It shouldn’t be so hard to convince people to protect the planet they depend on.
It can be tempting to tell people they should worry more about global warming and biodiversity loss.
But telling people what they should worry about almost always backfires. This is one of the most steady findings in the research literature on compelling messaging and effective communication.
None of us likes being told what to think.
And to be honest, mainstream climate communicators do it all the time.
Three examples of "you should worry more" communication
Example 1: I saw a recent example from “Friends of the Earth Norway” (Naturvernforbundet). Their latest communication campaign's main message is:
“Sorry. But your consumption is suffocating nature. It accelerates species extinction”.
Message perceived by most people: You should worry about endangered species and be ashamed.
Example 2: Another example is from the Swedish railway company SJ, which decided to give plain passengers something to worry about.
They painted a message on the roof of some of their trains, big enough for plain passengers to read from the air.
It says: “Does the climate problems look smaller up there?”
Message perceived by most people: You should worry more about CO2 emissions and be ashamed.
Example 3: A third example is the carbon footprint calculator. This is a widespread calculator, or a quiz-like tool, to measure how many planets it takes to support your lifestyle.
Here’s my result:
Do I feel encouraged to act? Enthusiastic? Filled with hope?
I drive an EV, just installed a heat pump, and seldom book flights—still 4,7 planets.
Message perceived by most people: No matter what I do, I am still a major contributor to destroying the planet.
People are not enjoying destroying the planet
None of us have a deep desire to waste energy, pollute the air, or leave nature in a poorer state for our kids.
And a large percentage of the population in Western countries even report wanting to act more environmentally friendly.
Still, we tend to act against our best intentions, leaving us with cognitive dissonance. We know that our consumption contributes to global warming, but we can’t find any viable solutions to change it.
In behavioral psychology, “cognitive dissonance” describes situations where a person does not behave in harmony with what he or she believes is appropriate or perceives as proper behavior.
Faced with all the knowledge from IPCC-climate reports and many climate communicators, it is hard not to feel overwhelmed and sometimes hopeless.
So what do most of us do? Rather than changing my actual behavior, I can modify my thinking to match what I do. Bingo!
Cognitive Dissonance and Attitudes on climate change
For attitudes to climate change, here are a few ways to make our thinking match our current lifestyle and resolve cognitive dissonance:
Modify the perception of reality: My carbon footprint is quite insignificant.
Weaken the importance of the concern: We don’t know exactly how CO2 causes warming. The alarmists are exaggerating, and I’m cool and reasonable.
Add extra cognitions: I’ve installed a heat pump and travel by bicycle to work. So I may fly to Thailand with a clean conscience; this is called a moral license, a common phenomenon. Just think about every time you give yourself a moral license to eat a piece of cheesecake because you went to the gym in the morning (or even better, because you maybe are going to the gym tomorrow).
Denial: The final way of resolving cognitive dissonance is by denying the link between your lifestyle and the problem of global warming or even dismissing the whole notion of climate change. This is not a common strategy. However, we know from Yale’s survey “The Six Americas” that a stable 10 percent of Americans deny the link.
When environmentalists or activists tell us what to worry about in that state of mind, we tend to push back and defend our way of life.
Suddenly it is an identity issue. Somebody else tells me what I should worry about, and they do not seem interested in listening.
Any story that tells me that my identity and lifestyle are wrong and destructive will be subconsciously resisted - Per Espen Stoknes
The problem today
All too often, as climate communicators, we think we know best, so we tell the public what they should be worried about.
To be fair, climate scientists and communicators DO know more about the facts of climate change and what’s at stake if we don’t act than the general public.
But on the other hand, no one likes being told what to think.
Why it doesn’t work
From a behavioral economics perspective, we know that people are often driven by emotions rather than rationality.
When someone tells us what to be afraid of, it can make us feel like we don't have control over the situation. This can lead to resistance and a reluctance to change, even if the information presented is accurate and well-intentioned.
What to do instead
It's more effective to ask people about their concerns and fears and listen to their responses.
Ultimately, the goal is to build a communication strategy rooted in empathy, understanding, and a genuine desire to listen and respond to the public's concerns.
Next week, we’ll tap into Messaing Mistake #5 - Overstating the role of the Individual.
Sign up underneath to get a weekly update on a radical new model for climate messaging and storytelling!
See you!
Comments