Polarizing Messages Change Nothing: A Realistic

1. Polarizing Messages Change Nothing: A Realistic Look at Messaging Effects on Environmental Attitudes John F. Weaver (CSU), Lindsey C. Harkabus (TU), & Steve Miller (CSU) Method Purpose Results Experiment 1 Participants N=365; 228 females; 95% aged 18-22; 78% Caucasian; 64% freshman; 30% Democrat, 36% Republican; 30% Independent/Other Procedure/Measures 3 Conditions + survey of global warming attitudes (GWAT), brief inventory of values (BIV), new environmental paradigm (NEP), belief in just world (BJW), and climate knowledge questions This study examined how polarizing messages that emphasize different consequences of global warming (e.g., provide messages about environmental threats using fear appeals versus mild information) may differentially effect individual’s attitudes toward the environment, global warming, and climate knowledge. Experiment 1 different message conditions did not create differences in participant attitudes toward global warming or other variables measured. Experiment 1 differences in GWAT, NEP, BIV, and BJW are found when examining differences among political parties Wilk’s Lambda 3.68, p<.001. Differences in all variables exist between Republicans and both Democrats and Independents, however Democrats and Independents only exhibit differences in BIV and GWAT (although both score more favorably than Republicans). Experiment 1 Political party group means, standard deviations & multivariate effects FEAR APPEAL INFORMATIONAL M1: Some scientists believe that dangerous global warming is taking place right now, that it is being driven almost entirely by excessive human activity (day-to-day driving, long distance travel, heating/cooling of homes and businesses, manufacturing, etc.), and that if left unchecked, it could lead to irreparable environmental damage within relatively short time. This group strongly believes that; 1) the country must curtail a significant portion of its power usage (including day-to-day driving, long distance travel, heating/cooling of homes and businesses, etc),as well as much of its manufacturing, at least until alternative, green energy sources are fully developed, 2) the government should pass strict regulations to assure compliance, including heavy fines for non-compliance, and 3) gasoline should be taxed so that prices double, or even triple, in order to force people, economically, to reduce their driving. CONTROL M2: A certain percentage of scientists realize that the global mean temperature has risen roughly one degree Celsius over the past 160years and believe that some portion of this warming is due to human activity. These scientists suggest that the environment may be affected if this trend continues over the next several decades. They suggest that the human contribution could be reduced through simple conservation measures such as traveling a little less and conserving energy whenever possible. They reason that most people feel that conservation is not a bad thing, anyway. M3: Scientists know that the earth is the third planet from the sun, that it revolves around the sun in 365 days and that it is positioned between Venus and Mars. Seventy-one percent of the surface is water, the rest is land. The next several questions are designed to test participants’ beliefs and attitudes on the topic of global warming. Experiment 2 messages provided did not create differences in participant attitudes, however results reveal message information may affect climate knowledge and those differences in climate knowledge appear to last over time (differences in climate knowledge based off condition exist at both T2 and T3). The content of the mild message may provide explanation for the differences in climate knowledge; what is interesting is that the participants did not just learn the climate information, they retained it. Experiment 2 political party differences matched those produced in Experiment 1. Introduction Experiment 2 Participants T1 = 196; T2 = 148; T3 = 129; female (58%); caucasian (71%); 95% aged 18-22; 32% Democrat, 34% Republican, and 34% Independent/Other Procedure T1 = baseline for global warming GWA), brief inventory of values (BIV), new environmental paradigm (NEP), climate knowledge, and general self-esteem. T2 = message manipulation & fillers. T3 = final scores on all measures inventoried during Time 1. Concerns over the consequences of climate change have been expressed publically in a variety of media by a variety of outlets. Despite the numerous and varied appeals it is apparent that both uncertainty and confusion regarding climate change remain (e.g., Bostrom, Morgan, Fischhoff, & Read,1994; Read, Bostrom, Morgan, Fischhoff, Smuts, & Reynolds, 1994; Reynolds et al., 2010). Unfortunately, this confusion may be a result of ineffective messaging content and technique. Messages that use informational techniques and messages that accentuate harmful consequences (fear appeals) often illicit mixed results (Hass, Bagley, & Rogers 1975; Higbee, 1969; Rogers, 1975). Using messages highlighting information sometimes results in immediate behavioral changes, however long-term effects are mixed, whereas using fear-appeal messages often produces unwanted results, including reactance (Brehm, 1966; DeJong, 2002). The present study utilizes a survey designed to test the idea that polarizing warning messages on the topic of climate change may help facilitate reactance and decrease actual climate knowledge. Two studies were run to examine the following questions: Experiment 1: Does environmental messaging affect attitude immediately? Experiment 2: Does message manipulation affect attitude over time? Conclusions • Strong, fear-based messaging on global warming did not affect environmental attitude either immediately, or over time. • Participants who received the mild/informational global warming messaging, containing some atmospheric climate information, seem to have learned and retained this information. • Mild-informational messages may impact actual learning of climate information – Future question on whether this information can impact attitudes over time as well?! • In agreement with previous studies, political affiliation seems to be a factor in environmental attitudes and beliefs, with Republicans being the most skeptical. • Democrats and Independents have very similar scores on most variables measured, however both Democrats and Independent produced more favorable attitudes toward the issue of global warming, attitudes toward the environment in general, and valuing the environment when compared to Republicans. FEAR APPEAL M1: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch) concludes in its 4th Assessment Report that global warming has been occurring for some time (at least since the early 1800’s), and has very likely been being driven by human activities. The report suggests that increased production of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide by human activity effectively trap Earth’s heat in a way similar to the function of a greenhouse. In fact, many scientists believe that the global mean temperature is increasing at an alarming rate. The impacts of human-induced warming are not limited to temperature. Climate modelers suggest that human activities have likely contributed to glacial melting and sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century, changed wind patterns that affect storm tracks, increased frequency of heat waves and cold snaps, and increased risk of both flooding events and droughts. They contend that, if our actions are left unmitigated, they could lead to serious and potentially irreparable damage to the biosphere, upon whose resources we rely. This could happen within a relatively short period of time. More troubling still is the possibility of reaching a climatological ‘tipping point’ where the climate system is forced in a runaway greenhouse effect, similar to the current state of the planet Venus. The IPCC recommendation is for immediate and significant mitigation efforts (in terms of globally enforced policies on greenhouse gas emission reductions) to slow down the human-induced climate change processes which are already very much underway. INFORMATIONAL M2:The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch) concludes in its 4th Assessment Report that global warming has been occurring since the early 1800’s. They point to climatological records that show the global mean temperature has risen between 1 and 1.5 degrees C. Most scientists agree on this estimate, though many point out that early thermometers were much less accurate than those of the past 50 years and also that the global coverage of thermometers was much less in the past. A number of climate researchers attribute global warming predominately to human activities. They point to an increase of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide produced by human activity. These gases can trap Earth’s heat in a way similar to the function of a greenhouse. They caution that carbon dioxide cannot be removed by the effects of weather and that it can reside in the atmosphere upwards of a decade. However, other scientists (e.g., www.petitionproject.org) point to the fact that CO2 constitutes only about 0.04% of the atmosphere and the increase in temperature due to adding CO2 decreases exponentially the more that is added. Also, methane is a trace gas -- with a concentration of only about 0.0002%. This group of scientists points to longer-term temperature records (derived over the past 3,000 years from ice and sediment cores) which show large variations in temperature, including warmer periods than the present, which had absolutely nothing to do with human activity, but instead relate to natural fluctuations within the complex climate system. While not discounting human influence, these scientists question predictions of dire consequences. They challenge the current ability of climate prediction models to accurately represent the complex and interactive climate system , much less to give credible guidance on what might happen next. At present, climate modeling does have some serious shortcomings in dealing with critical processes involving global cloudiness and the biosphere. Also, ocean and atmosphere processes and their interactions – which govern the abundance of atmospheric water vapor—are entirely parameterized. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than any of the other gases that reside in the atmosphere. Such shortcomings have forced modelers to introduce energy balance ‘corrections’ that are significantly larger than the greenhouse gas influences themselves to describe our current climate state. Thus, while viewing the global warming issue with increasing scientific interest, some feel it premature to regard the forecast of dire consequences as pre-mature and urge caution in supporting excessive adaptive strategies at the present time. To receive a copy please email Lindsey Harkabus at lharkabus@troy.edu