The Agreement with Climate Change Policies
The Effects of Message Framing, Regulatory Focus, and National versus Supra-national
IdentityMauro BertolottiPatrizia Catellani
May 8-11, 2015The 2nd Vilm Conference on Identity in a Globalized World
Social Psychological Barriers and Catalysts for Action Addressing Global Climate Change
Bertolotti & Catellani
Climate change as a global collective concern
Climate change is an emerging global issue threatening our future as individuals, members of a community and human beings.
In addition to individual commitment, collective effort is needed in the form of governmental and international policies.
What are the psychosocial factors hindering or promoting public support for these policies?
Bertolotti & Catellani
Communication factors hindering support for climate change action
1. Communication about climate change policies is often very complex.
2. Communication often focuses on the threats of climate change (global warming, natural disasters etc...), and less often on the opportunities deriving from policy adoption (technological advancements etc...).
3. Communication rarely defines the actors responsible for climate change policies (the international community, nations, individual citizens...)
Bertolotti & Catellani
Promoting support for climate change action with message framing
1. Message framing can be used to select and organise information, providing it a meaningful interpretation (Entman, 1993; Scheufele, 1999).
2. Message framing can highlight both positive and negative aspects of policy adoption (or non-adoption) (Cesario et al., 2013).
3. Message framing can imply a focus on given actors with whom recipients are identified (Masson & Fritsche, 2014; Schuck & De Vreese, 2006).
Bertolotti & Catellani
Promoting support for climate change action with message framing
Levels of Message framing
Actors responsible for the policy
Identification
Support for climate change
policies
Regulatory focus
Bertolotti & Catellani
Message framing and regulatory fit
Message framing can be designed to reflect recipients' self-regulatory processes (Cesario et al.,
2013;Higgins, 1997).
There are different levels of self-regulatory framing:
Goal-pursuit strategy Regulatory concern Outcome sensitivity Hedonic consequences
Regulatory fit derives from the interaction among multiple levels of framing and recipients' regulatory focus (Cesario et al., 2004; Higgins et al., 2002).
Bertolotti & Catellani
Framing climate change policiesat different levels
Goal-pursuit strategy
How do we act against global warming and climate change?
Eager approach Vigilant avoidance
Investing in clean energy sources
Reducing reliance on fossil fuels
Bertolotti & Catellani
Framing climate change policiesat different levels
Regulatory concern
What basic need will the policy affect?
Growth concern Safety concern
Goal-pursuit strategy
How do we act against global warming and climate change?
Eager approach Vigilant avoidance
Foster economic growthTechnological advancement
Safety of human activitiesCoping with extreme climatic conditions
Bertolotti & Catellani
Framing climate change policiesat different levels
Outcome sensitivity
What is the desired outcome of the policy?
Attaining positive outcomes Avoiding negative outcomes
Regulatory concern
What basic need will the policy affect?
Growth concern Safety concern
Goal-pursuit strategy
How do we act against global warming and climate change?
Eager approach Vigilant avoidance
More affordable energyObtain better climatic conditions
Less expensive energyAvoid worse climatic conditions
Bertolotti & Catellani
Method
Two online studies (N = 95; N = 66) with student participants (77.5 % females, age M = 24.5).
Independent variables: Goal-pursuit strategy Regulatory concern Outcome sensitivity
Measured variables: Initial attitudes towards the policy Agreement with the policy message Voting intention
Individual regulatory focus scale (Lockwood et al., 2002)
(Bertolotti & Catellani, EJSP, 2014)
Bertolotti & Catellani
Stimuli
Outcome Sensitivity
Regulatory Concern
Achievement of Positive Outcomes
Avoidance of Negative Outcomes
Growth Concern“…we will obtain a positive
return on the economic development.”
“…we will avoid a negative impact on the economic
development.”
Safety Concern “…we will obtain a reduction of energy costs.”
“…we will avoid an increase of energy costs.”
Eager Approach Strategy: “If we invest in renewable energy sources like solar and wind power…”
• To what extent do you agree with the statement you have just read?
• Would you vote for a politician making this statement?
(Bertolotti & Catellani, EJSP, 2014)
Bertolotti & Catellani
Stimuli
Outcome Sensitivity
Regulatory Concern
Achievement of Positive Outcomes
Avoidance of Negative Outcomes
Growth Concern “…we will obtain better climatic conditions.”
“…we will avoid worse climatic conditions.”
Safety Concern“…we will obtain a reduction
of the negative effects of natural disasters.”
“…we will avoid an increase of the negative effects of
natural disasters.”
Vigilant Avoidance Strategy: “If we intervene on the emissions of greenhouse gases responsible of global warming…”
• To what extent do you agree with the statement you have just read?
• Would you vote for a politician making this statement?
(Bertolotti & Catellani, EJSP, 2014)
Agreement as a function of outcome sensitivity and regulatory concern
Attainment of Pos-itive Outcomes
Avoidance of Negative
Outcomes
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 Renewable Energy Policy
Attainment of Pos-itive Outcomes
Avoidance of Negative
Outcomes
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
GH Gas Emissions Policy
(Bertolotti & Catellani, EJSP, 2014)
Growth Concern
Safety Concern
Voting intention as a function of message framing
Attainment of Pos-itive Outcomes
Avoidance of Negative
Outcomes
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0Renewable Energy Policy
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0GH Gas Emissions Policy
(Bertolotti & Catellani, EJSP, 2014)
Growth Concern
Safety Concern
Agreement as a function of outcome sensitivity and regulatory focus
Attainment of Positive Outcomes
Avoidance of Negative Outcomes
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 Renewable Energy Policy
Attainment of Positive Out-
comes
Avoidance of Negative
Outcomes
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 GH Gas Emissions Policy
(Bertolotti & Catellani, EJSP, 2014)
Promotion Focus
Prevention Focus
Bertolotti & Catellani
Promoting support for climate change action with message framing
Levels of Message framing
Actors responsible for the policy
Identification
Support for climate change
policies
Regulatory focus
Bertolotti & Catellani
Identification with the actors responsible for climate change policies
Climate change policy are currently designed and implemented at a national or supra-national level.
People can identify with different groups at once (Castano et al., 2004; Turner et al., 1987).
These groups range from local communities, to nations, to supra-national organisations, to humanity as a whole (Reese et al., 2012; Reysen et al., 2013).
When communication focuses on the role of national or supra-national institutions, recipients identified with them more likely accept and support a policy.
Bertolotti & Catellani
Method
ITANES panel survey (N = 3244) on a representative sample of Italian voters.
Independent variables: Political actor responsible of policy implementation Hedonic consequence of the message Regulatory concern of the message
Measured variables: Agreement with the policy message National/supra-national identification ("I see my self as:
Only Italian / More Italian than European/Both Italian and European/More European than Italian/Only European")
(Bertolotti & Catellani, under revision, 2015)
Bertolotti & Catellani
Stimuli
Hedonic Consequence
Regulatory Concern Positive Outcome Negative Outcome
Growth Concern“…there will be positive
returns in terms of economic development.”
“…there will be negative returns in terms of economic
development.”
Safety Concern “…the cost of energy will be reduced.”
“…the cost of energy will increase.”
“If Italy/Europe invests (doesn't invest) in renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power…”
To what extent do you agree with the statement you have just read?
(Bertolotti & Catellani, under revision, 2015)
Bertolotti & Catellani
Agreement with the policy message as a function of hedonic consequence and regulatory concern
Growth Safety7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.0
8.2
8.4
Positive Con-sequence
Negative Con-sequence
Ag
reem
en
t
(Bertolotti & Catellani, under revision, 2015)
Regulatory Concern
Bertolotti & Catellani
Attribution of the policy to different actors as a function of identification
Predominantly National
National/Supra-national
Predominantly Supra-national
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Europe Italy EnterprisesCitizens Everybody None
%
(Bertolotti & Catellani, under revision, 2015)
Agreement as a function of message framing and identification
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0 Congruently-framed Message
IdentificationNational Supra-
national
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0 Incongruently-framed Message
IdentificationNational Supra-
national
(Bertolotti & Catellani, under revision, 2015)
Italy Europe
Bertolotti & Catellani
Conclusions
Support for climate change policies can be increased by coherent framing of policy messages.
Regulatory fit with receivers' individual focus increases the persuasiveness of messages.
Communication focusing on the actor responsible for a climate change policy can increase support, depending on receivers' identification.