Climate Change Communication Quiz

As we all know, one issue climate change mitigation faces is a lack of discussion in our everyday conversations. Stoknes highlights the importance of face-to-face conversations and research indicates that when individuals talk to friends and family that care about climate change, they are more likely to agree with the science and their concern increases (Lawson et al., 2019; Goldberg, Linden, Maibach & Leiserowitz, 2019). Since individual communication plays a significant role in changing how people think about climate change and how they behave, for the action project I created a quiz that allows the individual to formulate a communication plan tailored to the person they want to talk to. The project's objective was to help give people a starting point and intends to increase their self-efficacy about having discussions with people they know. The idea is that if people are given some format for how to approach the conversation, they will be more likely to do so. The method seeks to make the conversation more positive by giving people specific frames and narratives that correspond with the other person's values and beliefs and would subsequently help reduce polarization around the topic.

The short series of multiple-choice questions on the person's climate change beliefs, political party, gender and world views, were chosen based on some of the factors that influence individual views and attitudes towards climate change (Dunlap & Brulle, 2015). In the end, five questions were chosen and mainly stuck to yes or no since there ended up being a crazy amount of different outcomes.

To gauge the recipients' views of climate change, a useful segmentation was the Global Warming’s Six Americans (Weber & Stern, 2011; Taylor, Lamm, Israel & Rampold 2018). Assuming individuals taking the quiz were likely trying to talk to people who are opposed to or less engaged with climate change, the scope was narrowed down to cautious, disengaged, doubtful, and dismissive groups of people. The second question asked if the person's views aligned more with Liberals or Conservatives and was based on the notion that public understanding is heavily influenced by values and world views that align with certain political groups (Wolsko, Ariceaga, & Seiden, 2016). Then questions about kids and religion were chosen as different avenues for talking points that people can utilize and are based on some of the narratives Stoknes provides for reaching people more effectively. The question of gender was added last based on it being a predictor variable but also because research also shown that traditional stereotypes may inform message frames (Brough, Wilkie, Ma, Isaac, & Gal, 2016).

Once completed, the quiz leads the person to different outcome pages with a specific profile based on their answers and gives them a number of different approaches. The outcomes relay several important communication techniques we have learned throughout the semester and apply them to the various characteristics of the individual. Examples are given for different things to say and some additional external sources are provided for some of the outcomes such as climate change impacts by state to help people talk about more personal and local issues. Different frames and narratives were suggested based on the persons characteristics. For instance, cognitive barriers of distance to perceiving risk was addressed for the cautious group, who had low perceptions of risk, and suggested that they emphasize the present and make climate change issues personal by using local examples. For those who knew little about climate change, it was suggested that the person explain climate change using the heat-trapping blanket metaphor. For those who were are doubtful or cautious about climate change the same suggestion, to use the health frame, avoided acknowledging climate terms and focused on personal benefits. The focus on political ideology was important since frames can help reduce the rejection of the idea or polarization of the topic. The outcomes for conservatives and liberals focused on different moral frames and values research has suggested the different groups hold (Graham, Haidt, Koleva… & Ditto, 2013). Throughout the outcomes, well-being narratives and personal benefits frames were incorporated since they have cross-audience usefulness and it was also emphasized to most groups to offer effective climate change solutions (Stoknes, 2015; Shome et al., 2009).

I posted the link on Facebook and the page got 156 visitors with 132 people filling out the quiz. From the answers, the majority of people wanted to engage conservative males and most of which were disengaged or doubtful about climate change. The feedback question at the end suggested that many people felt more confident and prepared to talk to the person and some indicated they would talk to the person soon.

With the understanding that climate change needs a more specialized communication system, empowering individuals to have these conservations is important. But beyond simply having the conservation, it also needs to be done constructively. We have seen in the past that communication of doom and gloom narratives and messages that blame parties or solicit guilt can be counterproductive. Overall, the project puts the power of social networks in action by providing individuals a set of tools to communicate about climate change. The average individual may not have the resources or time to figure out what research says is important, and it can be hard to find information that applies to them. The quiz attempts to condense the information and make it feel more personal for the individual so that they feel empowered to use what they have learned and have more productive conservations about climate change.


References

Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 567-582.

Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (Eds.). (2015). Climate change and society: Sociological perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55-130). Academic Press.

Goldberg, M. H., van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2019). Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(30), 14804-14805.

Lawson, D. F., Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Carrier, S. J., Strnad, R. L., & Seekamp, E. (2019). Children can foster climate change concern among their parents. Nature Climate Change, 9(6), 458-462.

Shome, D., Marx, S., Appelt, K., Arora, P., Balstad, R., Broad, K., ... & Leiserowitz, A. (2009). The psychology of climate change communication: a guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public.

Stoknes, P. E. (2015). What we think about when we try not to think about global warming: Toward a new psychology of climate action. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Taylor, M., Lamm, A. J., Israel, G. D., & Rampold, S. D. (2018). Using the Six Americas Framework to Communicate and Educate about Global Warming. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(2), 215-232.

Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66(4), 315.

Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H., & Seiden, J. (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.