Environmental Projects

The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication has categorized the American public into six distinct segments based on their responses to climate change. These segments, first identified in 2008, have been monitored over time, and communication strategies tailored to each group have been developed. However, to our knowledge, these categories have not been re-evaluated independently. This study aims to replicate the original segmentation using data from the Florida Climate Resilience Survey, which provides a large longitudinal sample from Floridia. We will use the same latent class analysis methodology used by the Yale research team to allow the audience segments to emerge organically. Our analysis will use items conceptually aligned with those from the original study. Given Florida’s significant vulnerability to climate change, there may be alternative ways to conceptualize climate change audiences in this context. This analysis will facilitate a comparison with the original six segments and assess their relevance within this distinct population. Additionally, it will provide insights into any potential shifts in these segments over time.

As climate change becomes an increasingly urgent issue, developing effective strategies to shift public attitudes is critical. While extensive research has explored how framing techniques impact climate change perceptions, it is often the case that finding one frame for everyone overlooks the complexity of these attitudes. The present study aims to address some of these nuances by measuring how individual differences and various framing strategies interact to influence climate change attitudes (e.g., belief, perceived importance, attribution of responsibility for mitigation). Utilizing a within-subjects longitudinal design on a large sample (N = 2,140), analyses will focus on how different profiles of people respond to climate change messaging both before and after exposure to specific manipulations. For example, we will assess whether individuals with a preference for concrete thinking (low-level agents) shift to climate-friendly attitudes after a paragraph on “how” to mitigate climate change rather than “why” we should. This approach will provide valuable insights into tailoring strategies to effectively engage various audiences in climate change mitigation efforts.

Finding effective ways to motivate people towards climate change mitigation is of growing importance to psychologists. A large body of research has focused on the framing of climate change communications. Frames can be matched to individual differences or context to increase persuasiveness. This study will investigate competing hypotheses to determine if liberals and conservatives are more convinced by gain or loss frames. The communications will have elements that match the partisan participant’s regulatory focus orientation and the larger political context. The Regulatory Focus Fit Hypothesis predicts that liberals, who tend to be more promotion-oriented in general, will show more positive climate change outcomes when the message is gain-framed. Conservatives, who tend to be prevention-oriented, will show more positive climate change outcomes when the message is loss-framed. These relationships will be mediated by processing fluency and affect. The Differential Context Hypothesis predicts that liberals will show more positive climate change outcomes when the message is loss-framed because this will elicit more fear and perceived threat. Conservatives will show more positive climate change outcomes when the message is gain-framed because this will elicit less psychological reactance and less negative affect.