A helpful thing about this research is that it doesn't just look at what doesn't work in getting across the facts and problems of global warming, but also shows what does work.
It also explains the purpose of the interview NPR (National Polite Republicans, as I saw someone call it) did the day after it's pledge drive ended. The interview was with the author of a book, I think the name of the book was "Dont Vote". The interview was all about the author's assertion that there's no use trying to do something about global warming because China has so many people and "they all want a Ford". I noticed that the NPR interviewer did not at all question this assertion. There was absolutely no mention of the fact that China is developing green technologies, and closing some factories because of too much pollution. Nothing about how much energy we use per person, which we could greatly reduce with a little effort. And of course, nothing about how the oil company sponsors of NPR are waging a deliberate campaign to mislead the public about the issue, for the sake of their own profits.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117094248.htm
ScienceDaily (Nov. 16, 2010) — Dire or emotionally charged warnings about the consequences of global warming can backfire if presented too negatively, making people less amenable to reducing their carbon footprint, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley.
"Our study indicates that the potentially devastating consequences of global warming threaten people's fundamental tendency to see the world as safe, stable and fair. As a result, people may respond by discounting evidence for global warming," said Robb Willer, UC Berkeley social psychologist and coauthor of a study to be published in the January issue of the journal Psychological Science.
"The scarier the message, the more people who are committed to viewing the world as fundamentally stable and fair are motivated to deny it," agreed Matthew Feinberg, a doctoral student in psychology and coauthor of the study.
But if scientists and advocates can communicate their findings in less apocalyptic ways, and present solutions to global warming, Willer said, most people can get past their skepticism.
Recent decades have seen a growing scientific consensus on the existence of a warming of global land and ocean temperatures. A significant part of the warming trend has been attributed to human activities that produce greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite the mounting evidence, a Gallup poll conducted earlier this year found that 48 percent of Americans believe that global warming concerns are exaggerated, and 19 percent think global warming will never happen. In 1997, 31 percent of those who were asked the same question in a Gallup poll felt the claims were overstated.
----- (skipping)
Next, participants read a news article about global warming. The article started out with factual data provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. But while half the participants received articles that ended with warnings about the apocalyptic consequences of global warming, the other half read ones that concluded with positive messages focused on potential solutions to global warming, such as technological innovations that could reduce carbon emissions.
Results showed that those who read the positive messages were more open to believing in the existence of global warming and had more faith in science's ability to solve the problem. Moreover, those who scored high on the just world scale were less skeptical about global warming when exposed to the positive message. By contrast, those exposed to doomsday messages became more skeptical about global warming, particularly those who scored high on the just world scale.
..
No comments:
Post a Comment