 The #NationalEmergencyBriefing highlighted the need for better communication of #ClimateChange to counter the misinformation promulgated by the fossil fuel industry. However, there are many pitfalls which need to be avoided if this communication is going to have a positive effect and lay the groundwork for change.
These pitfalls are manifestations of Behavioural Effects which have all been proven through extensive experimentations and testing. We can also see their influence in the evolution of campaigns such as those encouraging people to wear a seat belt or cease smoking. So for example, seat belt wearing ads moved away from graphic images of crashes to the simple, action-oriented “Clunk-Click every trip” campaign. This was very successful and used the Messenger Effect by featuring well respected famous people… unfortunately, one of these was Jimmy Saville and this illustrates both the opportunity and the risk associated with TV personalities. Whilst there are many potential pitfalls, five key ones are highlighted here: Pitfall 1 - Fairness: People don't like inequity and unfairness, and perceived inequity often serves as a basis for inaction: ‘Why should I change if ___ is not changing?’ The desire for fairness is a basic human need which comes from our social nature and the need to build strong communities in order to survive and thrive. For climate communication it means that there is an expectation that everyone does their bit and that it is proportionate to their emissions, so big emitters do more. So the framing should be around a percentage reduction rather than an absolute amount. For example, “To keep us on track everyone needs to reduce their emissions by 5% each year”. Note that the wording of this message avoids referring to a distant target which implies you can delay action and catch up later. Pitfall 2- Reactance: People can react strongly against advice or policy that seems to threaten their freedom. This is compounded where there is a lack of trust in those who give the advice or set the policy. Reactance has been very successfully encouraged by the fossil fuel industry, and this has helped to develop opposition to policies aiming to mitigate their effects, helped by the low level of trust in politicians. Avoiding Reactance requires treading a fine line between nudging people towards the desired behaviour and telling them what to do. It means providing information on the options available for taking action, along with supporting material which can help turn intention into action. This may include practical advice, information on the personal benefits of taking action, a means of providing positive feedback to help motivate, and information on what other people are doing (so they don’t feel alone). Pitfall 3 - Loss Aversion: People are more affected by losses than gains which presents a challenge where climate friendly behaviours require giving something up. A challenge with a lot of climate communication is that it involves giving something up, typically beef, flying, or petrol car. The message can be softened by steering away from talking about giving something up completely in favour of reducing, and by focussing on co-benefits. For example, switching to a flexitarian diet with a mix of meat and vegetarian meals has health benefits as well as lower carbon emissions. Pitfall 4 - Empowerment: People need to feel they can make a difference in order to be motivated to try so they won’t act if they perceive there’s nothing they can do about climate change. A particular risk associated with Empowerment is that if people are told about climate change risks but without the ability to do anything about them, they will either dismiss the messaging or react negatively to it (i.e. “Reactance”). To avoid this problem people need to be given some tools they can use so they feel as though they have some control. Given the lack of trust in politicians (see also the Messenger effect post) it’s not enough to say that they are taking the necessary action. A benefit of helping people to take some individual action is that, even if it’s a small effect on its own it helps build momentum by encouraging others to act and avoiding the problem of people thinking “why should I do something if … are not?” (see also Fairness). Pitfall 5 - Messenger effect: The impact of a message can be as much about the messenger as the message itself. The Messenger effect is a critical consideration for communicating climate change, with how trusted the messenger is being a key factor. A challenge is the low level of trust in politicians, and indeed in journalists. The Ipsos Veracity score puts politicians at the bottom with just 9% generally believing what a politician tells them. Journalists are somewhat more trusted with a Veracity score of 21% and TV newsreaders 42%, but these scores still indicate considerable suspicion. Scientists do score much better (74%) showing that they are generally trusted, though they do not tend to be effective communicators because they are orientated around facts and stats rather than stories. This has been recognised by Climate Science Breakthrough (Climate Science Breakthrough: Overview | LinkedIn) which has created videos by comedians such as Jo Brand to help get the message across: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/markmaslin_climatechange-sustainability-climatejustice-ugcPost-7403519729816199169-7-kg?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAEjLEIB1e5oumvzClP0uo5HJMONEXj7JOY
1 Comment
|
