Abstract
News organizations increasingly use the terms “climate emergency” and “climate crisis” to convey the urgency of climate change; yet, little is known about how this terminology affects news audiences. This study experimentally examined how using “climate emergency,” “climate crisis,” or “climate change” in Twitter-based news stories influences public engagement with climate change and news perceptions, as well as whether the effects depend on the focus of the news (i.e., on climate impacts, actions, or both impacts and actions) and on participants’ political ideology. Results showed no effect of terminology on climate change engagement; however, “climate emergency” reduced perceived news credibility and newsworthiness compared to “climate change.” Both climate engagement and news perceptions were more consistently affected by the focus of the stories: news about climate impacts increased fear, decreased efficacy beliefs and hope, and reduced news credibility compared to news about climate actions. No interactions with political ideology were found.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data are available upon request from the authors.
Code availability
N/A.
Notes
Randomization checks confirmed that the experimental condition did not affect the likelihood of participants being screened out of the study.
A power analysis using G*Power indicated that in order to detect a small effect size (i.e., f = .10), with 80% power and an alpha level of p < .05 using analysis of variance (ANOVA), a total sample size of 1096 would be required for main effects, 1199 for two-way interactions, and 1511 for the three-way interaction.
Hall et al. (2018) also included a fifth item, “increasing gasoline taxes;” however, we found that this item decreased reliability and thus excluded it from the final scale.
We also examined interactions using political party identification and again found no significant interactions. These results are reported in Supplementary Material C.
In addition to testing the full factorial model, which omitted the control condition, we also tested separate models examining two-way interactions between news terminology and ideology, and between news focus and ideology, respectively, including the control condition. As in the full factorial model, there were no significant interactions involving ideology.
We also considered whether effects might have been different among those who correctly answered the recall measure. For the most part, results were unchanged. See Supplementary Material D.
References
Adler J (2007) ‘Crisis’? ‘Change’?—war of the words. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/crisis-change-war-words-97319. Accessed 12 March 2021
Anderson B (2017) Emergency futures: exception, urgency, interval, hope. Sociol Rev 65(3):463–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12447
Asayama S, Bellamy R, Geden O, Pearce W, Hulme M (2019) Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous. Nat Clim Chang 9(8):570–572. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0543-4
Benjamin D, Por HH, Budescu D (2017) Climate change versus global warming: who is susceptible to the framing of climate change? Environ Behav 49(7):745–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516664382
Bieniek-Tobasco A, McCormick S, Rimal RN, Harrington CB, Shafer M, Shaikh H (2019) Communicating climate change through documentary film: imagery, emotion, and efficacy. Clim Chang 154(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02408-7
Bless H, Betsch T, Franzen A (1998) Framing the framing effect: the impact of context cues on solutions to the ‘Asian disease’ problem. Eur J Soc Psychol 28(2):287–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199803/04)28:2%3c287::AID-EJSP861%3e3.0.CO;2-U
Boczkowski PJ, Mitchelstein E, Matassi M (2018) “News comes across when I’m in a moment of leisure”: understanding the practices of incidental news consumption on social media. New Media Soc 20(10):3523–3539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817750396
Burgers C, De Graaf A (2013) Language intensity as a sensationalistic news feature: the influence of style on sensationalism perceptions and effects. Commun 38(2):167–188. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2013-0010
Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Iyengar S (2016) The end of framing as we know it… and the future of media effects. Mass Commun Soc 19(1):7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
Calhoun C (2004) A world of emergencies: fear, intervention, and the limits of cosmopolitan order. Can Rev Sociol 41(4):373–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2004.tb00783.x
Carmichael JT, Brulle RJ, Huxster JK (2017) The great divide: understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014. Clim Chang 141(4):599–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1908-1
Carrington D (2019) Why The Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment. Accessed 12 March 2021
Chow D (2019) ‘Climate emergency’ is Oxford dictionaries’ 2019 word of the year. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/climate-emergency-oxford-dictionaries-2019-word-year-n1089071. Accessed 12 March 2021
Colitt R, Parkin B (2020) Greta Thunberg is back and telling Merkel to declare climate emergency. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-20/greta-is-back-and-telling-merkel-to-declare-climate-emergency. Accessed 12 March 2021
Coppock A, McClellan OA (2019) Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Res Polit 6(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168018822174
Costera Meijer I, Groot Kormelink T (2015) Checking, sharing, clicking and linking: changing patterns of news use between 2004 and 2014. Digit J 3(5):664–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.937149
Doherty KL, Webler TN (2016) Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions. Nat Clim Chang 6(9):879–884. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3025
Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Feinberg M, Willer R (2011) Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychol Sci 22(1):34–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391911
Feldman L (2014) The hostile media effect. The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.011_update_001
Feldman L, Hart PS (2016) Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism: the mediating role of emotions. Sci Commun 38(1):99–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015617941
Feldman L, Hart PS (2018) Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Anal 38(3):585–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12868
Gelman A, Hill J, Vehtari A (2020) Regression and other stories. Cambridge University Press
GimletMedia.com (n.d.) How to save a planet. https://gimletmedia.com/shows/howtosaveaplanet. Accessed 30 July 2021
Hall MP, Lewis NA Jr, Ellsworth PC (2018) Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: evidence from a one-year longitudinal study. J Environ Psychol 56:55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.03.001
Hart PS, Feldman L (2016a) The impact of climate change-related imagery and text on public opinion and behavior change. Sci Commun 38(4):415–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016655357
Hart PS, Feldman L (2016b) The influence of climate change efficacy messages and efficacy beliefs on intended political participation. PLoS ONE 11(8):e0157658. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157658
Hart PS, Nisbet EC (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun Res 39(6):701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
Hine DW, Phillips WJ, Cooksey R, Reser JP, Nunn P, Marks AD, Loi NM, Watt SE (2016) Preaching to different choirs: how to motivate dismissive, uncommitted, and alarmed audiences to adapt to climate change? Glob Environ Chang 36:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.002
Hodder P, Martin B (2009) Climate crisis? The politics of emergency framing. Econ Polit Wkly 44(36):53–60. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25663518
Hornsey MJ (2021) The role of worldviews in shaping how people appraise climate change. Curr Opin Behav Sci 42:36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.021
Hornsey MJ, Fielding KS (2016) A cautionary note about messages of hope: focusing on progress in reducing carbon emissions weakens mitigation motivation. Glob Environ Chang 39:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.003
Horton JB (2015) The emergency framing of solar geoengineering: time for a different approach. Anthropocene Rev 2(2):147–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019615579922
Hung LS, Bayrak MM (2020) Comparing the effects of climate change labelling on reactions of the Taiwanese public. Nat Commun 11(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19979-0
Jaskulsky L, Besel R (2013) Words that (don’t) matter: an exploratory study of four climate change names in environmental discourse. Appl Environ Educ Commun 12(1):38–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2013.795836
Kim KS (2011) Public understanding of the politics of global warming in the news media: the hostile media approach. Public Underst Sci 20(5):690–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510372313
Klemm C, Hartmann T, Das E (2019) Fear-mongering or fact-driven? Illuminating the interplay of objective risk and emotion-evoking form in the response to epidemic news. Health Commun 34(1):74–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1384429
Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Rosenthal S, Kotcher J, Carman J, Wang X, Goldberg M, Lacroix K, Marlon J (2021) Politics and global warming, December 2020. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, New Haven. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-december-2020/. Accessed 12 March 2021
Matsa KE, Shearer E (2018) News use across social media platforms. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. https://www.journalism.org/2018/09/10/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2018/. Accessed 12 March 2021
McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
McIntyre K (2019) Solutions journalism: the effects of including solution information in news stories about social problems. Journal Pract 13(1):16–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1409647
Meyer P (1988) Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: developing an index. J Q 65(3):567–574
Nabi RL, Gustafson A, Jensen R (2018) Framing climate change: exploring the role of emotion in generating advocacy behavior. Sci Commun 40(4):442–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018776019
Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 51(2):12–23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
Nisbet EC, Cooper KE, Garrett RK (2015) The partisan brain: how dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis) trust science. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 658(1):36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474
O’Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S (2009) “Fear won’t do it” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Sci Commun 30(3):355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201
Otero V (2018) Media bias chart: Version 4.0. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/. Accessed 12 March 2021
Ripple W, Wolf C, Newsome T, Barnard P, Moomaw W, Grandcolas P (2019) World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. Biosci 70(1):8–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
Roser-Renouf C, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A, Zhao X (2014) The genesis of climate change activism: from key beliefs to political action. Clim Chang 125(2):163–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1173-5
Rode JB, Dent AL, Benedict CN, Brosnahan DB, Martinez RL, Ditto PH (2021) Influencing climate change attitudes in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101623
Saad L (2019) Americans as concerned as ever about global warming. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever-global-warming.aspx. Accessed 12 March 2021
Samimian-Darash L, Rotem N (2019) From crisis to emergency: the shifting logic of preparedness. Ethnos 84(5):910–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2018.1551239
Schmierbach M, Oeldorf-Hirsch A (2012) A little bird told me, so I didn’t believe it: Twitter, credibility, and issue perceptions. Commun Q 60(3):317–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.688723
Schuldt JP, Roh S, Schwarz N (2015) Questionnaire design effects in climate change surveys: implications for the partisan divide. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 658(1):67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555066
Schuldt JP, Enns PK, Cavaliere V (2017) Does the label really matter? Evidence that the US public continues to doubt “global warming” more than “climate change.” Clim Chang 143(1):271–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1993-1
Soutter AR, Mottus R (2020) ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’: a replication on the association between self-identification, question wording, and environmental beliefs. J Environ Psychol 69:101413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101413
Taber CS, Lodge M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Pol Sci 50(3):755–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
Tsfati Y (2003) Does audience skepticism of the media matter in agenda setting? J Broadcast Electron Media 47(2):157–176. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4702_1
Tsfati Y, Cappella JN (2003) Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Commun Res 30(5):504–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203253371
Tsfati Y, Cohen J (2012) Perceptions of media and media effects: The third person effect, trust in media and hostile media perceptions. The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems995
Turcotte J, York C, Irving J, Scholl RM, Pingree RJ (2015) News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: effects on media trust and information seeking. J Comput Mediat Commun 20(5):520–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12127
Vigh H (2008) Crisis and chronicity: anthropological perspectives on continuous conflict and decline. Ethnos 73(1):5–24. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00141840801927509
WashPostPR (2019) The Washington post launches climate solutions coverage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/2019/11/18/washington-post-launches-climate-solutions-coverage/. Accessed 30 July 2021
Witte K (1992) Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun Monogr 59(4):329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
Xu Q (2013) Social recommendation, source credibility, and recency: effects of news cues in a social bookmarking website. Journal Mass Commun Q 90(4):757–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013503158
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Research was approved by the [Blinded] Rutgers University Arts and Sciences Institutional Review Board (Pro2019001691).
Consent to participate
All survey respondents provided informed consent.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feldman, L., Hart, P.S. Upping the ante? The effects of “emergency” and “crisis” framing in climate change news. Climatic Change 169, 10 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03219-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03219-5