Promoting Conservation Behaviors by Leveraging Optimistic and Pessimistic Messages and Emotions

Figures & data

Figure 1. Seven simple actions to conserve birds (https://www.birds.cornell.edu/home/seven-simple-actions-to-help-birds/.

Table 1. Demographic detail across message frames (treatments).

Variable	Pessimistic Frame	Optimistic Frame	Combined Frame	Control
Age	48.82 (17.55)	49.59 (17.20)	48.64 (18.33)	49.08 (18.17)
Gender Identity
Male	219 (45.7%)	220 (44.2%)	212 (44.4%)	216 (39.8%)
Female	258 (53.9%)	274 (55%)	257 (53.9%)	320 (58.9%)
Trans Male	2 (0.4%)	3 (0.6%)	1 (0.2%)	4 (0.7%)
Trans Female	0 (0%)	1 (0.2%)	3 (0.6%)	1 (0.2%)
Non-Binary	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (0.8)%	0 (0%)
Race
White	389 (81.2%)	390 (78.3%)	374 (78.2%)	421 (77.5%)
Black	55 (11.5%)	60 (12%)	55 (11.5%)	68 (12.5%)
Latino, Hispanic, or Spanish	37 (7.8%)	47 (9.4%)	43 (8.9%)	65 (12%)
Education
Bachelor Degree or higher	175 (36.6%)	173 (34.8%)	179 (37.5%)	178 (32.7%)
Political Party
Republican	127 (26.5%)	155 (32.4%)	155 (32.4%)	172 (31.7%)
Democrat	196 (40.9%)	195 (39.2%)	186 (38.9%)	206 (37.9%)
Independent	134 (28%)	125 (25.1%)	112 (23.4%)	129 (23.8%)

*Numeric variables are presented as Mean (SD), and categorical variables are presented as Count (%).

Table 2. Language used for each of the four* message conditions (column headings).

Pessimistic message	Optimistic message	Pessimistic + Optimistic message
The first-ever comprehensive assessment of net bird population changes in the U.S. and Canada, published in Science in 2019, reveals across-the-board declines that scientists call “staggering.” All told, the North American bird population is down by 2.9 billion breeding adults, with devastating losses among birds in every biome. Forests alone have lost 1 billion birds. Grassland bird populations collectively have declined by 53%, or another 720 million birds. Habitat loss is likely to be a driving factor in these declines, say the authors, particularly agricultural intensification and development. The losses include favorite species seen at bird feeders, such as Dark-eyed Juncos (or “snowbirds,” down by 168 million) and sweet-singing White-throated Sparrows (down by 93 million). Eastern and Western Meadowlarks are down by a combined 139 million individuals. Even the beloved Red-winged Blackbird—a common sight in virtually every marsh and wet roadside across the continent—has declined by 92 million birds.	The first-ever comprehensive assessment of net bird population changes in the U.S. and Canada, published in Science in 2019, reveals that some groups of birds are currently doing well, and for good reason—governments and societies have invested in saving them. Raptors, waterfowl, and turkeys show what’s possible when commitments are made to bird conservation. These species numbers have increased to over 15 million raptors, 35 million waterfowl, and 250 million turkeys and grouse since 1970. As Rosenberg, the study’s lead author, points out, there are still 70% of North America’s birds left to spur a recovery if conservation measures can be implemented. But action must come soon.	The first-ever comprehensive assessment of net bird population changes in the U.S. and Canada, published in Science in 2019, reveals across-the-board declines that scientists call “staggering.” All told, the North American bird population is down by 2.9 billion breeding adults, with devastating losses among birds in every biome. Forests alone have lost 1 billion birds. Grassland bird populations collectively have declined by 53%, or another 720 million birds. Habitat loss is likely to be a driving factor in these declines, say the authors, particularly agricultural intensification and development. Not all the news out of this analysis is dire. Some groups of birds are doing well, and for good reason—governments and societies have invested in saving them. Raptors, waterfowl, and turkeys show what’s possible when commitments are made to bird conservation. These species numbers have increased to over 15 million raptors, 35 million waterfowl, and 250 million turkeys and grouse since 1970. As Rosenberg, the study’s lead author, points out, even if 30% of North America’s birds are lost, there are still 70% left to spur a recovery if conservation measures can be implemented. But action must come soon.

*The fourth message condition was the control group which did not receive any text or images.

Table 3. Regression coefficients predicting donation, political engagement, and proconservation behavioral intentions.

Independent variable β (standardized coefficient)
	Donation	Political engagement	ProConservation
Pessimistic Frame	0.09***	0.08	0.04
Optimistic Frame	0.01	−0.07	−0.07
Combined Frame	0.02	−0.01	−0.01
Control^a	–	–	–
Age	−0.00*	−0.02***	−0.01***
Gender Identity	0.02	− 0.11*	0.18***
Race/Ethnicity: White	−0.01	−0.10	0.00
Race/Ethnicity: Black	0.03	−0.05	0.05
Race/Ethnicity: Hispanic, Latino	−0.01	0.05**	−0.11
Spanish
Education Completed	0.02**	−0.00	0.03
Household Income	0.03**	−0.01	0.01
Marital Status	0.01	−0.05**	−0.04**
Political Party	0.01	−0.08*	−0.01

^aAll coefficients are compared against the control group

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Table 4. Pairwise comparison of treatment for donation behavior.

	Pessimistic	Optimistic	Combined	Control
Pessimistic	–	0.075**	0.071**	0.087***
Optimistic	−0.075*	–	−0.005	0.012
Combined	−0.071**	0.005	–	0.016
Control	−0.087***	−0.012	−0.016	–

The values in the table represent the row variable minus the column variable (e.g., –0.075 is Optimistic minus Pessimistic).

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Figure 2. Mediating role of negative emotion on the pessimistic message frame and donation behavior (compared to the optimistic frame).

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Figure 3. Mediating role of negative emotion on the pessimistic message frame and political engagement behavior (compared to the optimistic frame).

*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.

Figure 4. Mediating role of positive emotion on the optimistic message frame and political engagement behavior (compared to the pessimistic frame).

*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.

Figure 5. Mediating role of negative emotion on the pessimistic message frame and pro-conservation behavior (compared to the optimistic frame).

*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.

Figure 6. Mediating role of positive emotion on the optimistic message frame and pro-conservation behavior (compared to the pessimistic frame).

*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.