Linguistic agency assignment is an unavoidable yet understudied feature in climate messaging. We propose temporal (moving-time/moving-ego), causal (natural/human), and action (non-agential/human) agency as distinct features targeting three core cognitive demands in climate communication: risk perception, responsibility, and efficacy beliefs. Through a 2 (temporal agency: moving-time vs. moving-ego) × 2 (causal agency: natural vs. human) × 2 (action agency: non-agential vs. human) between-subjects experiment with 1,917 participants, the results showed that moving-time temporal agency amplifies risk perceptions, human causal agency strengthens responsibility, and human action agency increases efficacy. However, inconsistent agency assignments reduce intention and trigger defensive reactions.
ArmahF. A.YengohG. T.UngM.LuginaahI.ChuenpagdeeR.CampbellG. (2017). The unusual suspects? Perception of underlying causes of anthropogenic climate change in coastal communities in Cambodia and Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(12), 2150–2173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1281797
2.
BaschC. H.YalamanchiliB.FeraJ. (2022). #Climate change on TikTok: A content analysis of videos. Journal of Community Health, 47, 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-021-01031-x
3.
BashmakovI. A.NilssonL. J.AcquayeA.BatailleC.CullenJ. M.FischedickM.TanakaK. (2022). Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change [Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Chapter 11].
4.
BellR. A.McGloneM. S.DragojevicM. (2013). Vicious viruses and vigilant vaccines: Effects of linguistic agency assignment in health policy advocacy. Journal of Health Communication, 19(10), 1178–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.811330
5.
BellR. A.McGloneM. S.DragojevicM. (2014). Bacteria as bullies: Effects of linguistic agency assignment in health message. Journal of Health Communication, 19(3), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.798383
6.
BoukesM. (2022). Episodic and thematic framing effects on the attribution of responsibility: The effects of personalized and contextualized news on perceptions of individual and political responsibility for causing the economic crisis. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(2), 374–395.
7.
ChartrandT. L.BarghJ. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910.
8.
ChenM.McGloneM. S.BellR. A. (2015). Persuasive effects of linguistic agency assignments and point of view in narrative health messages about colon cancer. Journal of Health Communication, 20(8), 977–988.
9.
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
10.
ChishakweN.MurrayM.LaurelC. M. (2012). Building climate change adaptation on community experiences. International Institute for Environment and Development.
11.
ChuH.YangJ. Z. (2019). Emotion and the psychological distance of climate change. Science Communication, 41(6), 761–789. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019889637
12.
CoppolaV.McGloneM. S.GirandolaF.CamusO. (2019). Persuasive effects of linguistic agency assignment and linguistic markers of argumentation in health messages about an emerging sexually transmitted disease. Journal of Health Communication, 25(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2019.1697398
13.
DahlstromM. F.RosenthalS. (2018). Third-person perception of science narratives: The case of climate change denial. Science Communication, 40(3), 340–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018766556
14.
DiRussoC.MyrickJ. G. (2021). Sustainability in CSR messages on social media: How emotional framing and efficacy affect emotional response, memory and persuasion. Environmental Communication, 15(8), 1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1933120
15.
DowtyD. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.
16.
DragojevicM.BellR. A.McGloneM. S. (2014). Giving radon gas life through language: Effects of linguistic agency assignment in health messages about inanimate threats. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X13495738
17.
DruckmanJ. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225–256.
18.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory, 390, 397.
19.
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), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-02975-8
20.
FawzyS.OsmanA. I.DoranJ.RooneyD. W. (2020). Strategies for mitigation of climate change: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 18(6), 2069–2094.
21.
FeiX.HamiltonG. G.ZhengW. (1992). From the soil: The foundations of Chinese society. University of California Press.
22.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2017). 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
23.
FrankP.HenkelG.LysgaardJ. A. (2024). Between evidence and delusion—A scoping review of cognitive biases in Environmental and Sustainability Education. Environmental Education Research, 30(9), 1477–1499. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2371507
24.
FrantzC. M. (2022). To create serious movement on climate change, we must dispel the myth of indifference. Nature Communications, 13(1), Article 2679. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32413-x
25.
GeigerN.SwimJ. K.FraserJ. (2017). Creating a climate for change: Interventions, efficacy and public discussion about climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.010
26.
GeigerN.SwimJ. K.GasperK.FraserJ.FlinnerK. (2021). How do I feel when I think about taking action? Hope and boredom, not anxiety and helplessness, predict intentions to take climate action. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101649
27.
GiffordR. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
28.
GlowackiE. M.McGloneM. S.BellR. A. (2016). Targeting Type 2: Linguistic agency assignment in diabetes prevention policy messaging. Journal of Health Communication, 21(4), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1095821
29.
GrossK.D’ambrosioL. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25(1), 1–29.
30.
GuentherL.GaertnerM.ZeitzJ. (2020). Framing as a concept for health communication: A systematic review. Health Communication, 36(7), 891–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1723048
31.
HanssonS. (2015). Discursive strategies of blame avoidance in government: A framework for analysis. Discourse & Society, 26(3), 297–322.
32.
HartP. S. (2011). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication, 33(1), 28–51.
33.
HaseV.MahlD.SchäferM. S.KellerT. R. (2021). Climate change in news media across the globe: An automated analysis of issue attention and themes in climate change coverage in 10 countries (2006–2018). Global Environmental Change, 70, 102353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102353
34.
HatfieldE.CacioppoJ. T.RapsonR. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 96–100.
35.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
36.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage.
37.
IyengarS. (1990). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2(1), 1–15.
38.
IyengarS. (1994). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press.
39.
JaspalR.NerlichB.CinnirellaM. (2014). Human responses to climate change: Social representation, identity and socio-psychological action. Environmental Communication, 8(1), 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.846270
40.
KimS. H.ScheufeleD. A.ShanahanJ. (2002). Think about it this way: Attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 7–25.
41.
KingA. Y.BondM. H. (1985). The Confucian paradigm of man: A sociological view. In TsengW. S.WuD. Y. H. (Eds.), Chinese culture and mental health (pp. 29–45). Academic Press.
42.
KlaimanM. H. (1988). Affectedness and control: A typology of voice systems. In ShibataniM. (Ed.), Passive and voice (Typological Studies in Language 16) (pp. 25–83). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
43.
KleinR. J.SchipperE. L. F.DessaiS. (2005). Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: Three research questions. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(6), 579–588.
LeeT. M.MarkowitzE. M.HoweP. D.KoC.-Y.LeiserowitzA. A. (2015). Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 1014–1020. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2728
46.
LiY.ShapiroJ. (2020). China goes green: Coercive environmentalism for a troubled planet. Wiley.
47.
LouX.LiL. M. W.ItoK. (2025). Compensating personal climate response inefficacy with political conservatism?Political Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70045
48.
LoyL. S.HamannK. R. S.ReeseG. (2020). Navigating through the jungle of information: Informational self-efficacy predicts climate change-related media exposure, knowledge, and behaviour. Climatic Change, 163(4), 2097–2116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02918-9
49.
MaH.MillerC. H. (2020). The effects of agency assignment and reference point on responses to COVID-19 messages. Health Communication, 36(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1848066
50.
MaX.YangY.ChenL. (2023). Promoting behaviors to mitigate the effects of climate change: Using the extended parallel process model at the personal and collective level in China. Environmental Communication, 17(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2181134
51.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Cultural variation in the self-concept. In StraussJ.GoethalsG. R. (Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 18–48). Springer.
52.
MayorS. (2011). Specialists condemn government’s obesity plan as too simplistic. The BMJ, 343, d6688.
53.
McGloneM. S.BellR. A.ZaitchikS. T.McGlynnJ.III (2013). Don’t let the flu catch you: Agency assignment in printed educational materials about the H1N1 influenza virus. Journal of Health Communication, 18(6), 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.727950
54.
McGloneM. S.HardingJ. L. (1998). Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perspective in temporal language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24(5), 1211–1223.
55.
McGloneM. S.PfiesterR. A. (2009). Does time fly when you’re having fun, or do you? Affect, agency, and embodiment in temporal communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X08325744
56.
McGloneM. S.StephensK. K.JiaM.MontagnoloC.XuY. (2024). Multiple messaging strategies for increasing HPV vaccination intentions among English- and Spanish-speaking parents in the United States and Mexico. Vaccines, 12(6), 650. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines12060650
57.
McGloneM. S.StephensK. K.RodriguezS. A.FernandezM. E. (2017). Persuasive texts for prompting action: Agency assignment in HPV vaccination reminders. Vaccine, 35(34), 4295–4297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.06.080
NerlichB.KoteykoN. (2012). Crying wolf? Biosecurity and metacommunication in the context of the 2009 swine flu pandemic. Health & Place, 18(4), 710–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.02.008
60.
NisbettR. E.MiyamotoY. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 467–473.
61.
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.
62.
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(7), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701615198
63.
ParkH. I. (2022). The role of language in expressing agentivity in caused motion events: A cross-linguistic investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 878277.
64.
ParryM. L.CanzianiO. F.PalutikofJ. P.van der LindenP. J.HansonC. E. (Eds.). (2007). Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press.
RothmanA. J.BartelsR. D.WlaschinJ.SaloveyP. (2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56(Suppl. 1), S202–S220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x
68.
SalomonE.PrestonJ. L.TannenbaumM. B. (2017). Climate change helplessness and the (de)moralization of individual energy behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000105
69.
SchröderP. (2011). Civil climate change activism in China—More than meets the eye. German Asia Foundation/Asienstifltun.
SpringerS. A.HarwoodJ. (2015). The influence of episodic and thematic frames on policy and group attitudes: Mediational analysis. Human Communication Research, 41(2), 226–244.
72.
SunY.KrakowM.JohnK. K.LiuM.WeaverJ. (2016). Framing obesity: How news frames shape attributions and behavioral responses. Journal of Health Communication, 21(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1039676
73.
TemmannL. J.WiedickeA.SchallerS.ScherrS.ReifegersteD. (2021). A systematic review of responsibility frames and their effects in the health context. Journal of Health Communication, 26(12), 828–838.
74.
Van LangeP. A. M.HuckelbaA. L. (2021). Psychological distance: How to make climate change less abstract and closer to the self. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.03.011
WeberE. U. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3
WibeckV. (2014). Social representations of climate change in Swedish lay focus groups: Local or distant, gradual or catastrophic?Public Understanding of Science, 23(2), 204–219.
79.
WinterichK. P.ReczekR. W.MakovT. (2023). How lack of knowledge on emissions and psychological biases deter consumers from taking effective action to mitigate climate change. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 52(5), 1475–1494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00981-z
80.
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
81.
WitteK. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communications Monographs, 61(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376328
WozniakA.LückJ.WesslerH. (2015). Frames, stories, and images: The advantages of a multimodal approach in comparative media content research on climate change. Environmental Communication, 9(4), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1056546
84.
ZhangZ.JiaM.McGloneM. S. (2022). Communicating antibiotic resistance via linguistic agency assignment. Health Communication, 38(14), 3287–3300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2022.2147125
85.
ZhangZ.McGloneM. S. (2019). Language matters: Effects of linguistic agency assignment on HPV prevention advocacy in Chinese public health education materials. Chinese Journal of Communication, 12(2), 166–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2019.1583678
