What people need to hear to grasp urgency of climate change

Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2018) and the Paris Agreement of the UNFCCC (2015) emphasise “the need for an effective response to the urgent threat of climate change”. But research shows that, even though most people acknowledge this need, environmental attitudes do not readily translate into actions.

In fact – despite relentless media coverage of global events such as floods, water shortages, disappearing rainforests and endangered animals – many people seem reluctant to engage with the issues.

One well-established reason for this behaviour is “psychological distance”: an emotional separation between oneself and other people, events and times that we perceive to occur way off in the future and/or in places far removed from our daily lives. This distancing can make us less likely to engage or take action. Together with my research colleague Özlem Tetik, we set out to examine how climate-related threats are generally presented in terms of timeline (known as “temporal framing”). Could the framing of climate messages per se have an impact on how immediate the threat is perceived to be? Is there a different way to present the same information that “closes” psychological distance and better motivates people to take action?

Watch the 3-min video: Why are people reluctant to take action against climate change?

Two approaches: date frame vs time-left frame

We conducted an archival data analysis, eight online experiments and a field experiment to try to answer these questions. The first study analysed how experts and the media communicated the timelines for these threats in their use of headlines. Generally, they used one of two approaches: the “date frame” approach (where a headline might read, “The UK will face water shortages by 2040”, or the “time-left” approach (which might instead read, “The UK will face water shortages in 15 years”).

In effect, the headlines are conveying the same information, but framed differently (see Figure 1). The study showed that an overwhelming majority of media headlines (93%) used the date-framing approach. This could be for a number of editorial reasons, of course – maybe the publication is reluctant to give a figure that will need to be updated – but we set out to investigate: which approach engages people more, and which is more effective in motivating them to act?

In several further studies, we found that participants consistently perceived environmental threats as closer in time when they were presented in the time-left frame.

For example, in a field study with around 20,000 online news readers, half were shown a “date” headline about drought projected to occur by 2030, while the other half were shown a “time-left” headline (drought projected to occur within seven years). The time-left frame attracted more readers to click on the article, with a 25% greater engagement rate.

In another study, we found a similar effect on donation behaviour, with people more likely to contribute to protecting an endangered species when the extinction risk was communicated in terms of time left, rather than a fixed date.

We were also able to show that this effect arises because the time-left frame affects the perceived progression of time and evokes a greater sense that time is counting down; thereby making environmental threats seem temporally closer.

Real-life implications

Our findings suggest adopting an alternative framing approach when using temporal predictions to inform the public about the urgency of environmental threats. Our findings show that framing threats in terms of time left (vs. date) may be more effective in making such threats feel more imminent. By reducing psychological distance and bringing people closer to the threats we face, time-left announcements are likely not only to heighten perceived urgency and engagement with news about environmental threats, but also to lead to more donations to avert them.

Research institutions, governmental environmental agencies, and organisations such as the IPCC, United Nations Environment Programme, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and social marketers could leverage the findings to enhance their “call-to-action” campaigns.

Similarly – despite their predominant use of date frames in their communication of environmental threats – media outlets may be well advised to use time-left frames in their reporting on climate issues to make threats feel temporally closer and more actionable.

Although our research focused on environmental threats, the findings could be expanded to other contexts that include negative future events. For instance, time-left frames can emphasise the urgency of addressing health risks (e.g., “You have two years to quit smoking before the damage becomes irreversible”), and motivate them to reach certain goals (e.g., “We will face a significant budget deficit within three years if we fail to meet our sales targets”).

Similarly, in the context of public policy, time-left frames can emphasise the need for swift legislative action (e.g., “We need to enact new regulations within five years to avoid penalties”). The research thus underscores the broad applicability and potential impact of using time-left frames in efforts to enhance the effectiveness of communication strategies and prompt timely action across multiple domains.

The authors have submitted their research studies to the Journal of Consumer Research in a paper entitled “The Final Countdown: Temporal Frames of Environmental Threats”