A recent paper and associated videos have got people talking about what happens when we use politically conservative values to frame climate change communications. Our co-director Jess Berentson-Shaw and researcher Ellen Ozarka respond with this blog reflecting on values and climate change communications.
As advocates and communicators working on important issues like climate change, we want to do what works to best grow our communities' support for the changes that will make the biggest difference on these issues.
Many people understand that values — the why of life — are key motivational frames through which we can communicate about issues like climate change. Narrative strategists have found that values can open a side door for people to consider an issue they may not have been willing to before. A recent paper in the journal Nature Climate Change and associated videos about using politically conservative values to frame climate change communications in the US has got people talking about just this issue — what types of values should we use to frame climate change? We think this is a great opportunity to dive a little deeper into values framing from our perspective at The Workshop.
When deciding what values you use to frame climate communications, it’s helpful to consider two things:
Who you can shift with good communications, and why.
What are all the values that people hold, not just the values you assume they hold, perhaps because of their expressed political leanings.
View videos with conservative values on the New Climate Voices’ website.
FOCUS FIRST ON THE PEOPLE WHO YOU CAN SHIFT, NOT THOSE WHO ARE HARDEST TO SHIFT
As people who are passionate about protecting our planet and the people sustained by it, we often feel angry, upset or frustrated when we see the stories and narratives used by people denying the existence and importance of climate change. But those feelings are a good thing! Feelings mean things matter to us, and can drive our passion. But we need to be intentional about how we use that anger, to ensure we get the most from our communications.
Often we spend all of our communication energy building our argument in response to these narrow, unhelpful and untrue narratives. That approach can be problematic for three reasons:
We amplify those unhelpful dominant narratives by repeating them, when we want people to hear less about these unhelpful ways of thinking about climate, not more.
We run out of energy to build a new and more substantive narrative about climate — a narrative that reflects what we actually want people to understand and know and one based on a vision for an alternative world that many people struggle to see as possible.
We forget about the many larger, but often quieter, groups of people who are actually shiftable on the issue. Those people care, but don't understand the issues as much as they could. And they are open to being swayed by those dominant, unhelpful narratives about climate — or by your helpful narratives!
When we have limited time, energy and resources, the most impactful communications focus on the needs of people who are potentially persuadable on climate issues. When we do that, it helps us select the types of values that can be useful for opening that side door to your issue. And that leads to the second factor we should consider — the values we believe people to hold compared to those they actually hold.
GO DEEPER THAN SURFACE LEVEL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE VALUES OTHER PEOPLE HOLD
Values researchers have found most of us hold a wide range of values, regardless of political following. These values run the full gamut from what we call the ‘what's in it for me’ values, like status, power, money, image and security, to the ‘what's in it for all of us’ values, like love, responsibility, wisdom and creativity.
In general, most people prioritise ‘all of us’ values, even if they don’t always act on them. And it is these ‘all of us’ values that are particularly helpful for framing collective social and environmental issues. These values are helpful because they lead people to support and act in line with the types of big changes that are needed to protect and restore our ecosystems, and for us to live in a more interconnected way with them.
If most people hold these values, why don’t we always act on them? Our context tells people which values matter most. When some powerful people, like advertisers and politicians, fill audiences up with a steady diet of communications about ‘what’s in it for me’ values like status, power, money, image and security, then we social creatures come to believe we should be prioritising those values too. It's a snake eating its own tail scenario — we see self-interest values everywhere, so we act on those self-interest values, and so prove to others that everyone else is self-interested — and the cycle continues.
The challenge is to start consistently framing these issues through ‘all of us’ values instead. And that stands for people of all political persuasions who are potentially movable on the issue. For climate communication, these values can include care for each other and the planet, a sense of responsibility to our kids and their kids, wanting to live in a world of beauty, and acting wisely for the long term.
WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN ABOUT THAT RECENT PAPER IN NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE?
The Goldberg et al paper in Nature describes research that sets out to do something quite specific, which was not to test ‘all of us’ values, but rather to see the impact of different types of messengers in a real-world setting, and whether this would change people's climate change attitudes and feelings.
The one thing that all the messages from the study have in common is that the person delivering the messages is someone associated with American conservatism — an evangelical Christian, a military leader, and a former Republican congressperson. Over a month, residents of two politically conservative congressional districts were shown targeted ads, with the messages delivered by these people. Compared to a group who saw no messages, they had higher beliefs, feelings and understanding about climate change after the ad campaign. This finding replicates similar studies about matched messengers in other areas, such as vaccination.
This is an effect known as social proof. When we see others we identify with expressing an idea, we’re more likely to trust and believe the information they are conveying. It's a reminder of the importance of having the right messenger for the right audience, and accompanying this with the most effective message.
In a nutshell
The take home for climate change advocates is:
Focus your energy on talking to the large group of people who are potentially persuadable, not those who are already firmly opposed.
Frame climate change through ‘all of us’ values.
Use a wide range of messengers, who reflect a broad — or surprising — selection of groups in the community to talk about climate change and the solutions that will work.
Written by Jess Berentson-Shaw and Ellen Ozarka
