions journalism: Perspectives from pandemic news users in the UK. Journalism Studies, 23(3), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.2023324
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.
