In the battle against climate change, effectively communicating the urgency of the situation is essential. Our soon-to-be-published study (stay tuned!) aims to refine how this urgency is communicated, exploring the interplay between fact-based messages and the emotional reactions they provoke.
The real challenge now is to implement these insights effectively, ensuring that essential messages about climate change are not only heard but also acted upon. We are thrilled to have you engage with our research and join us in this vital conversation!
Our findings advance our understanding of psychological reactance in the context of climate communication and provide valuable insights for policymakers, communicators, and activists aiming to enhance public engagement with environmental issues!
Our Study’s Approach and Findings
Our study incorporates a new five-step reactance model that views reactance as an emotional process. It integrates cognitive appraisal theories with reactance theory to explain why and how people resist messages that seem to infringe upon their autonomy (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). We conducted two online experiments (n1 > 500 and n2 > 1.100) using samples from Instagram users who viewed posts about climate change from a German public broadcasting service.
The posts varied in content, focusing on topics like reducing smartphone use and air travel, and differed in the amount of normative pressure they exerted (facts-only vs. facts + normative pressure).
It is widely recognized that scientific facts about climate change highlight the need for immediate action (Oreskes, 2018). However, presenting these facts isn’t always straightforward in terms of public engagement.
Our research, relying on psychological reactance theory (PRT), proposes that individuals may perceive these factual communications as threats to their personal freedoms, particularly when such facts challenge their beliefs or lifestyles (Brehm, 1966).
This perception can trigger defensive behaviors, diminishing the message’s effectiveness.
We find:
Normative Pressure Increases Reactance
Messages that combined facts with a push towards personal responsibility (normative pressure) resulted in higher reactance than those presenting facts alone (Ma et al., 2019). This indicates that while facts are necessary, their framing and the perceived imposition can influence the audience’s receptiveness.
Emotional Responses to Factual Information
Even purely factual messages without explicit normative pressure triggered significant emotional responses, evidenced by measurable increases in state reactance in response to pro-environmental messaging (Myers et al., 2023). Participants mask their frustration in rationalization and delegating responsibility to a bigger group.
Impact of Message Framing
Our results underscored the importance of how messages are framed. Comments in the facts-only condition more frequently addressed scientific quality, cited references, and proposed alternative actions. In contrast, comments under normative pressure often focused on perceived freedom limitations. Furthermore, while facts-only comments also expressed resistance and frustration, they typically reframed these emotions in terms of criticisms of source inadequacies and the absence of viable alternatives to proscribed behaviors, thereby emphasizing collective responsibility and subtly defusing negative emotions.
Implications for Climate Communication
Our findings highlight a critical paradox in environmental communication: even straightforward facts can trigger defensive reactions (Ma et al., 2019).
This suggests that the effectiveness of environmental messaging lies not just in the accuracy of the information but significantly in how it is presented. Effective communication should thus strive to frame facts in ways that are perceived as empowering rather than restrictive.
Literature
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
Ma, Y., Dixon, G., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2019). Psychological Reactance From Reading Basic Facts on Climate Change: The Role of Prior Views and Political Identification. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 71–86.
Myers, T. A., Roser-Renouf, C., & Maibach, E. (2023). Emotional responses to climate change information and their effects on policy support. Frontiers in Climate, 5, Article 1135450.
Oreskes, N. (2018). The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?. In: A. Lloyd, E., Winsberg, E. (eds) Climate Modelling. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.