Department of Psychology, Oberlin College, 120 W. Lorain St, Oberlin, OH, 44074, USA.
Environmental Studies Program, Oberlin College, Oberlin, USA.
BMC Psychol. 2024 Oct 30;12(1):605. doi: 10.1186/s40359-024-02088-8.
This paper summarizes data from 7 studies that used Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) to guide climate messaging with the goal of increasing climate-mitigating behavioral intentions. Together, the studies address 5 research questions. 1) Does PMT predict behavioral intentions in the context of climate change mitigation? 2) Does PMT work similarly for climate change deniers vs acknowledgers? 3) Are the effects of threat and efficacy additive or multiplicative? 4) Does adding measures of collective threat and efficacy improve the model accuracy for a collective problem like climate change? 5) Can threat and efficacy appraisals - and ultimately behavioral intentions - be shifted through climate messaging?
Seven online experiments were conducted on US adults (N = 3,761) between 2020 and 2022. Participants were randomly assigned to a control condition or to one of several experimental conditions designed to influence threat, efficacy, or both. Participants indicated their belief in climate change, ethnicity, gender, and political orientation. They completed measures of personal threat and efficacy, collective threat and efficacy, and behavioral intentions.
Multiple regressions, ANCOVAs, and effect sizes were used to evaluate our research questions. Consistent with PMT, threat and efficacy appraisals predicted climate mitigation behavioral intentions, even among those who denied climate change. Different interactions emerged for climate deniers and acknowledgers, suggesting that in this context threat and efficacy are not just additive in their effects (but these effects were small). Including measures of collective threat and efficacy only modestly improved the model. Finally, evidence that threat and efficacy appraisals can be shifted was weak and inconsistent; mitigation behavioral intentions were not reliably influenced by the messages tested.
PMT effectively predicts climate change mitigation behavioral intentions among US adults, whether they deny climate change or acknowledge it. Threat appraisals may be more impactful for deniers, while efficacy appraisals may be more impactful for acknowledgers. Including collective-level measures of threat and efficacy modestly improves model fit. Contrary to PMT research in other domains, threat and efficacy appraisals were not easily shifted under the conditions tested here, and increases did not reliably lead to increases in behavioral intentions.
本文总结了 7 项研究的数据，这些研究使用保护动机理论 (PMT) 来指导与气候变化减缓相关的信息传递，旨在提高气候变化减缓行为意向。这些研究共同回答了 5 个研究问题。1) 在气候变化减缓的背景下，PMT 是否可以预测行为意向？2) PMT 对气候变化否认者和承认者的作用是否相同？3) 威胁和效能的作用是相加还是相乘？4) 为像气候变化这样的集体问题增加集体威胁和效能的衡量标准是否可以提高模型的准确性？5) 通过气候变化信息传递，威胁和效能的评估——以及最终的行为意向——是否可以改变？
2020 年至 2022 年期间，在 7 项针对美国成年人的在线实验中进行了研究（N=3761）。参与者被随机分配到控制组或多个实验组之一，这些实验组旨在影响威胁、效能或两者。参与者表明了他们对气候变化的信念、种族、性别和政治取向。他们完成了个人威胁和效能、集体威胁和效能以及行为意向的衡量标准。
多元回归、方差分析和效应量用于评估我们的研究问题。与 PMT 一致，威胁和效能评估预测了气候变化减缓行为意向，即使在那些否认气候变化的人中也是如此。气候变化否认者和承认者之间出现了不同的相互作用，这表明在这种情况下，威胁和效能的作用不仅仅是相加（但这些作用很小）。纳入集体威胁和效能的衡量标准只是适度地改善了模型。最后，关于威胁和效能评估可以改变的证据是微弱和不一致的；测试的信息传递并没有可靠地影响到减缓行为意向。
PMT 有效地预测了美国成年人的气候变化减缓行为意向，无论他们是否否认气候变化。威胁评估可能对否认者更有影响，而效能评估可能对承认者更有影响。纳入集体层面的威胁和效能衡量标准适度地提高了模型拟合度。与 PMT 在其他领域的研究相反，在测试的条件下，威胁和效能评估不容易改变，而且增加并没有可靠地导致行为意向的增加。
