Resilience vs. Adaptation: Framing and Action Gabrielle Wong-Parodi*1, Baruch Fischhoff1,2, Ben Strauss3
*[email protected], 1Department of Engineering and Public Policy, 2Department of Social and Decision Sciences, 3Climate Central
CE
Problem Statement and Objectives
Study 1 – Framing in a Word
The terms “resilience” and “adaptation” are alternately used to frame discussion about taking action to meet the current and future risks presented by climate change impacts.1-4 Communicators interested in motivating the public to take action on climate change face numerous choices when designing their messages, one of which is deciding which of these frames to use. How framing affects public response to current and future risks is an empirical question.
Frames are used by a broad range of communicators to orient people’s thinking in a particular way about a topic.5-7
Psychological and political science studies find that frames matter – in that they influence attitudes and behaviors of lay audiences.6 In psychology, “resilience” emphasizes a general ability to master challenges, whereas “adaptation” emphasizes specific coping responses. The former is a trait, associated with active mastery. The latter is a state, associated with accommodating stressors. Resilience includes the “adaptive capacity” to acquire new capabilities, perhaps emerging stronger from the struggle. If lay audiences think of these two terms similarly, then their use as frames may elicit very different responses to the risks of current and future flooding due to sea level rise.
Here we ask people to consider coastal flooding risks in two ways:
1. Framing with a single word for current risk 2. Framing in a program for future risk
• Concern about flooding risk: (a) flood expectations, (b) flood tolerance, and (c) flood insurance.
• Motivation to prepare for flooding risks: rated agreement with 4 actions as things (d) they could do to prepare against the risk of coastal flooding, (e) they would do, and (f) would help protect their families.
Study 2 – Framing in a Program
Experimental procedures After brief introduction, informed consent, and screening for age
(≥18), participants were randomly assigned to the Resilience or Adaptation condition (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Study 1 stimuli
Measures • Scenarios: Linguistic and psychological processes, social
concerns, and speech categories.
Experimental procedures After brief introduction, informed consent, and screening for age
(≥18), participants were randomly assigned to Resilience, Adaptation, or No Policy Stated conditions. All told to imagine moving to the fictitious “typical coastal town” of “Seaside” where they “want to settle down, with no plans to move ever again.” They were then told their family is concerned about coastal flooding, and wants them to find out more about it before moving. Participants in the No Policy Stated Condition completed the measures described for Study 1. The Resilience and Adaptation conditions were taken to the City of Seaside “website” where they read:
They then used Surging Seas’ Risk Finder decision aid.
Seaside and its citizens are investing in increasing their [resilience / ability to adapt] in the face of coastal flooding risks. One of our programs helps Seaside [become more resilient / adapt] by helping families make emergency plans. Another program provides no-interest loans for flood-proofing homes. Your family can feel good about [Resilient / Adapt] Seaside.
Results and Discussion
Discussion • Concern undermines action unless accompanied by plausible
plans.8
• Either term works for motivating action in general. For specific decisions about future risk, adaptation with plausible plans. For collective action, resilience might be suitable.
Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and
the National Science Foundation’s Center for Climate and Energy Decision-Making [NSF 09-554]
(1) McEvoy, D., Fünfgeld, H., & Bosomworth, K. (2013). Resilience and Climate Change AdaptaIon: The Importance of Framing. Planning PracIce & Research, (ahead-‐of-‐print), 1-‐14. (2) Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N., & Brown, K. (2007). AdaptaIon to environmental change: contribuIons of a resilience framework. Annual review of Environment and Resources, 32(1), 395. (3) Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., & Rockström, J. (2005). Social-‐ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309(5737), 1036-‐1039. (4) Brown, K. (2013). Global environmental change IA social turn for resilience?. Progress in Human Geography, 0309132513498837. (5) Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 10, 103-‐126. (6) Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and criIcal analysis of framing effects. OrganizaIonal behavior and human decision processes, 76(2), 149-‐188. (7) Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). RaIonal choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of business, S251-‐S278. (8) Hay, J. L., Buckley, T. R., & Ostroff, J. S. (2005). The role of cancer worry in cancer screening: a theoreIcal and empirical review of the literature. Psycho-‐Oncology, 14(7), 517-‐534.
Study 1 – Framing in a Word • Participants: 202 adults with an average age of 34.4
(SD=12.5), with 59.9% being female, 78.8% White or Caucasian, 36.7% with household income ≥$51K.
• Scenarios: Compared to Adaptation essays more often referenced family and used inclusion words, and less often referenced time and used adverbs (0.1<p<.05).
• Concern about flooding: No difference. • Motivation to prepare for flooding: No difference. Study 2 – Framing in a Program • Participants: 206 adults with an average age of 33.2
(SD=10.8), with 40.5% being female, 73.5% White or Caucasian, 36.8% with household income ≥$51K.
• Concern about flooding: Resilience more concerned (Figure 2). • Motivation to prepare for flooding: Resilience less willing to
take action (Figure 3).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Resilience Adaptation No Policy Stated
Resilience Adaptation No Policy Stated
Expe
cted
flo
od h
eigh
t (1-
10 f
eet)
Tolerable flood height Highest expected flood height
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Resili
ence
Adapta
tion
No Poli
cy St
ated
Resili
ence
Adapta
tion
No Poli
cy St
ated
Resili
ence
Adapta
tion
No Poli
cy St
ated
Agr
eem
ent (
1=co
mpl
etel
y di
sagr
ee,
7=co
mpl
etel
y ag
ree)
Action helpful to do Action would do Action could do
Figure 2. Study 2 results for concern about flooding
Figure 3. Study 2 results for motivation to prepare for flooding