Browse
Engage
Research
From Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, to emotionally wrenching visions such as this video shown at last year's Copenhagen climate meeting, many climate change communicators opt for shock and emotional awe in their efforts to stir action. Given the scope of the fears, it's an understandable tactic.
In fact, litanies of massive environmental disruption -- often paired with images of imperiled children (here, here and here) -- have become a sort of visual cliché used by even the most sophisticated messengers in this arena. Gore's movie -- despite being essentially a PowerPoint presentation on steroids -- even won an Oscar. At their best, they can be educational, stirring visions meant to motivate the public.
At their worst, they do the exact opposite. Given the parlous state of climate efforts, it's pretty obvious that these apocalyptic warnings aren't winning over droves. I've seen it first hand: For every person moved to act by Gore's work, I've observe others who respond with a fatalistic shrug asking, in effect, what could I possibly do about it? Still others have vaulted clear over ambivalence to outright antagonism, angered by the threat these visions suggest, and their implicit accusation of fault.
Now behavioral researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have shed some scientific light on these unintended consequences of climate communication. The new study, which will be published in the January issue of Psychological Science, suggests that dire descriptions of global warming, in isolation, can backfire, causing viewers to shut off, before considering the problem.
In their paper, "Apocalypse Soon? Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just World Beliefs," [PDF] researchers Matthew Feinberg and Robb Willer highlight the basic fact that fear and fatalism are poor motivators. The conclusion offers a reminder that, for all the billions being put into mitigating climate change, developing better understanding of human behavior could lead to more change at lower cost.
Adam, great article, great
Adam, great article, great food for thought. My organization, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, works with local government staff, and my feeling is that for planners, it's still important to emphasize the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change that could occur if they do not take action to lower GHG emissions and prepare their communities for unavoidable impacts.
Local governments, however, do a lot of communication/outreach/education to community members, and I think this study is something they should consider. I think local govs already do a good job of highlighting the economic, environmental, and social equity benefits of climate action and sustainability, but this further underscores the need for that type of messaging. I'm glad you linked to the Engage360 site, great example.
Adam, This article is the
Adam,
This article is the first I've seen to incorporate Feinberg & Willer. Congratulations. But while the end isn't near, the tipping point to that end either is near, or has been passed—unless you can explain away what is going on in the high northern latitudes with methane.
Of all the data and reading I've done, Dlugokencky et al in "Observational constraints on recent increases in the atmospheric CH4 burden" do so with a "yet" that is based on two years of data in a decade that has seen ~50 ppb increase in methane; uses 6 surface air sampling sites in Arctic, of which three are in Alaska, and averaged the data to apply to the whole of the Arctic and make a measured increase noted in Svalbard go away http://www.ekopolitan.com/sites/default/files/images/art_svalbard_methan.... Given that Bloom et al in "Large-Scale Controls of Methanogenesis Inferred from Methane and Gravity Spaceborne Data" have quantified Arctic wetlands contributing about 30% of the renewed increase in methane in the atmosphere, I'd want more proof than conclusions made decades ago—that the methane time bomb is a distant concern (as seems to be implied by what you've written—and an application of Feinberg & Willer)—to base a comforting assertion on.
BTW, if I remember Feinberg & Willer study's conclusions correctly, not scaring people did not necessarily led to relevant and rational action, only a higher likelihood of getting a hearing. Since, one way or another, AGW (and/or peak oil) is the end of a fossil carbon -based paradigm, you may get a hearing but you may also be making it harder for hearing the people that need to be heard.
There is an old adage about things that should not be talked about in mixed company. Maybe issues concerning klimakatastrophe need to be added to that list to protect those who are easily overwhelmed by disturbing news. But for that to be rational, there still needs to be the parlor, brandy, and cigars for those who are not so challenged to go and make decisions about actions that are now long over due.
PS: Links to referenced studies:
Dlugokencky: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039780.shtml
Bloom: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;327/5963/322
I think the trend of 'scare
I think the trend of 'scare tactic' movies is coming to an end. Just look at the 'personal action' and comedic eco-documentaries on the rise like No Impact Man (www.noimpactdoc.com) and The Clean Bin Project (www.cleanbinmovie.com). People don't want to be overwhelmed by fear mongering - they want to be inspired to change something in their own lives.