People are uninformed.

Advocacy campaigns historically prioritized public education and awareness – operating under the aforementioned assumption that, if only people knew more about the science and impacts of climate change, they would be motivated to take action. Outreach emphasized the validity of this science because, for many advocates, learning the facts had been a key motivator in their own lives. Very little evidence exists, however, to support the idea that more information drives engagement or behavior change. In recent years, the notion of the ‘Information Deficit Model’ – the theory that a lack of understanding, resulting from a lack of information, drives public skepticism to scientific issues like climate change – has been debunked. 

In fact, for many people the opposite is actually true.  Some social science studies have found that presenting the dire facts of climate change may actually backfire, leading to disengagement or worse, outright denial. More than increased awareness or literacy, research suggests there are other, more influential factors and variables that drive engagement and behavior change.1

While advocates have prioritized delivering facts, other types of information imperative for engagement have been neglected. Researchers recommend putting more emphasis on action-related messaging in our outreach strategies, including information that helps people understand “how” they could deal with the problem of climate change 2 . For example, what steps can your audience and others in their community, workplaces and governments take to respond to global warming? This information should be specific, clearly connect to the roles and responsibilities these players already hold, and have clear benefits for your audience.

We must question the assumptions that:

• People are not actively engaging on climate issues primarily due to a lack of awareness and understanding, resulting from a lack of information , and
• Increased knowledge of the science, threats and risks involved with global climate change will translate into a sustained, rational response.3

First, are people generally uninformed?

Almost all Americans are aware of climate change – and the numbers are rising. Furthermore, the percentage of those who say the issue is important to them increased from around 25% in 1997 to over 50% in 2007. More recent polling indicates that over half of Americans (55%) say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” 4 . A majority of Americans believe climate change is a problem and we should do something about it 5 .

Given that the majority of Americans are aware of climate change, what is it that they know? While most Americans have some knowledge of the drivers and impacts of climate change, the depth and breadth of that knowledge varies greatly. For example, most Americans recognize that fossil fuels, cars, and coal plants are important contributors. However, many people are unclear how nuclear power plants and home heating and cooling systems do or do not impact climate 6 . Flawed mental models appear to restrict the ability for even highly educated Americans to distinguish the necessary timing of mitigation steps to avoid impacts 7 . A mental model is an individual’s thought process on how they believe something works or is in the real world. Incorrect assumptions on how we think the world works or what reality actually is, can inhibit our ability to support or find solutions to problems.

It’s also been found that only about one in 10 Americans understands that more than 90% of climate scientists agree global warming is human caused, and fewer than half (45%) believe a majority do 8 . Research is suggesting this misunderstanding around scientific consensus is greatly influencing other important beliefs, such as whether global warming is happening and is human caused, and support for public action on climate change 9 . In fact, communicating information on the scientific consensus of climate change influences overall belief and support for public action across the political spectrum 10 .

Engagement

So, social science research suggests that people's knowledge and understanding of climate change makes a difference, but also that more information does not necessarily lead to more engagement (the Information Deficit Model.) How do we reconcile these conclusions in the advocacy community?  

Research is increasingly clear that advocates should pay attention to not just the type of information they’re using, but also how it’s shared. Traditional campaigns have been based on a one-way flow of information from advocates to audience. Communication is delivered through spoken words, text and images that are directed at a receiver. Research is now recommending an emphasis on a two-way process of information exchange, where knowledge is discovered by participants through the act of dialogue, for example. Deliberative dialogue is a facilitated process that allows for co-production of knowledge between multiple stakeholders or audiences, such as community members, decision makers and experts. It has been shown to have a significant impact on an  individual’s beliefs and solution preferences and is an approach to engagement that has untapped potential for those working on climate issues 11 .

While information is one important element that shapes a person's decision to active support a particular issue or policy, other factors play equally – often more – important roles. Emotions, personal experiences, ideology and political affiliation, social and cultural practices, historical events, affect, and group norms all play strong roles in influencing any individual’s level of political participation and advocacy. For example, a recent study found that political and ideological positions were far more influential to how a person perceived and engaged with climate change than their level of awareness and knowledge of the issue 12 .  These conclusions highlight the need for advocates to navigate these ideologically-charged frames more skillfully, using messages that resonate across diverse constituencies.

At the heart of the assumption that more or better information will sway public opinion lies the rather-outmoded notion of the “rational actor”. Social and behavioral science research tells us that people process information and derive personal meaning through their own social and cultural lenses 13 . In other words, raw data and scientific facts alone do not move people: they have to be presented in a meaningful way, and link up with a person's sense of efficacy, values and worldview. As British social scientists Lorenzoni, Nicholsen-Cole and Whitmarsh have noted, 

Engagement is ... a personal state of connection with the issue of climate change, in contrast to engagement solely as a process of public participation in policy making. A state of engagement is understood as concurrently comprising cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects. 14

Cognitive engagement can only be one part of a climate campaign; advocates must also consider the context in which people are receiving and the frames through which they are filtering the information. Further, social scientists are just beginning to study the ways people handle some of the 'scary' and anxiety-producing aspects of this information 15 —and the subsequent need for more sensitive, nuanced forms of communications and messaging.

• 1Blumstein and Saylan, 2007; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Moser and Dilling, 2007
• 2Gifford, 2011, Milfont, 2012
• 3Janssen and de Vries 1998; Dessai et al. 2004
• 4Leiserowitz et al. 2014
• 5Langer 2014
• 6Curry et al. 2007
• 7Sterman & Sweeney, 2007
• 8van der Linden, et al., 2015
• 9Ding et al., 2011
• 10Myers et al., 2015
• 11Moser and Berzonsky, 2015; Sheppard, 2012
• 12Kahan et al. 2011
• 13Kahnemann, 2011
• 14 Lorenzoni et al. 2007
• 15Moser 2012; Lertzman 2012; Weintrobe 2012