Psychology of sustainability: Scare tactics vs. optimism - how do people react to negative news?

Hello, I am Laura, Friend at sustainable natives . In the following article I will outline the effects of scare tactics vs. optimism from a psychological perspective.

Floods in Rhineland-Westfalia and New York, forest fires in Greece, Turkey and Russia, the subsiding of the Gulf Stream - no matter where you look, the media is full of news about environmental disasters. This rightly frightens many. Some now hope that at least these frightening images will wake people up and they will finally start to act. But is this the case? What effect does the ringing of the alarm bells have? Does fear really help to trigger change? In this article I take a closer look at the effect of fear and hope in communication.

Brief overview

1. Artificial optimism

2. Emotions as drivers of change

3. Fear and anxiety

4. Scare scenarios vs. self-efficacy

5. Paralysing and constructive hope

6. Conclusion: Worry instead of fear and cautious optimism

7. References

?

1.????Artificial optimism

For a long time, it has been the case that climate change and sustainability issues should be communicated as optimistically as possible and that potential customers, employees and voters should not be frightened away by pessimism. The concern here is that if there is too much scaremongering, people will react with resistance and actively deny climate change. A narrative of the "green economy" has been favoured, according to which products would be produced sustainably and resources would be conserved, and where every person can contribute to environmental protection by buying green products. Today it is clear that this optimistic communication has not had a quick or sufficient enough impact on people. But does the current, media-based fear work better?

1.?????Emotions as drivers of change

From a psychological perspective, there are advantages and disadvantages to both "scare scenarios" and "hope makers" when it comes to motivating people for sustainable, social transformation.

Both approaches are based on the fact that certain emotions are triggered in people and internally, cognitively processed.

In general, emotions fulfil a "relevance function" for us: they tell us whether an event is important for us and requires action. Therefore, emotions are elementary for us, to classify the flood of information from our environment. They also significantly influence our thoughts and actions.

In recent years, research on emotions and environmental behaviour has developed considerably. Typical emotional reactions to the scary environmental scenarios in the media, such as fear, guilt, anger or even shame, have been studied. With respect to optimistic scenarios, the scientific focus was primarily on hope, pride and joy. In the following sections, I will take a closer look at an excerpt of this research on the emotions of worry, fear and hope and their impact on human behaviour:

3. Fear and anxiety

Worry and fear are similar, yet different emotions. Worry, unlike fear, is described as having more potential for action. It does not seem as overwhelming as anxiety. In a study by Smith and Leiserowitz (2013), concern was identified as the strongest predictor of support for climate change policies - ahead of fear, anger, values and socio-demographic factors. This result was confirmed and complemented by Bouman et al. (2020). In their study with data from 23 European countries, they were able to demonstrate a significant influence of worry on individual mitigation behaviour. This means that worried people were more willing to change their energy behaviour, for example switching appliances to standby and walking short distances. However, this relationship only existed when worried people attributed the responsibility to act to themselves. In other words, if the respondents were only concerned but did not feel that it was their duty to contribute, the feeling alone was not enough. In addition, the researchers found that those among the respondents who had high biospheric values (that is, who valued nature even if it did not benefit people) were more concerned about the future and our environment.

The differentiation between fear and anxiety is also important when looking more closely at research on the topic of fear. Fear-inducing images or scenarios have been studied primarily in health psychology for the prevention of diseases such as lung cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, diabetes or obesity. Just as with environmental issues, the goal here is to change the actions of individuals in order to reduce harm to society. In the case of smokers, this means that the more people smoke, the more they get lung cancer and generate large costs for the health system. The more people drive cars or fly on holiday, the more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, which increases climate change and in turn costs us dearly.

4. Scare scenarios versus self-efficacy

Scare scenarios have long been used in smoking prevention - actually against any empirical basis, as Kok and colleagues (2018) clearly show in their meta-analysis. For too long, quasi-experimental studies have been used to prove the link between fear and behaviour change. These studies did not randomly assign subjects to their group, nor did they include a behavioural measurement. Kok and colleagues also object to the fact that some studies on the topic did not take into account an important cognitive factor: self-efficacy. They demonstrate that when fear is elicited in subjects, for example by a picture of a smoker's lungs on a cigarette pack, it only works if the person concerned has an expectation of themselves that they are capable of quitting smoking. Anyone who has ever tried to quit smoking knows that there is often no lack of understanding that smoking is bad. Rather, many fail to break the addiction because the behaviour has become a habit. Consequently, if someone does not have support or other guidance to change the behaviour, he or she is very likely to fail.

The same can be assumed for climate change: If you show a lot of fear-inducing images (like people standing in flooded basements), this will only lead to a change in behaviour among the population that also knows what they can do about it. Furthermore, people need to believe that they are capable or that it is possible for them to carry out the necessary behaviour. Many people know that they should leave their cars at home more often. However, if the public transportation network in the area is not good enough for a person to get to work on time and cheaply, they still won't do it. Additionally, if people do not even believe that their action will have an impact on the negative effects of climate change, the only way is to change the infrastructure so that people can easily carry out the desired behaviour. This requires political will.

There is also a need to educate people about the effectiveness of behavioural measures to reduce their carbon footprint, for example switching to a diet low in meat and dairy products as opposed to recycling. Moreover, it is very important that policies and their actions become more trustworthy.

5. Paralysing and constructive hope

But what other options are there for communication besides artificial optimism and paralysing scare scenarios? One strong positive emotion that can be activated to influence people's actions is hope.

Trust in the system and hope that it is not too late, go hand in hand. The effect of hope on commitment to climate change is studied in detail by Swedish researcher Maria Ojala. She distinguishes between "constructive hope" and "hope based on denial" (Ojala, 2012).?

Hope based on denial is, in its own way, just as paralysing as scare scenarios. It is a psychological distraction from the problem that does not lead to critical engagement with the real issues (Ojala, 2017).?This form of hope is thus built on the assumption that a problem will solve itself and that one does not have to change one's behaviour for it. For example, some parties in Germany believe that future inventions will avert climate change without the need for social and economic changes.

Constructive hope, on the other hand, shows people that a different future is possible, and also supports trusting relationships and facilitates collaboration. This requires the perception of a grievance, hunger for change and a clear goal. A good example of this is the Fridays for Future movement. Their "hunger", their need, is to protect their own future. Their goal is to change the political and social perception of the problem and to implement concrete measures against climate change. The way to achieve this is to make the problem massively and continuously visible, i.e., through demonstrations, posters and media presence. All steps, in which even the youngest participants feel, they can make a contribution.

Hope can therefore have an impact in both directions. In order to unfold its positive potential, according to Ojala, special attention must be paid to emotions, to be able to respond appropriately to negative emotions.

6. Conclusion: Worry instead of fear and cautious optimism

Of course, there is no easy solution or simple approach to the "right" emotional communication, especially when it comes to complex issues such as climate change and the sustainable transformation of our society. However, psychology shows that our emotions are powerful drivers of our behaviour and the basis for reactions to our environment. All stakeholders involved want to use them to push their agenda.

Current research can help us to use emotions in the most conscious and balanced way possible, so as not to frighten our target group or lull them into unjustified hope. It is important to trigger worry rather than fear and to promote constructive hope.

We should create associations in people that strengthen their sense of responsibility and reinforce the knowledge in them that they are capable of taking the next step.

A small example of this is some supermarkets in Germany that are now responding to pressure from society and driving tangible change for consumers, while at the same time changing their supply chains behind the scenes.

Organic, vegan and vegetarian products are now being advertised and offered as sustainable, responsible alternatives and long-term changes, for example in animal welfare, are being announced. Consumers are thus given concrete offers to action to change their behaviour.

Of course, this is only a small step that should not stand alone, otherwise it will again remain just part of the optimistic "green economy" narrative. But a chain of small changes in consumer behaviour strengthens one's sense of responsibility and the aforementioned knowledge that change is possible. Consumers in turn reinforce the feeling of the decision-makers in these chains that changing the product range and introducing standards in the supply chain is also economically viable, has a positive effect on the relationship between customers and brand and thus increases self-efficacy on the part of the company. This then can lead to further behavioural changes ("spillover effect") and become the basis for self-confident demands in the fight against climate change, because if companies and individuals can change, so can society.

At sustainable natives we try to support and address this change: In companies, organisations and institutions. If you are interested in our sustainability network, find out more about how you can join us here . We would also be happy if you followed our company page on LinkedIn .

Do you have a specific problem and want to tackle climate change in your company? Take a look at our services or send us an email directly via our contact form .

?7. References

Bouman, T., Verschoor, M., Albers, C. J., B?hm, G., Fisher, S. D., Poortinga, W., ... & Steg, L. (2020). When worry about climate change leads to climate action: How values, worry and personal responsibility relate to various climate actions. Global Environmental Change, 62, 102061.

Kok, G., Peters, G.-J. Y., Kessels, L. T. E., ten Hoor, G. A., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2018). Ignoring theory and misinterpreting evidence: The false belief in fear appeals. Health Psychology Review, 12(2), 111–125. doi:10.1080/17437199.2017.1415767

Ojala, M. (2012). Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 625-642.

Ojala, M. (2017). Hope and anticipation in education for a sustainable future. Futures, 94, 76-84.

Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 937-948.

Pictures

"Organic Shop" Photo by?NeONBRAND ?on?Unsplash

"Fear" Photo by?Melanie Wasser ?on?Unsplash

"Flooded Sign" Photo by?Kelly Sikkema ?on?Unsplash

"Protest" Photo by?Callum Shaw ?on?Unsplash