Climatic Change

, Volume 136, Issue 3–4, pp 463–476 | Cite as

Interpersonal communication about climate change: how messages change when communicated through simulated online social networks

  • Paul Connor
  • Emily Harris
  • Sophie Guy
  • Julian Fernando
  • Daniel B. Shank
  • Tim Kurz
  • Paul G. Bain
  • Yoshihisa Kashima
Article

Abstract

Climate change communication research has mainly focused on how to communicate climate change effectively to the public. By contrast, how such information is then spread through interpersonal social networks has been neglected, despite being an essential component of cultural change. Using a Facebook-like format, we examined what types of climate change messages ‘survive’ when passed between individuals via communication network chains. We found that statements centred on conventional climate change topics (e.g., its impact on the natural world and human health) survived longer in communication chains than those with less conventional topics (e.g., its impact on societal competence, development, or communality). Moreover, statements about gains from mitigation (gain-frames) survived more than those about costs of non-mitigation (loss-frames) in initial communications, but loss-framed information survived more later in communication chains. In light of research showing that climate change messages focused on society and/or gain frames can motivate action, this research highlights a challenge by showing that these messages are less likely to be spread throughout society.

Supplementary material

10584_2016_1643_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (251 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 251 kb)
10584_2016_1643_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (17 kb)
ESM 2(XLSX 16 kb)
10584_2016_1643_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (49 kb)
ESM 3(PDF 49 kb)

References

  1. Auer MR, Zhang Y, Lee P (2014) The potential of microblogs for the study of public perceptions of climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 5:291–296. doi:10.1002/wcc.273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bain PG, Hornsey MJ, Bongiorno R, Jeffries C (2012) Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat Clim Chang 2:600–603. doi:10.1038/nclimate1532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bain PG, Hornsey MJ, Bongiorno R, Kashima Y, Crimston D (2013) Collective futures: How projections about the future of society are related to actions and attitudes supporting social change. Pers Soc Psychol B 39(4):523–539. doi:10.1177/0146167213478200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bain PG et al. (2015) How the co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action across the world. Nature Climate Change. doi:10.1038/nclimate2814 Google Scholar
  5. Bangerter A (2000) Transformation between scientific and social representations of conception: The method of serial reproduction. Brit J Soc Psychol 39(4):521–535. doi:10.1348/014466600164615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartlett FC (1932) Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Bender L, Burns SZ, & Guggenhem D, (2006) An Inconvenient Truth [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures.Google Scholar
  8. Berger J, Milkman KL (2012) What Makes Online Content Viral? J Marketing Res 49(2):192–205. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bickerstaff K, Walker G (2001) Public understandings of air pollution: The ‘localisation’ of environmental risk. Global Environ Chang 11:133–145. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00063-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi S (2014) The Two-Step Flow of Communication in Twitter-Based Public Forums. Soc Sci Comput Rev. doi:10.1177/0894439314556599 Google Scholar
  11. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(6):1015–1026. doi:10.4135/9781446249222.n41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark AE, Kashima Y (2007) Stereotypes help people connect with others in the community: A situated functional analysis of the stereotype consistency bias in communication. J Pers Soc Psychol 93(6):1028–1039. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen GL (2003) Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs. J Pers Soc Psychol 85(5):808–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Costello A et al. (2009) Managing the health effects of climate change. Lancet 373:1693–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P (2008) Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 40:61–149. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fabian N (2015) Support low-carbon investment. Nature 519:27–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feinberg M, Willer R (2010) Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychol Sci 22(1):34–38. doi:10.1177/0956797610391911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feygina I, Jost JT, Goldsmith RE (2010) System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system- sanctioned change”. Pers Soc Psychol B 36(3):326–338. doi:10.1177/0146167209351435 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P (2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth, then competence. Trends Cogn Sci 11(2):77–83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flannery T (2005) The weather makers: The history and future impact of climate change. Text Publishing, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  21. Geraci D, Humphrey C, Jacobs J (2012) Data Basics: An Introductory Text http://3stages.org/class/2012/pdf/data_basics_2012.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2015
  22. Gifford R, Comeau LA (2011) Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environ Chang 21:1301–1307. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graesser A (1981) Prose Comprehension Beyond the Word. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hampton K, Sessions Goulet L, Marlow C, Rainie L (2012) Why most Facebook users get more than they give: the effect of Facebook ‘power users’ on everybody else. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Facebook-users.aspx. Accessed 6 October 2015
  25. Hulme M (2008) The conquering of climate: Discourses of fear and their dissolution. Geogr J 174(1):5–16. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008.00266.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. J Empir Leg Stud 4(3):465–505. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292; Journal of the Econometric Society 263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185
  28. Kashima Y (2000) Maintaining cultural stereotypes in the serial reproduction of narratives. Pers Soc Psychol B 26(5):594–604. doi:10.1177/0146167200267007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kashima Y (2008) A social psychology of cultural dynamics: How cultures are formed, maintained, and transformed. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 2:107–120. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00063.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kashima Y (2014) Meaning, grounding, and the construction of social reality. Asian J Soc Psychol 17(2):81–95. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kashima Y, Lyons A, Clark A (2013a) The maintenance of cultural stereotypes in the conversational retelling of narratives. Asian J Soc Psychol 16:60–70. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kashima Y, Wilson S, Lusher D, Pearson LJ, Pearson C (2013b) The acquisition of perceived descriptive norms as social category learning in social networks. Soc Networks 35:711–719. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Katz E (1957) The two-step flow of communication: an up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opin Quart 21:61–78. doi:10.1086/266687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leiserowitz AA (2005) American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal 25(6):1433–1442. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole SA, Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environ Chang 17:445–459. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lyons A, Kashima Y (2001) The reproduction of culture: Communication processes tend to maintain cultural stereotypes. Soc Cognition 19(3):372–394. doi:10.1521/soco.19.3.372.21470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lyons A, Kashima Y (2003) How Are Stereotypes Maintained Through Communication?: The Influence of Stereotype Sharedness. J Pers Soc Psychol 85(6):989–1005. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.989 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lyons A, Kashima Y (2006) Maintaining stereotypes in communication: Investigating memory biases and coherence-seeking in storytelling. Asian J Soc Psychol 9:59–71. doi:10.1111/j.1367-2223.2006.00184.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Kay K, Milstein B (1998) Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Field Method 10:31–36. doi:10.1177/1525822X980100020301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mann ME (2012) The hockey stick and the climate wars. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Morton TA, Rabinovich A, Marshall D, Bretschneider P (2011) The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environ Chang 21(1):103–109. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moser SC (2010) Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1(1):31–53. doi:10.1002/wcc.11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moser SC, Dilling L (2011) Communicating climate change: closing the science-action gap. In: Norgaard R, Schlosberg D, Dryzek J (eds) Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 161–174Google Scholar
  44. Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51(2):12–23. doi:10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nisbet MC, Kotcher JE (2009) A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Sci Commun 30(3):328–354. doi:10.1177/1075547008328797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Norgaard KM (2006) “People want to protect themselves a little bit”: Emotions, denial and social movement non-participation. Sociol Inq 76(3):372–396. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2006.00160.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. O’Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S (2009) “Fear won’t do it: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Sci Commun 36:355–379. doi:10.1177/1075547008329201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Neill S, Williams HP, Kurz T, Wiersma B, Boykoff M (2015) Dominant frames evident in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nat Clim Chang 5:380–385. doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Page MC, Braver SL, Mackinnon DP (2003) Levine’s Guide to SPSS for Analysis of Variance, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  50. Pearce W, Holmberg K, Hellsten I, Nerlich B (2014) Climate change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 report. PLoS One 9(4):e94785. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2003) Public perceptions of risk, science and governance. Centre for Environmental Risk, University of East Anglia, http://psych.cf.ac.uk/understandingrisk/docs/survey_2002.pdf Accessed 13 October 2015.
  52. Postmes T, Spears R, Sakhel K, De Groot D (2001) Social influence in computer-mediated communication: the effects of anonymity on group behavior. Pers Soc Psychol B 27(10):1243–1254. doi:10.1177/01461672012710001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scannell L, Gifford R (2013) Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environ Behav 45(1):60–85. doi:10.1177/0013916511421196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schäfer MS (2012) Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 3(6):527–543. doi:10.1002/wcc.191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Segerberg A, Bennett WL (2011) Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. Commun Rev 14(3):197–215. doi:10.1080/10714421.2011.597250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spence A, Pidgeon N (2010) Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environ Chang 20:656–667. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tang G, Lee FLF (2013) Facebook use and political participation: The impact of exposure to shared political information, connections with public political actors, and network structural heterogeneity. Soc Sci Comput Rev 31(6):763–773. doi:10.1177/0894439313490625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thurston GD (2013) Mitigation policy: Health co-benefits. Nat Clim Chang 3:863–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. UNEP (2011) Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication - A synthesis for policy makers. United Nations Environmental Programme. http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_synthesis_en.pdf Accessed 13 October 2015
  60. Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S, Lorenzoni I (2011) Engaging the public with climate change: Communication and behaviour change. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Williams HTP, McMurray JM, Kurz T, Lambert FH (2015) Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environ Chang 32:126–138. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilson RE, Gosling SD, Graham LT (2012) A review of Facebook research in the social sciences. Perspect Psychol Sci 7(3):203–220. doi:10.1177/1745691612442904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang W, Johnson TJ, Seltzer T, Bichard SL (2010) The revolution will be networked: The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behavior. Soc Sci Comput Rev 28(1):75–92. doi:10.1177/0894439309335162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Connor
    • 1
  • Emily Harris
    • 2
  • Sophie Guy
    • 3
  • Julian Fernando
    • 3
  • Daniel B. Shank
    • 3
  • Tim Kurz
    • 4
  • Paul G. Bain
    • 5
  • Yoshihisa Kashima
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Personality and Social ResearchUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.Melbourne School of Psychological SciencesUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  4. 4.Psychology, College of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  5. 5.School of Psychology and Counselling and the Institute of Health and Biomedical InnovationQueensland University of Technology (QUT)BrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations