I hope readers aren’t getting tired of me calling out all these banal studies whose goal is to get those to use manipulation rather than debate and discussion in order to achieve their policy goals.
It appears that the team at Penn State with this paper from Christofer Skurka, Jessica Myrick and graduate student Yin Yang, are dabbling in a fresh bout of psychological alchemy. Their mission? To convert ‘climate change dread’ into ‘environmental activism gold’. In the most recent, dazzling display of academic verbosity, we are presented with the study “Fanning the flames or burning out? Testing competing hypotheses about repeated exposure to threatening climate change messages”.
The researchers, or our modern-day Fear Whisperers, as we’ll call them, have been hard at work attempting to discern the intricate relationship between doom-laden headlines and the emotional flux of the unwitting public. Quoting, Skurka the lead author,
“The public is surrounded by media coverage about climate change, and this messaging tends to be negative in tone, focusing on the threats that climate change poses to human prosperity and ecological health”.
Quite an apt description of the relentless barrage of climate panic, Skurka, albeit missing the point of who is actually behind the ominous drums of the climate change mantra.
Now, you would think that repeatedly hammering people with the message of a seemingly insurmountable existential threat would cause a decrease in their sense of efficacy. Skurka and co. found otherwise:
“People’s efficacy beliefs increased over time. In other words, the more exposure people had to these threatening news stories each day, they were increasingly likely to think that they can make a difference in addressing climate change.”
Ah, the sweet elixir of self-delusion – the belief that our recycling efforts and meat-free Mondays will single-handedly halt the mighty forces of nature.
Perhaps the most amusing slice of this climate fear cake is Myrick’s contribution to the matter. He suggests that the “agenda-setting effect”, where a topic repeatedly bashed into the public consciousness becomes viewed as increasingly important, may be the true catalyst for climate action.
“Our findings suggest that people have gotten used to doom-and-gloom reporting around climate change and what may be more important for motivating them to take action is that they see coverage of it on a daily basis”.
All it takes, it seems, is a steady drip-feed of apocalyptic narratives to have us scampering for our canvas bags and bamboo toothbrushes.
Skurka believes that fear has its place.
“decades of research in communication and psychology show that under certain circumstances, fear can be motivating.”
However, one could easily point out that the weaponization of fear in climate change discourse serves to further polarize the conversation rather than encouraging balanced and critical discourse. Although, this might be a wild notion, considering that the lucrative business of fear-peddling seems to be all the rage.
And so, readers, we find ourselves on the cusp of manipulated fear and a glimmer of hope, as our Fear Whisperering betters continue to dissect our responses to their relentless symphony of doom. A toast, then, to our Penn State friends for reminding us just how easy it is to manufacture public sentiment when you control the narrative. I await their next study, perhaps exploring how sustained exposure to cute kitten videos could catalyze a surge in pet adoption rates?