Data from: Applying fear appear to explain message framing in climate change communication: When are loss frames more effective?
Description
This study investigated how three different goal frames (gain, non-loss, loss) with and without efficacy statements affect support and willingness to pay for climate change mitigation policy. Addressing the goal framing literature’s difficulty establishing a theoretical framework with consistent findings, we propose the extended parallel process model of fear appeals as an alternative framework for goal framing. We then test multiple fear appeal mediators in a carefully-controlled experiment (N = 900) which avoids four common framing confounds possibly underlying the literature’s inconsistent findings. In line with fear appeal theory’s central tenet that effective messages increase threat and efficacy together, a more-threatening loss frame paired with an efficacy statement produced greater support and willingness to pay for climate policy than less-threatening positive (gain or non-loss) frames or a loss frame without an efficacy statement. Differences in policy support were mediated by five fear appeal variables (fear, threat, hope, collective efficacy, and message processing) in a pattern predicted by the extended parallel process model, providing further evidence that fear appeal theory offers a valid framework to understand goal framing. Despite concern that climate change communication focused on fear and threat of negative outcomes (i.e., losses) will disengage audiences, it does not appear the opposite focus on hope and benefits of positive outcomes (i.e., gains or non-losses) is a better alternative. Instead of these dichotomous approaches, our findings suggest an integrative approach using more-threatening loss framing coupled with efficacy statements to bolster hope and efficacy may best maximize support for climate change policy.