PROTECTING THE PLANET
THE RIGHT WORDS TO
MAKE CHANGE
When it comes to climate change , it ’ s not you . It ’ s us .
BY INGA KIDERRA
IT ’ S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU — at least when it comes to global warming . But you would never guess that based on messaging from advocacy groups . For example , a marketing campaign by the European Union centered around a personal appeal , “ You Control Climate Change .” But do these statements work ?
A recent study led by political scientist Nick Obradovich , M . A . ' 13 , Ph . D . ' 16 , found that framing the issue collectively is a significantly more effective motivator than emphasis on personal responsibility .
“ Climate change is arguably the largest collective-action problem the world has ever faced ,” says Obradovich , “ yet we ’ re operating on a lot of baked-in assumptions on how to motivate people .”
Along with political science Ph . D . student Scott Guenther , M . A . ' 12 , Obradovich surveyed members of the National Audubon Society , one of the oldest nonprofit environmental organizations , as well as members of the general public . One group of study participants was asked to write about ways they personally cause climate change , while others reflected on how it is collectively caused . A control group wrote about daily routines , like brushing teeth or drinking coffee , with no mention of climate change . Participants were then asked how much of a $ 100 award they would be willing to donate to The Audubon Society ’ s climate change efforts .
The collective frame consistently outperformed both the personal frame and the control condition . Among Audubon members , those writing about collective causes were willing to donate 7 percent more . And among the general public , potential donations were a striking 50 percent higher for those thinking collectively .
“ People only consistently gave more when we encouraged them to think about the collective causes of climate change .”
— NICK OBRADOVICH , M . A . ' 13 , PH . D . ' 16
Interestingly , where the collective frame dramatically increased potential donations , the personal frame had virtually no effect at all . “ We had hypothesized that any thinking about climate change would incline people to donate more , but that ’ s not what happened ,” says Obradovich . “ People only consistently gave more when we encouraged them to think about the collective causes of climate change .”
And the effect persisted . In a follow-up experiment , Obradovich and Guenther found that people who had initially written about climate change in collective terms were still willing to donate more than the others , even several days later . The collective frame also did best at producing the highest aspirations to reduce carbon emissions in the future .
The study ’ s authors note that participants were generally predisposed to believe in human causes of climate change , and more research should determine whether collective framing remains effective for those less supportive of climate action in the first place . “ It is important to find out if we can also move people who are not already sold ,” says Obradovich . “ We hope this paper will open further inquiry in this area .”
16 TRITON | FALL 2016