When measured overall, most Americans recognize that climate change is a danger to U.S. well-being. But that understanding is split by political affiliation: Almost 90% of Democrats and independents consider climate change a major threat to the nation, as opposed to 31% of Republicans, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in March.
That stark divide has long frustrated health and environmental advocates, especially as everyone is threatened by climate change, regardless of their politics. But new research published in February in the Journal of Environmental Psychology may help climate advocates recast their messages.
Climate change threatens health of people across the U.S., from increases in extreme weather events and rising sea levels to more wildfires and droughts. NASA scientists predict that greenhouse gases produced by human activities will raise the global temperature for decades to come. Health advocates want all people to understand those risks.
To address the issue, study researchers from Virginia Tech tested pro-environment messages on nearly 450 self-identified liberals and conservatives, relying on the Moral Foundations Theory. The theory says that people have different moral priorities when it comes to deciding what is right and wrong.
People who are liberal tend to be most concerned with issues of fairness, such as justice, fair treatment of others, caring for others and preventing harm, according to the researchers, while people who are conservative tend to prioritize authority, loyalty and sanctity, such as the value of people, places and principles.
The researchers found that by tweaking climate change messaging to highlight conservative moral priorities, people who valued those principles were more open to hearing about climate change issues.
For example, when researchers noted that transitioning away from fossil fuels was patriotic and safer for communities than relying on international oil trade, people who were conservative were more receptive to the message.
“If you’re trying to reach a new audience, you’re going to have to try and tap into these concerns,” lead study author Kristin Hurst, PhD, a postdoctoral research associate at Ohio State University, told The Nation’s Health. “There are true and valid arguments that might work, even if it doesn’t line up with what works for (others).”
Health and environment advocates can appeal to people who are conservative by emphasizing the duty to protect national parks and wetlands, or appeal to their interest in sanctity by highlighting damage and degradation to local environments.
“If you want to convince someone who may think differently than you do, it’s very useful to think beyond the argument that feels most compelling to you,” Hurst said.
For more information, read the study in the Journal of Environmental Psychology at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027249441830611X.
- Copyright The Nation’s Health, American Public Health Association
