Advertisement

From Awareness to Action: Taking into Consideration the Role of Emotions and Cognition for a Stage Toward a Better Communication of Climate Change

  • Mélodie TrollietEmail author
  • Thibaut Barbier
  • Julie Jacquet
Chapter
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

The general public expects relevant, comprehensible and acceptable communication on climate change. Many efforts have been, and are still, being made to make the message clear and comprehensible. This paper focuses on the acceptability of the message by the receiver, to move from awareness of climate change to concrete action, which is seldom discussed in the literature. In order to make a climate change communication assessment, we choose to take as reference the Prochaska’s behavioural stage of change model. Our analysis suggests that taking into account emotions and cognition mechanisms is needed in order to accompany people to better process the information and integrate it to move toward action. This paper highlights different commonly used communication practices and the underlying brain mechanisms involved in each one. A better understanding of those mechanisms should help to improve the message’s receivability in communication about climate change. In turn, it will help to move from individuals knowledge into concrete action. By this way, we hope to provide inspiration to communicators in order to better accompany people in their process from awareness to action.

Keywords

Climate change Communication Stages of change Taking action Emotion Cognition 

References

  1. Agrawala S (1998) Structural and process history of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim Change 39(4):621–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Action control. Springer, Berlin, (pp 11–39)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander R (2008) Framing discourse on the environment. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell A (1994) Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public Unders SciGoogle Scholar
  5. Bem D (1967) Self-perception: an alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychol Rev 74:183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonnici T (2007) Climate of fear: stark warning. The Sun, pp 26Google Scholar
  7. Boykoff MT (2008) Media and scientific communication: a case of climate change. Geol Soc 305:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bain PG, Hornsey MJ, Bongiorno R, Jeffries C (2012) Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat Clim Change 2(8):600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carvalho A (2007) Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change. Public Unders Sci 16(2):223–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cloninger CR (2004) Feeling good. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Darley JM, Latané B (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. J Pers Soc Psychol 8(4):377–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Damasio H, Damasio AR (1989) Lesion analysis in neuropsychology. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, rationality and the human brainGoogle Scholar
  14. Davidson RJ, Jackson DC, Kalin NH (2000) Emotion, plasticity, context, and regulation: perspectives from affective neuroscience. Psychol Bull 126(6):890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO (1983) Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol 51(3):390–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunlap RE (2013) Climate change skepticism and denial: an introduction. Am Behav Sci 57(6):691–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ereaut G, Segnit N (2006) Warm words: how we are telling the climate story and can we tell it betterGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans R, Collins HM (2007) Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Frances A (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV. American Psychiatric AssociationGoogle Scholar
  21. Frankl VE (1959) The spiritual dimension in existential analysis and logotherapy. J Individ Psychol 15(2):157Google Scholar
  22. Fredrikson BL (2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden and built theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol 56(3):218–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freud S (2003) Beyond the pleasure principle. Penguin UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Guttman N (2000) Public health communication interventions. SageGoogle Scholar
  25. Hassol SJ (2008) Improving how scientists communicate about climate change. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 89(11):106–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hillman M (2004) How we can save the planet. Penguin UKGoogle Scholar
  27. House of Lords Science and Society (2000) Select Committee on Science and Technology, HL Paper 38, Session 1999–2000, Third Report, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Hulme M (2007) Newspaper scare headlines can be counter-productive. Nature 445(7130):818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. p. 255Google Scholar
  30. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Rosenthal S, Marlon J (2014) Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in November, 2013. Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Project on Climate Change, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  31. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Rosenthal S, Cutler M (2017) Climate change in the American mind: November 2016. Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  32. Lovallo D, Kahneman D (2003) Delusions of success. Harvard Bus Rev 81(7):56–63Google Scholar
  33. Marshall G (2015) Don’t even think about it: why our brains are wired to ignore climate change. Bloomsbury Publishing, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Moser S (2007) More bad news: the risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change information. In Moser S, Dilling L (eds), Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 64–80.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511535871.006
  35. Moser SC (2010) Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 1(1):31–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nerlich B, Koteyko N (2009) Compounds, creativity and complexity in climate change communication: the case of ‘carbon indulgences’. Glob Environ Change 19(3):345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B (2010) Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 1(1):97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. New Scientist Prepare for a climate-changed world, say engineers (2009). New ScientistGoogle Scholar
  39. Ockwell D, Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S (2009) Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement? Sci Commun 30(3):305–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oxford Dictionary (2017). Available on https://en.oxforddictionaries.com
  41. Pew Research Center (2017) Global attitudes survey. Q17a-hGoogle Scholar
  42. Prochaska JO (2013) Transtheoretical model of behavior change. In: Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine. Springer, New York, pp. 1997–2000Google Scholar
  43. Royal Society Public Understanding of Science (1985). The Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Roeser S (2012) Risk communication, public engagement, and climate change: a role for emotions. Risk Anal 32(6):1033–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruiter RA, Abraham C, Kok G (2001) Scary warnings and rational precautions: a review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychol Health 16(6):613–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seitter KL (2017) Being as disciplined in our engagement with society as we are in our scientific research. EMS Annu Meet Abs 14(EMS2017-862):2017Google Scholar
  47. Selye H (1956) The stress of life. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24(2):311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharot T (décembre 2011) The Optimism Bias. Current Biology 21(23):R941–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sharot T, Riccardi AM, Raio CM, Phelps EA (2007) Neural mechanisms mediating optimism bias. Nature 450(7166):102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sharot T, Korn CW, Dolan RJ (2011) How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nat Neurosci 14(11):1475–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stoll-Kleemann S, O’Riordan S, Jaeger CC (2001) The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups. Glob Environ Change 11(2):107–117. ISSN 0959-3780.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00061-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whitmarsh L (2011) Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob Environ Change 21(2):690–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Witte K, Allen M (2000) A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav 7(5)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weingart P, Engels A, Pansegrau P (2000) Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Unders Sci 9(3):261–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wynne B (1993) Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Unders Sci 2(4):321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Xue W, Hine DW, Marks AD, Phillips WJ, Nunn P, Zhao S (2016) Combining threat and efficacy messaging to increase public engagement with climate change in Beijing, China. Clim Change 137(1–2):43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mélodie Trolliet
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thibaut Barbier
    • 2
  • Julie Jacquet
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Observation, Impacts, Energy, O.I.E., MINES ParisTech, PSL Research UniversitySophia Antipolis CedexFrance
  2. 2.Center for Processes, Renewables Energies and Energy System, PERSEE, MINES ParisTech, PSL Research UniversitySophia Antipolis CedexFrance
  3. 3.Laboratoire Interuniversitaire de Psychologie, LIP-PC2SUniversité Grenoble AlpesGrenoble Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations