A new paper jointly released by Rutgers University and University of Michigan found alarmist climate phrasing turns people off and makes them less engaged in environmental advocacy.
In “Upping the ante? The effects of“emergency” and“crisis” framing in climate change news” researchers reveal negative climate phrasing in media, specifically the use of “climate crisis” and “climate emergency.”
“News organizations increasingly use the terms “climate emergency” and “climate crisis” to convey the urgency of climate change; yet, little is known about how this terminology affects news audiences,” the report began.
It continued:
“Results showed no effect of terminology on climate change engagement; however, “climate emergency” reduced perceived news credibility and newsworthiness compared to “climate change.” Both climate engagement and news perceptions were more consistently affected by the focus of the stories: news about climate impacts increased fear, decreased efficacy beliefs and hope, and reduced news credibility compared to news about climate actions.”
The report added, “Despite the surge in usage of this terminology, few empirical studies speak to the effects of the climate emergency and/or crisis frame on the US public…yet, little is known about how this particular use of stronger terminology may affect readers of climate change news.”