THE VERDICT ON THIS ASSUMPTION: Mixed Bag
If society fails to address climate change, we know we risk serious ‘loss': large shifts in weather patterns, sea level rise, species extinctions, and economic dislocation, among other impacts. While we likely will experience significant impacts, the efficacy of emphasizing them in our climate communication is less well-known.
Behavioral economists and decision scientist have identified “loss aversion” as one part of a larger set of predispositions that shape people’s behavior. Generally, when choices are framed either in terms of the positive consequences of a particular action (a gain frame) or the negative consequences of failing to take an action (a loss frame), people are more likely to act when presented with a loss frame 1 . Studies have found that the potential gain would have to be two times the size of the potential loss for many people to take that action 2 . For climate communication, however, some research suggests that ‘gain framing’ may be more effective than ‘loss framing’ for promoting positive attitudes toward climate change mitigation 3 .
Frames Associated with This Assumption:
Since many forms of climate mitigation can be seen as ‘prevention behavior’ – if you do X you are helping to offset the likelihood of Y – current thinking suggests that the use of ‘gain framing’ is likely to be a more effective approach for climate communications. Research suggests that loss frames tend to be more effective in association with problem detection types of behaviors (climate change will hurt you in the following ways) while gain frames tend to be more effective when addressing prevention behaviors (by taking this action, you can help slow down climate change) 1 . In other words, associating gains with calls for engagement or action on climate change is more mobilizing than emphasizing the risks. Further, focusing on loss and risk can potentially backfire by evoking intense anxieties, fears, and paralysis — particularly if not combined with either clear structures for taking action 2 or empowering stories about how others are responding to the issue. In order for the public to be motivated to act when they feel at risk, outreach should include information on how individuals can deal with the problem along with the benefits associated with these solutions 3 .
Either way, individual perceptions of personal/local risk or loss are relatively low. Emotions and feelings are now believed to play a fundamental role in how people determine risk 4 . However, currently, individuals do not have strong emotional responses to climate change impacts since the majority of Americans: do not think it will impact themselves or their children, will not occur now or in the near future, climate action doesn’t offer them personal benefits, or they feel helpless in playing a role for a positive outcome 5 . Research has consistently found that most people either see climate risks as ‘severe’ but likely to occur elsewhere, or as ‘not so severe’ but likely to be experienced locally 6 .
Finally, calls for action and engagement that ask a person to support a new policy or engage in a behavior that challenges the status quo often introduce an element of risk and potential loss that can inhibit change. As Kahneman notes, 7 : “Loss aversion is a powerful conservative force that favors minimal changes from the status quo in the lives of both institutions and individuals.” Inertia is a powerful force that works against any effort to establish a different behavior or policy.
- 1Rotherman et al. 2006
- 2Bunting-Howarth, et al., 2009; Hart and Feldman, 2009; Moser, 2014
- 3Milfont, 2012
- 4Climate Access, 2015; Leiserowitz, 2005; Slovic, 1987; Slovic 2010
- 5Leiserowitz, 2005; Climate Access, 2015; Scannell, & Gifford, 2013; Leiserowitz, et. al., 2014; Spence, et. al., 2012; Moser, 2014
- 6Leiserowitz et al., 2014
- 7Kahneman 2011
- Focusing on the benefits of taking action to address climate change is likely to have a stronger impact than focusing on the risks of inaction.
- Perceptions of risk and loss are likely to vary across time and different populations. Where the perception of local/personal risk is higher, the use of loss frames should be considered.
- There is considerable debate concerning the time and place for emphasizing risk and loss in climate communications. Some argue for the need to address losses honestly and straightforwardly, but in the context of action and personal efficacy 8 .
- Certain contexts can leverage risk and loss quite well: for example, some researchers recommend the use of loss framing as a means of encouraging homeowners to invest in energy-efficient appliances or buy fuel-efficient vehicles 9 .
