Optimistic vs. pessimistic endings in climate change appeals

Abstract The use of emotion in climate change appeals is a hotly debated topic. Warning about the perils of imminent mass extinction, climate change communicators are often accused of being unnecessarily ‘doomsday’ in their attempts to foster a sense of urgency and action among the public. Pessimistic messaging, the thinking goes, undermines engagement efforts, straining credulity and fostering a sense of helplessness, rather than concern. Widespread calls for more optimistic climate change messaging punctuate public discourse. This research puts these claims to the test, investigating how affective endings (optimistic vs. pessimistic vs. fatalistic) of climate change appeals impact individual risk perception and outcome efficacy (i.e., the sense that one’s behavior matters). The findings of three online experiments presented in this paper suggest that climate change appeals with pessimistic affective endings increase risk perception (Studies 1 and 2) and outcome efficacy (Study 3), which is the result of heightened emotional arousal (Studies 1–3). Moreover, the results indicate that the mediating effect of emotional arousal is more prevalent among political moderates and conservatives, as well as those who hold either individualistic or hierarchical world views. Given that these audiences generally exhibit lower risk perception and outcome efficacy in relation to climate change, the results suggest that climate change appeals with pessimistic endings could trigger higher engagement with the issue than optimistic endings. These findings are interpreted in light of recent research findings, which suggest that differences in threat-reactivity and emotional arousal may be attributable to brain functions/anatomy mappable to basic motivations for safety and survival. Implications for scholars and practitioners are discussed.