2024/09/05 by Janna A. de Graaf, Michèlle Bal, John de Wit +1 · 2 voices
Social Sciences · #Public Relations and Crisis Communication
paper · doi:10.47368/ejhc.2024.402
openalex publication_date 2024/09/05 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/02
In the context of climate change communication through mass media, doom framings emphasising negative consequences have become prevalent. While these framings hold the potential to influence both adaptive (such as sustainable intentions) and maladaptive responses (such as resistance), their specific effects in the context of climate change remain unclear. In two experimental studies (N = 154; N = 368), we examined the impact of high-threat communication compared to low-threat communication on a wide range of responses aimed at addressing climate change. No differences were found between high-threat and low-threat communication on adaptive responses (i.e., intentions, acceptance of policies, and motivation) or maladaptive responses (i.e., climate change scepticism, reactance, avoidance, rationalisation, or denial of guilt). The prolonged exposure to and frequency of climate change (doom) messages might be an explanation for why threat did not influence responses.