Electric vehicles represent a promising path toward reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, but partisan polarization presents a significant barrier to their widespread adoption in the United States. This study provides a detailed look at the auto industry's strategies for reframing electric vehicles (EVs) to resonate with mainstream American consumers, and it contributes to scholarly understanding of how sustainable products are framed to politically diverse audiences. Through a comprehensive content analysis, we analyze the persuasive strategies in all available EV video advertisements run in the U.S. from 2018 to 2023. Spanning 263 unique advertisements and 62 vehicle models, our analyses reveal the ways that nature and the environment are used in EV ads. Our data show that 90% of EV ads do not make any reference to sustainability, and 71% do not employ nature in any way. Instead, EV ads tend to emphasize vehicle features and performance, and they portray EVs as a futuristic transportation revolution. We situate these findings within the broader literature on partisan polarization of environmental issues, identity signaling in green consumer behavior, and green marketing strategy. We argue that the near-total absence of sustainability messaging in EV advertising reflects an industry-wide strategy to decouple electric vehicles from environmental identity and reframe them as mainstream consumer products.

Reducing climate change requires persuading people about climate change and climate solutions. The nearly universal way of evaluating which climate and environmental messages are most effective is to calculate and compare average treatment effects (ATEs). The problem with the ATE, however, is that it does not describe the underlying pattern of persuasion: whether effect size is better predicted by how many people are persuaded (i.e., breadth), or how much they are persuaded (i.e., depth). Here, we investigate this in a preregistered meta-analysis of our experimental data archive, avoiding publication bias (14 experiments; 94 treatments; total N = 41,265). We find that as treatment effects increase, the breadth and depth of persuasion both increase. However, the predictive power of breadth (𝛽 = 0.47, 95% CI [0.29, 0.65]) is far stronger than that of depth (𝛽 = 0.10, 95% CI [0.04, 0.15]). We also find that breadth and depth are only weakly correlated (𝛽 = 0.23, 95% CI [0.003, 0.46]), confirming they are distinct. Additionally, as average treatment effects increase, we also find that negative (i.e., backlash) effects decrease (𝛽 = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.15]), suggesting that larger ATEs are a function of increased persuasion and decreased backlash. Through three case studies, we show how these results generalize and when they can be audience-dependent. These results have important implications for both scholars and practitioners of climate and environmental communication.

Research shows that opinions rooted in moral justifications may be more stable over time. This suggests that communicators could create more durable persuasion by adding explicit moral claims (i.e., stating that the issue is a matter of right vs. wrong) to persuasive messages. Here, using animated videos about the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, we conducted a three-stage longitudinal experiment ( N = 4,488) to test whether messages with explicit moral claims have more durable persuasive effects than similar messages without. We replicated this test across two distinct moral dimensions: harm to innocent people and contamination of nature’s purity. Our findings show that all message versions had strong immediate persuasive effects relative to a control condition, and much of those effects remained after a 3-week period. However, there were no clear advantages—in immediate effects or in durability—from adding explicit moral claims to the messages.

Decades of research on strategic communication campaigns has generated myriad insights. However, this valuable knowledge is often fragmented across many fields and topic areas, making it difficult for researchers and practitioners to distill this knowledge and map the key strategic considerations. In this article, we present an overarching framework for understanding the effects of strategic communication campaigns. We define the driving force as all the efforts, contexts, and systems that advance the campaign’s goals, and the restraining force as those that restrict the campaign’s goals. The total impact of any driving or restraining force can be understood as the product of its reach, effect, and durability. Reach refers to the proportion of people in the target population that are exposed to the corresponding driving or restraining force. Effect refers to the size of the impact of that force, among those who are exposed. Durability refers to the extent to which the effect of that force lasts over time and/or resists opposing forces. We highlight how this framework can be used to distill, connect, and interpret large amounts of extant research and theory, and how it can be used by researchers to design research programs and identify persisting knowledge gaps.

ABSTRACT Literary works of fiction about climate change are becoming more common and more popular among critics and readers. While much research has indicated the persuasive effectiveness of narrative storytelling in general, empirical research has not yet tested the effects of reading climate fiction. This paper reports results from the first experimental study to test the immediate and delayed impacts of climate fiction on readers’ beliefs and attitudes about climate change. We found that reading climate fiction had small but significant positive effects on several important beliefs and attitudes about global warming – observed immediately after participants read the stories. However, these effects diminished to statistical nonsignificance after a one-month interval. In this paper, we review the relevant literature, present the design and results of this experiment, and discuss implications for future research and practice.

Effective communication can help increase bipartisan support for renewable energy. Prior research suggests that support for renewable energy may be determined, in part, by which of its benefits are emphasized. Here we use a three-stage, longitudinal experiment (N = 2,891) to compare the immediate and over-time effects of three informational frames of renewable energy’s benefits (cost savings, economy boost and global warming mitigation). We tested each message’s effects on US Democrats’ and Republicans’ beliefs about and support for renewable energy, and we compared the longevity of these effects over a period of three weeks. We find that cost savings was the most effective frame—both in terms of immediate effect size on beliefs and in the longevity of those effects—with negligible differences between political groups. The durability of all effects exhibited a consistent pattern: an initial steep drop in effect size followed by a plateau. Communication is an important tool in combating climate change and building support for new energy policy. Here Gustafson et al. measure the longitudinal effect of three message frames around the benefits of renewable energy on Democrat and Republican beliefs and support for such technology in the United States.

Climate communicators can use the terms ‘climate change’ or ‘extreme weather’ to describe climate change adaptation strategies. However, the terms might differentially affect individuals’ support for those strategies. We examined Americans’ (N = 1,558) endorsement of climate change adaptation behaviors and policies based on whether they were described using ‘climate change’ or ‘extreme weather.’ Republicans’ endorsement of some adaptation behaviors and policies was lower when using the term ‘climate change’ compared with ‘extreme weather,’ while in contrast, Democrats’ reported willingness to engage in collective adaptation behaviors and support for policies related to protecting natural spaces was higher when using the term ‘climate change.’ The appropriateness of using ‘climate change’ or ‘extreme weather’ is situational depending on both the audience and the behaviors and policies being communicated.

Both lifestyle and structural changes are needed to reduce carbon emissions and limit the impacts of climate change. In a series of three studies, we examine whether undertaking behaviors at the personal level affects (i.e., spills over onto) people's willingness to engage in behaviors at the collective level. In Study 1, we find that none of the personal behaviors measured are negatively associated with collective behavior intentions (willingness to join a campaign to convince elected officials to take action to reduce climate change), but some of the personal behaviors are positively associated with collective behavior intentions. In Study 2, we find that increasing the salience of past personal behaviors does not spill over to collective behavioral intentions. In Study 3, we find that increasing the salience of past personal behavior does not spillover to collective behavioral intentions but does increase support for a carbon tax on companies. We also find that increasing the salience of past behavior increases environmental identity and the perception that one is already taking enough action to reduce climate change. Overall, the results suggest that there are no spillover effects of personal mitigation behaviors on collective mitigation behavioral intentions. Messages that directly encourage collective mitigation behaviors may be more effective at promoting these behaviors than messages that emphasize past personal behaviors.

Pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) are crucial to reducing environmental degradations, and much research has focused on two key psychological antecedents: pro-environmental attitudes and efficacy beliefs. Yet, the evidence of their direct and interactive relationships are mixed. Further, few studies investigate how these key relationships vary across different countries and contexts. Using data from a large international survey ( N = 11,000) in 11 countries, we examine relationships among environmental attitudes, efficacy, and PEBs. Overall environmental attitudes are a strong predictor of PEBs, while efficacy has a small direct and a non-significant moderation effect. Within countries, both direct and moderation relationships involving efficacy are tiny. The relative dominance of environmental attitudes as a predictor raises questions about the unique importance of efficacy in explaining PEBs separate from attitudes (and covariates). The nuanced connections between these variables within individual countries highlight the importance of more diverse global environmental research. Keywords environmental attitudes , efficacy , pro-environmental behaviors , multi-country , moderation

Scientists know that human activities, primarily fossil fuel combustion, are causing Earth's temperature to increase. Yet in 2021, only 60% of the US population understood that human activities are the primary cause of global warming. We experimentally test whether information about the human causes of global warming influences Americans' beliefs and concerns about global warming and support for climate policies. We find that communicating information about the human-causes of global warming increases public understanding that global warming is human-caused. This information, both alone and with additional information about climate impacts and policy solutions, also increases public concern about global warming and support for climate policies, although the effects on climate concern and policy support are smaller. Importantly, the treatment effects are consistent across political party, with no backlash effects among Republicans. This suggests that when informed about climate change causes, impacts and solutions, most Americans can update their own climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, and policy support.

Using open-ended responses from 5,297 interviews across 11 countries, this study reports what people say are the most important reasons to protect nature. Overall, and in some individual countries (e.g., Brazil, China, South Africa, South Korea, United States), the most frequently stated reason was an anthropocentric motive of ensuring human health and survival. But in some countries (e.g., Kenya, United Kingdom, Indonesia), ecocentric and altruistic motives—such as maintaining balance in nature’s delicate interconnected system or protecting nature for future generations—were more common.

Prior research has demonstrated that communicating the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening is an effective way to increase public understanding and engagement with the issue. However, less is known about (1) how persuasive this message is to oppositional audiences, (2) how long message effects last over time, and (3) what factors predict whether such effects last. We address these questions in a two-wave longitudinal study and find that consensus messaging leads to updated consensus beliefs across Global Warming's Six Americas. Although consensus treatment effects decay over time, 40% of the original treatment effect remains 26 days later. Additionally, the treatment effect is most durable among people Doubtful or Dismissive of climate change. Our findings address an ongoing debate in the literature and support a Bayesian learning perspective, with little evidence of motivated reasoning.

Romantic partners influence each other's beliefs and behaviors. However, little is known about the dynamics of climate change beliefs and behaviors within romantic couples. We surveyed 758 romantic couples (N = 1,516 individuals) to investigate (a) correspondence between partners' climate change beliefs/behaviors, (b) accuracy and bias in people's perceptions of their partner's beliefs/behaviors, (c) whether a person's perceptions of their partner's beliefs/behaviors are more strongly predicted by that partner's actual beliefs/behaviors or by projections of one's own beliefs/behaviors, and (d) how perceptual accuracy varies across moderating variables such as frequency of discussion about global warming. We find that climate change beliefs and behaviors often differ between romantic partners. Moreover, people's perceptions of their partner's beliefs/behaviors are predicted by their own beliefs and behaviors (assumed similarity), independently from the predictive effect of their partner's actual beliefs and behaviors (accuracy). We identify opportunities for future research on relationship-based climate change interventions.

Despite Greta Thunberg's popularity, research has yet to investigate her impact on the public's willingness to take collective action on climate change. Using cross-sectional data from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults (N = 1,303), we investigate the "Greta Thunberg Effect," or whether exposure to Greta Thunberg predicts collective efficacy and intentions to engage in collective action. We find that those who are more familiar with Greta Thunberg have higher intentions of taking collective actions to reduce global warming and that stronger collective efficacy beliefs mediate this relationship. This association between familiarity with Greta Thunberg, collective efficacy beliefs, and collective action intentions is present even after accounting for respondents' overall support for climate activism. Moderated mediation models testing age and political ideology as moderators of the "Greta Thunberg Effect" indicate that although the indirect effect of familiarity with Greta Thunberg via collective efficacy is present across all age-groups, and across the political spectrum, it may be stronger among those who identify as more liberal (than conservative). Our findings suggest that young public figures like Greta Thunberg may motivate collective action across the U.S. public, but their effect may be stronger among those with a shared political ideology. Implications for future research and for broadening climate activists' appeals across the political spectrum are discussed.

It is essential to increase public understanding of the existence, causes and harms of climate change. In the United States, Republicans are one important audience, as the bipartisan support needed for ambitious and durable climate policy is currently lacking. An important limitation of most climate change message testing is that it is usually based on controlled experiments, which may or may not be equally effective in the real world. Here we report the effects of a one-month advertising campaign field experiment ( N = 1,600) that deployed videos about the reality and risks of climate change to people in two competitive congressional districts (Missouri-02 and Georgia-07). The videos were designed to appeal to Republicans and were targeted to this audience via online advertisements. The study finds that, within the targeted congressional districts, the campaign increased Republicans’ understanding of the existence, causes and harms of climate change by several percentage points.

Reducing global warming will require enacting strong climate policies, which is unlikely to happen without public support. While prior research has identified varied predictors of climate change policy support, it is unclear which predictors are strongest for the American electorate as a whole, and which predictors are strongest for Democrats and Republicans. In a nationally representative sample of registered voters (n = 2063), we use relative weight analysis to identify the strongest predictors of public climate policy support. We find that, among registered voters in the USA, the five most important predictors of climate policy support are: worry about global warming; risk perceptions; certainty that global warming is happening; belief that global warming is human-caused; and general affect toward global warming. Collectively, these five variables account for 51% of the variance in policy support. Results split by political party indicate that pro-climate injunctive norms and global warming risk perceptions are the variables that differ most between Republicans and Democrats, accounting for significantly more variance in policy support among Republicans. These findings can inform policymakers and advocates seeking to build public support for climate action.