TRONDHEIM, Norway — In the face of the escalating climate crisis, policymakers and environmental advocates have long sought effective strategies to mobilize the public and drive meaningful change. However, a recent global study led by researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology suggests that many popular behavioral interventions may have limited impact on climate change beliefs and actions. In fact, results show that some campaigns wind up backfiring entirely when it comes to building support for environmental causes.
The study, which involved over 59,000 participants across 63 countries, tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions derived from various theoretical frameworks in the behavioral sciences. These interventions ranged from reducing the psychological distance of climate change to inducing negative emotions through “doom and gloom” messaging. The researchers evaluated the impact of these interventions on four key outcomes: belief in climate change, support for climate policies, willingness to share climate information, and contributions to tree-planting efforts.
People won’t even plant trees
Despite the diverse approaches and theoretical underpinnings of the interventions, the study found that their overall effectiveness was limited, with most having small to negligible effects on the targeted outcomes. Some interventions even had negative impacts on tree-planting behavior, a concerning finding given the importance of reforestation efforts in mitigating climate change.
The researchers discovered that the effectiveness of the interventions largely depended on participants’ pre-existing beliefs about climate change. For instance, interventions aimed at reducing psychological distance and emphasizing collective action efficacy were most effective at strengthening climate change beliefs among those who were already uncertain. However, when it came to supporting climate policies, interventions generally only worked for those who already had high levels of belief in climate change.
This finding raises questions about the utility of behavioral interventions in driving large-scale, sustained changes in climate action. If interventions primarily influence those who are already receptive to the message, how can we effectively reach and engage climate change skeptics or those who are indifferent to the issue?
Furthermore, the study revealed that even when interventions succeeded in one domain, they could fail or backfire in another. For example, the intervention that induced negative emotions through “doom and gloom” messaging had the most significant impact on willingness to share climate information on social media, even among climate change skeptics. However, this same intervention backfired when it came to supporting climate policies and actually reduced tree-planting efforts.
This finding underscores the complex and often counterintuitive nature of human behavior and decision-making. While fear-based messaging may grab attention and encourage information sharing, it can also lead to feelings of helplessness and inaction when it comes to more substantial behavior changes.
The study also found that pre-existing levels of climate change belief were high across all countries surveyed, with little variation between nations. This suggests a growing global consensus on the reality and urgency of climate change, despite differing social and political contexts. However, the researchers caution that belief alone may not translate into meaningful action, as evidenced by the limited impact of the interventions on support for climate policies and tree-planting behavior.
Climate change messaging must be thoughtful
So, what can we learn from this groundbreaking study? First and foremost, it highlights the need for a more nuanced and context-specific approach to climate change communication and intervention design. One-size-fits-all strategies are unlikely to be effective on a global scale, given the diversity of beliefs, norms, and behaviors across cultures and societies.
Second, the study underscores the importance of rigorously testing interventions across multiple outcomes and in diverse contexts before scaling them up. Interventions that show promise in a controlled laboratory setting may not translate into real-world impact, and unintended consequences, such as the backfiring effect observed with the negative emotion intervention, must be carefully considered.
Finally, the findings suggest that while behavioral interventions can play a role in shaping individual beliefs and actions, they are not a panacea for the climate crisis. Tackling this global challenge will require a multi-faceted approach that combines individual behavior change with systemic policy reforms, technological innovations, and collective action at all levels of society.
As a result of the findings, the research team developed an app to help individuals and organizations effectively spread their message on climate issues and generate the most support possible. By providing evidence-based recommendations tailored to specific contexts and goals, the app can help maximize the impact of their messaging and drive more effective climate action.
“The research team created this app that can help raise climate awareness and climate action globally. It is important to highlight messages that research shows are effective,” says Isabel Richter, Associate Professor at NTNU’s Department of Psychology, in a press release.
As the world continues to grapple with the urgent need for climate action, studies like this one provide a sobering reminder of the challenges we face in mobilizing the public and driving meaningful change. While there is no easy solution, understanding the limitations of current approaches can help us develop more effective strategies for engaging individuals and communities in the fight against climate change. By learning from these findings and adapting our interventions accordingly, we can work towards a more sustainable and resilient future for all.
The assumption behind this research is that spurring action to mitigate climate change represents a communications challenge. In reality, ordinary citizens around the world have practically zero influence on the national energy and environmental policies which are exacerbating climate change. As the article points out, a substantial majority of people around the world already understand the dimensions of this threat. Consequently, it’s unclear exactly what we’re trying to accomplish by efforts to increase the majority of the world’s population which already is well aware of the current situation.
The problem is that there is no “settled science” on this issue. You have hypotheses supported by some theory, supported by some other hypothesis. Throw in some of the usual hyperbole and people dismiss most of the claims. The fact is that this is about wealth redistribution not climate change. It has become obvious and therefore people aren’t buying it. Didn’t Al Gore tell us that’s the world as we know it will end in 2010? How about AOC? Didn’t she give us 12 years to survive? Show some solid science and people might buy it!
In the 70s, scientists swore we would be in an ice age by now….
Correct, many consumers do not react to messages, but all buyers are price sensitive. Add the cost of Earth Repair in product price. Recycle environments and boost productivity.
The same error is in the Paris Climate Agreements: they only regulate producers, but leave consumer choices unaccountable. Consumers can get a price advantage ignoring common goals. It is like guarding the front door well, but leaving the back wide open. While Mr. Dundas is right that individuals have very little effect, the same does not go for billions: together we shape society. Populations have exploded. We need new legislation to regulate consumption and live within our means.
People know that climate change is bunk. I consider people that are all worked up about it to be among the stupidest on the planet
You can’t scare us into accepting a totalitarian government with weather threats. That oughta give you a clue to the futility of doing it at all.