From influencing to engagement: a framing model for climate communication in polarised settings

References

• Aksit, O., et al., 2018. The influence of instruction, prior knowledge, and values on climate change risk perception among undergraduates. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55 (4), 550–572. doi:10.1002/tea.21430
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amsalem, E. and Zoizner, A., 2020. Real, but limited: a meta-analytic assessment of framing effects in the political domain. British Journal of Political Science, 52 (1), 221–237. doi:10.1017/S0007123420000253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badullovich, N., Grant, W.J., and Colvin, R.M., 2020. Framing climate change for effective communication: a systematic map. Environmental Research Letters, 15 (12), 123002. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aba4c7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beiser-mcgrath, L.F. and Bernauer, T., 2019. Commitment failures are unlikely to undermine public support for the Paris agreement. Nature Climate Change, 9 (3), 248–252. doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0414-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernauer, T. and McGrath, L.F., 2016. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6 (7), 680–683. doi:10.1038/nclimate2948
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blue, G. and Dale, J., 2016. Framing and power in public deliberation with climate change: critical reflections on the role of deliberative practitioners. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12 (1), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Bolsen, T., Palm, R., and Kingsland, J.T., 2019. The impact of message source on the effectiveness of communications about climate change. Science Communication, 41 (4), 464–487. doi:10.1177/1075547019863154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouman, T., Steg, L., and Perlaviciute, G. 2021. From values to climate action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 102–107. Online:. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruun Overgaard, C.S., et al., 2021. Building connective democracy: interdisciplinary solutions to the problem of polarisation. In: H. Tumber and S. Waisbord eds. The routledge companion to media disinformation and populism, 559–568. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, D., Cheng, C., and Urpelainen, J., 2016. Support for renewable energy in China: a survey experiment with internet users. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 3750–3758. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong, D. and Druckman, J.N., 2007. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10 (1), 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chryst, B., et al., 2018. Global warming’s “six americas short survey”: audience segmentation of climate change views using a four question instrument. Environmental Communication, 12 (8), 1109–1122. doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1508047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colvin, R.M., Jotzo, F., and Ali, G., 2021. Australian voters’ attitudes to climate action and their social-political determinants. PLoS One, 16 (3), 1–18. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colvin, R.M., Witt, G.B., and Lacey, J., 2015. The social identity approach to understanding socio-political conflict in environmental and natural resources management. Global Environmental Change, 34, 237–246. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, J., et al., 2016. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11 (4), 048002. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corner, A., et al., 2015. How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators: engaging young people with climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 6 (5), 523–534. doi:10.1002/wcc.353
   Google Scholar
• Corner, A. and Clarke, J., 2017a. A fresh approach to public engagement. In: Palgrave Macmillan ed. Talking climate: from research to practice in public engagement. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Corner, A. and Clarke, J., 2017b. Language, frames, and narratives. In: Palgrave Macmillan ed. Talking climate: from research to practice in public engagement. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 51–70.
   Google Scholar
• Corner, A. and Clarke, J., 2017c. The buildling blocks of public engagement. In: Palgrave Macmillan ed. Talking climate: from research to practice in public engagement. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 35–49.
   Google Scholar
• Corner, A., Markowitz, E., and Pidgeon, N., 2014. Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values. WIREs Climate Change, 5 (3), 411–422. doi:10.1002/wcc.269
   Google Scholar
• Corner, A. and Randall, A., 2011. Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Global Environmental Change, 21 (3), 1005–1014. Online:. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corner, A., Whitmarsh, L., and Xenias, D., 2012. Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Climatic Change, 114 (3–4), 463–478. Online:. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0424-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coronel, J.C., et al., 2020. How are competitive framing environments transformed by person-to-person communication? An integrated social transmission, content analysis, and eye movement monitoring approach. Communication Research [ online], 1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crow, D.A. and Lawlor, A., 2016. Media in the policy process: using framing and narratives to understand policy influences. Review of Policy Research, 33 (5), 472–491. doi:10.1111/ropr.12187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curato, N., et al., 2017. Twelve key findings in deliberative democracy research. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 146, 28–38.
   Google Scholar
• Detenber, B.H., et al., 2018. Complementary versus competitive framing effects in the context of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Science Communication, 40 (2), 173–198. doi:10.1177/1075547018758075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diani, M., 1992. The concept of social movement. The Sociological Review, 40 (1), 1–25. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1992.tb02943.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J.N., 2001a. On the limits of framing effects: who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63 (4), 1041–1066. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J.N., 2001b. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23 (3), 225–256. doi:10.1023/A:1015006907312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J.N. and Lupia, A., 2017. Using frames to make scientific communication more effective. In: K.H. Jamieson, D.M. Kahan and D.A. Scheufele. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. United States of America: Oxford University Press, 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J.N. and Nelson, K.R., 2003. Framing and deliberation: how citizens‘ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47 (4), 729–745. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckersley, R., 2020. Ecological democracy and the rise and decline of liberal democracy: looking back, looking forward. Environmental Politics, 29 (2), 214–234. doi:10.1080/09644016.2019.1594536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entman, R.M., 1993. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ergun, S.J. and Rivas, M.F., 2019. The effect of social roles, religiosity, and values on climate change concern: an empirical analysis for Turkey. Sustainable Development, 27 (4), 758–769. doi:10.1002/sd.1939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fielding, K.S., et al., 2020. Using ingroup messengers and ingroup values to promote climate change policy. Climatic Change, 158 (2), 181–199. doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02561-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fielding, K.S. and Hornsey, M.J., 2016. A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: insights and opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00121
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, W., 2006. Reframing “ Framing ”. New York: Public Agenda's Centre for Advances in Public Engagement.
   Google Scholar
• Füchslin, T., 2019. Science communication scholars use more and more segmentation analyses: can we take them to the next level? Public Understanding of Science, 28 (7), 854–864. doi:10.1177/0963662519850086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, M.H., et al., 2019. Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, 14804–14805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, M.H., Gustafson, A., and Van Der Linden, S., 2020. Perspective leveraging social science to generate lasting engagement with climate change solutions. One Earth, 3 (3), 314–324. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.011
   Google Scholar
• Greenaway, K.H., et al., 2015. Shared identity is key to effective communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41 (2), 171–182. doi:10.1177/0146167214559709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunningham, N., 2017. Building norms from the grassroots up: divestment, expressive politics, and climate change. Law & Policy, 39 (4), 372–392. doi:10.1111/lapo.12083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, P.S., et al., 2015. Extending the impacts of hostile media perceptions: influences on discussion and opinion polarization in the context of climate change. Science Communication, 37 (4), 506–532. doi:10.1177/1075547015592067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haslam, S.A., 2000. Psychology in organizations: the social identity approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Hine, D.W., et al., 2014. Audience segmentation and climate change communication: conceptual and methodological. WIREs Climate Change, 5 (4), 441–459. doi:10.1002/wcc.279
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, T., et al., 2012. The common cause handbook.
   Google Scholar
• Horne, C. and Kennedy, E.H., 2019. Explaining support for renewable energy: commitments to self-sufficiency and communion. Environmental Politics, 28 (5), 929–949. Online:. doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1517917
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornsey, M.J., 2008. Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: a historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2 (1), 204–222. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x
   Google Scholar
• Hornsey, M.J. and Fielding, K.S., 2017. Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. American Psychologist, 72 (5), 459–473. doi:10.1037/a0040437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornsey, M.J. and Fielding, K.S., 2020. Understanding (and Reducing) inaction on climate change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14 (1), 3–35. doi:10.1111/sipr.12058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornsey, M.J., Harris, E.A., and Fielding, K.S., 2018. Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nature Climate Change, 8 (7), 614–620. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howarth, C., et al., 2020. Building a social mandate for climate action: lessons from COVID-19. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 76 (4), 1107–1115. doi:10.1007/s10640-020-00446-9
   Google Scholar
• IPCC, 2021. Summary for policymakers. In: V. Masson-Delmotte, et al., eds. The physical science basis. contribution of working group i to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jamison, A., 2010. Climate change knowledge and social movement theory. Environmental Reviews Climate Change, 1, 811–823.
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D.M., 2015. Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology, 36, 1–43. doi:10.1111/pops.12244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J. and Kim, E.J., 2008. Theorizing dialogic deliberation: everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Communication Theory, 18 (1), 51–70. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00313.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J., 1993. How do issues get on public policy agendas? In: Sociology and the public Agenda. SAGE Publications, Inc, 40–50. Available from: https://sk.sagepub.com/books/sociology-and-the-public-agenda/n3.xml.
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J.W., 2003. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. E. Stano, ed. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kyselá, E., Ščasný, M., and Zvěřinová, I., 2019. Attitudes toward climate change mitigation policies: a review of measures and a construct of policy attitudes. Climate Policy, 19 (7), 878–892. doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1611534
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecheler, S. and de Vreese, C.H., 2011. Getting real: the duration of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 61 (5), 959–983. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01580.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecheler, S. and de Vreese, C.H., 2016. How long do news framing effects last? A Systematic review of longitudinal studies. Annals of the International Communication Association, 40, 3–30.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, E.J., Lee, J., and Schumann, D.W., 2002. The influence of communication source and mode on consumer adoption of technological innovations. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 36 (1), 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2002.tb00418.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leiserowitz, A., et al., 2020. Politics & global warming, April 2020. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
   Google Scholar
• Leiserowitz, A., et al., 2021. Global Warming’s Six Americas: a review and recommendations for climate change communication. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 97–103. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucas, C. and Warman, R., 2018. Disrupting polarized discourses: can we get out of the ruts of environmental conflicts? Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36, 987–1005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maibach, E.W., et al., 2010. Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health, 10 (1). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-299
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McAdam, D., 2017. Social movement theory and the prospects for climate change activism in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 20 (1), 189–208. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801
   Google Scholar
• McAlevey, J.F., 2016. No Shortcuts - organising for power. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCright, A.M., et al., 2016. Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8 (1), 76–97. Online:. doi:10.1111/tops.12171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCright, A.M. and Dunlap, R.E., 2011. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52 (2), 155–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer-Mapstone, L., et al., 2017. Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate. Resources Policy, 54, 137–146. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.09.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muradova, L., Walker, H., and Colli, F., 2020. Climate change communication and public engagement in interpersonal deliberative settings: evidence from the Irish citizens’ assembly. Climate Policy, 20 (10), 1322–1335. doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1777928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, T.A., et al., 2012. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change: a Letter. Climatic Change, 113 (3–4), 1105–1112. Online:. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nerlich, B., Koteyko, N., and Brown, B., 2010. Theory and language of climate change communication. WIREs Climate Change, 1 (1), 97–110. doi:10.1002/wcc.2
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, A., von Borgstede, C., and Biel, A., 2004. Willingness to accept climate change strategies: the effect of values and norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (3), 267–277. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M.C., 2019. Sciences, publics, politics: the limits of strategic messaging. Issues in Science and Technology, Available from: https://issues.org/the-limits-of-strategic-messaging/ [Accessed 23 Feb 2020].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordbrandt, M., 2020. Do cross-cutting discussions enhance pro-environmental attitudes? Testing green deliberative theory in practice. Environmental Politics, 30 (3), 326–356. Online:. doi:10.1080/09644016.2020.1787063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quicke, A., 2021. Climate of the Nation 2021: tracking Australia’s attitudes towards climate change and energy. Canberra: The Australia Institute, 1–44.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, E., Axsen, J., and Jaccard, M., 2017. Exploring citizen support for different types of climate policy. Ecological Economics, 137, 56–69. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rode, J.B., et al. 2021. Influencing climate change attitudes in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101623. Online:. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romsdahl, R., 2020. Deliberative framing: opening up discussions for local-level public engagement on climate change. Climatic Change, 162 (2), 145–163. doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02754-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romsdahl, R., Blue, G., and Kirilenko, A., 2018. Action on climate change requires deliberative framing at local governance level. Climatic Change, 149 (3–4), 277–287. doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2240-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, S.H., 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, S.H., 2012. An Overview of the schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2 (1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1116
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, L.C. and Warshaw, C., 2017. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nature Energy, 2 (8), 1–6. doi:10.1038/nenergy.2017.107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suldovsky, B., 2017. The information deficit model and climate change communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.301
   Google Scholar
• Svenningsen, L.S. and Thorsen, B.J., 2021. The effect of gain-loss framing on climate policy preferences. Ecological Economics, 185, 107009. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., et al., 1971. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1 (2), 149–178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., 1982. Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H. and Turner, J., 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: W.G. Austin and S. Worchel, eds. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 33–47.
   Google Scholar
• Tranter, B. and Foxwell-Norton, K., 2020. Only in Queensland? Coal mines and voting in the 2019 Australian federal election. Environmental Sociology, 7 (1), 90–101. Online:. doi:10.1080/23251042.2020.1810376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Swol, L.M., et al., 2022. Fostering climate change consensus: the role of intimacy in group discussions . Public Understanding of Science, 31 (1), 103–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiest, S.L., Raymond, L., and Clawson, R.A. 2015. Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Global Environmental Change, 31, 187–198. Online:. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H., and Seiden, J., 2016. Red, white, and blue enough to be green: effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7–19. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodly, D.R., 2015. The Politics of Common Sense: How Social Movements Use Public Discourse to Change Politics and Win Acceptance. New York: Oxford University Press, 19–34. Oxford Scholarship Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190203986.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Woodward, R., 1995. Approaches towards the study of social polarization in the UK. Progress in Human Geography, 19 (1), 75–89. doi:10.1177/030913259501900105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, B., et al., 2018. Experimental effects of climate messages vary geographically. Nature Climate Change, 8 (5), 370–374. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0122-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, J., 2016. Boomerangs versus Javelins: how Polarization Constrains Communication on Climate Change. Environmental Politics, 25 (5), 788–811. Online:. doi:10.1080/09644016.2016.1166602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar