In this post, I will summarise a paper comparing two pro-environmental messages - one framed for typically liberal values, and another addressing conservative values - and their effects on Conservatives’ support for climate action.
Which publication are we talking about?
Hurst, K., & Stern, M. J. (2020) Messaging for environmental action: The role of moral framing and message source. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101394. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101394
What was the authors’ aim?
To see how messages framed around liberal or conservative values would impact political Liberals’ and Conservatives’ support for transitioning away from fossil fuels and interest in taking action.
What previous research existed?
According to moral foundations theory, there are 5 principles that guide our beliefs about right or wrong
- Caring for others and preventing harm
- Being fair, just and preventing cheating
- Showing loyalty to one’s ingroup and condemning traitors
- Respecting authority and tradition, and performing one’s duty
- Protecting the purity or sacredness of valued objects, people, places and principles
- Liberals tend to emphasise 1) caring for others and 2) being fair and just
- They are less fussed about the others
- While Conservatives give equal weight to 1) caring for others, 2) being fair and just, as they do to 3) showing loyalty, 4) respecting authority, and 5) protecting sacredness
Pro-environmental messages often address the 1st 2 values, without properly addressing the last 3.
- For example, messages about ‘banning fossil fuels’ could seem at odds with 3) showing loyalty (e.g., to those who work in fossil fuel industries), 4) respecting tradition (e.g., history of fossil fuel extraction), or 5) protecting sacredness of free-market principles (i.e., don’t want government intervention)
- Using messages like this may have helped create this perception that taking environmental action is a liberal issue that is not compatible with conservative values
So perhaps a pro-environmental message carefully tailored to address all 5 conservative values might encourage environmental action?
What did the authors do?
- They created two messages advocating for a transition from fossil fuels to clean energy
- For example, the “Conservative Appeal” starts with “America is built on the pillars of freedom and innovation. Working together, we can move away from our unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels. We can cut ties with terrorist nations and reclaim our rightful status as the proud and independent economic leader of the world…”
- While the “Liberal Appeal” begins “Working together, we can make the compassionate and equitable choice to transition away from our harmful dependence on fossil fuels. We can care for our natural environment and still secure the energy supply we need to thrive economically…”
- Recruited 640 self-identified political partisans from Prolific (an online survey platform)
- Participants read 1 of the 2 messages,
- Which came from either a conservative, liberal, or nonpartisan organisation,
- Then rated their;
- Support for transitioning away from fossil fuels
- Interest in learning more about transitioning away from fossil fuels
- Interest in taking action (“such as writing your government representative, signing a petition, or donating to an organization”)
What did the authors find?
- Conservatives express more support for transitioning away from fossil fuels after reading a conservatively-framed message delivered from a conservative source.
- A typical liberally-framed message is ineffective, even if it comes from a conservative source.
TLDR
Typical environmental messages may neglect 3 core values that Conservatives care about, therefore making environmental issues seem like a Liberal issue incompatible with Conservative values. Crafting a pro-environmental message that addresses all 5 moral concerns, and delivering that message from a conservative source, can increase Conservatives’ support for transitioning away from fossil fuels.