bertolotti catellani vilm3

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?


From: Scientific American, March 18th, 2014


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...)


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).



Levels of Message framing

Actors responsible for the policy

Identification

Support for climate change

policies

Regulatory focus


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).


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



Regulatory concern

What basic need will the policy affect?

Growth concern Safety concern




Foster economic growthTechnological advancement

Safety of human activitiesCoping with extreme climatic conditions



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




More affordable energyObtain better climatic conditions

Less expensive energyAvoid worse climatic conditions


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)


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?



Stimuli

Outcome Sensitivity

Regulatory Concern

Achievement of Positive 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?


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



Outcomes

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

GH Gas Emissions Policy


Growth Concern

Safety Concern

Voting intention as a function of message framing



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


Growth Concern

Safety Concern

Agreement as a function of outcome sensitivity and regulatory focus

Attainment of Positive 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


Outcomes

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0 GH Gas Emissions Policy


Promotion Focus

Prevention Focus



Levels of Message framing

Actors responsible for the policy

Identification


policies

Regulatory focus


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.


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)


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?



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


Regulatory Concern


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

%


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


Italy Europe


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.


Future directions

Four levels of self-regulatory

framing

Political actors responsible for

the policy

Identification


policies

Regulatory focus

"Feeling right"

Collective efficacy

Values

bertolotti catellani vilm3

Environment

regulatory fitmessage

message framingmessage

multiple levels of framing

different aspects

bertolotti catellani2

international policies

emerging global issue

public support