1
“I care about the environment because you do!”:
The Effects of Solutions within Climate Change News Frames and Interpersonal
Solidarity on Environmental Attitudes
Graduate School of Communication
2018-2019 Master Thesis Supervisor: Andreas R. T. Schuck
Student: Jennifer Nina Knöpfle Student Number: 11834390
Contact information: knoepflejennifer@gmail.com Date: 1st February 2019
Word count: 90791
2 Abstract
The complexity and multilateral impacts of climate change are difficult to comprehend, and to connect to one’s personal daily life. Solutions-oriented journalism could help to make climate change related issues more accessible and provide information, on how to react to mitigate the consequences. This study tests solutions framing effects of climate change on environmental attitudes, with a predominant attempt to investigate the impact of interpersonal sources of in-formation as a moderator. Based on an experiment (N = 374), moderated mediation analyses showed that a social progress solutions frame significantly increased efficacy perceptions, for respondents with higher interpersonal solidarity to an environmentally caring trusted other. This consequently led to significantly more positive environmental attitudes. The study highlights the impact of environmentally conscious trusted others with a high level of concern about cli-mate change, affecting individual perceptions and emotional responses to solutions-oriented news frames in the context of climate change.
Keywords: Solutions journalism, climate change, framing, social progress, public health, inter-personal solidarity, environmental attitudes, efficacy
3 Introduction
“We are the first generation to fully understand climate change and the last generation to be able to do something about it.”
Petteri Taalas, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Mister Taalas’ (WMO) quote implies two substantial challenges concerning climate change. Firstly, creating understanding of the broad and complex issue, and secondly, mobiliz-ing governments and individuals to find and engage in solutions (World Meteorological Organ-ization, 2018). People rely on a combination of the media as the main source of information as well as on interpersonal communication with trusted others to make sense of the issue (Schäfer & Neverla, 2010; Schäfer, 2015). It is therefore of special interest how news media as well as interpersonal sources address these challenges and influence public perceptions.
In the past, climate change has been intangible for a large majority of the global public, and for Western societies specifically (Moser, 2010). Despite scientific and societal consensus around the human responsibility for the rise in global temperatures, climatic threats, including extreme weather, that potentially affect people’s quality of life were not immediately perceiv-able. Additionally, the emission of greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel production or agriculture are neither visible, nor does it have instant implications for public health. However, Mister Taalas (WMO) held his speech in view of the fourth warmest year since the World Meteoro-logical Organization began measuring earth temperatures and climate cycles (National Centers for Environmental Information, 2018). The year 2018 represents a peak in the context of climate change. Not only because almost every part of the world experienced extreme weather such as heatwaves and severe droughts. Large contributors to carbon-emissions that have so far been spared from its effects experienced climate change impacts that caused vast infrastructural dam-age and human harm. Yet, greenhouse gas emissions remain the highest level to date. However, almost 200 nations are working together to effectively tackle the issue. The latest United
4 Nations Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP24) in December 2018 resulted in the implementation of a unified rulebook on how to execute mitigation policies worldwide (Saier, 2018).
While the climate itself increasingly generates global attention, advancements in climate science, governmental debates and a growing climate protection movement create public awareness and support for clean energy and mitigation policies (Moser, 2016). Media portrayals and the resulting dialogue about its content shape public attitudes (Happer & Philo, 2016).
Given that global warming represents a gradually developing and complex issue, communica-tors are challenged to find appropriate ways to deliver climate change content comprehensively (Nisbet, 2009; Schäfer, Schlichting & Schlichting, 2014; Moser, 2016). In line with experienc-ing more weather extremes, to date, news coverage logically informs about the negative impacts and threats that are important for society to evaluate what is going on around them (Brants & van Praag, 2017). In consequence of these negative news items, several studies point towards increasing concern and a feeling of hopelessness among citizens (Capstick et al., 2015; Ballew et al., 2018). Scholars emphasize two requirements for effective climate change communication to enhance more efficacious attitudes: First, personally relevant news narratives that make the issue accessible to a more diverse public (Nisbet, 2009). Since every individual is concerned about the environment to a different extent, audiences have fragmented attitudes regarding cli-mate change (Maibach et al., 2010; Metag, Füchslin & Schäfer, 2017). Second, storylines should not only depict the problem, but also address effective ways to do something about it (Moser & Dilling, 2012). Solutions-oriented reporting that emphasizes effective treatments of a problem, resulting in improvements to quality of life or preserving public health, for instance, potentially reinforces environmental attitudes. Research has so far neglected the combination of solutions journalism using climate change narratives.
Moreover, the fact that citizens vary in their level of care has implications on how to address a more inattentive audience. Since the already aware public is usually the one
5 consuming science-related news (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009) it is of interest to investigate how these environmentally conscious individuals affect their peers. Communication scholars repeat-edly stress the importance of interpersonal sources of information. Yet, little research has fo-cused on whether people start caring about climate change as a result of conversations with environmentally conscious family members, friends or colleagues. This study addresses these gaps by investigating the following questions: 1) How will exposure to solutions within differ-ent climate change news frames influence environmdiffer-ental attitudes? 2) And to what extdiffer-ent does this effect depend on a respondent’s level of interpersonal solidarity to an environmentally con-scious trusted other?
Theoretical Framework
Solutions Journalism and Climate Change
The public retrieves most of their climate change information from the media (Schäfer, 2015). Given that its consequences are uncontrollable and can cause potential harm and major damage, the issue constitutes a societal threat (Moser, 2010). Facts about global warming’s negative impacts are therefore considered especially important for the public (Harcup & O’Neill, 2017). Journalists critically monitor events and changes in people’s environment to provide necessary information for individuals to respond, thereby fulfilling a core function of communication (Brants & Van Praag, 2017). As a result, climate change coverage mainly re-ports on human-caused problems, evidence and related risks and is primarily negative in tone (Shehata & Hopman, 2012). Communication science identifies negativity as a news value (Har-cup & O’Neill, 2017) and assumptions from political psychology state that people are more attentive and reactive to negative news (Soroka & McAdams, 2015). In relation to climate change, however, negativity is disadvantageous. Findings suggest that fear appeals or overly negative messages that only cover global warming as a grand problem, without presenting ways to handle it, result in demobilization and denial (O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009; Hart, Nisbet
6 & Shanahan, 2011). Multiple scholars therefore argue in favor of communicative benefits to present the problem in combination with viable solutions (Nisbet, 2009; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009; Moser & Dilling, 2012). In recent years, a solutions-oriented form of journalism has gained increasing attention in the United States and Europe, with the potential to overcome the negativity bias in climate change communication. Solutions journalism2 defines thorough and compellingly elaborated reporting about established responses to social problems (McIntyre, 2017; Aitamurto & Varma, 2018). The approach uses techniques from positive psychology to produce more engaging news reports “while holding true to journalism’s core functions” (McIntyre & Gyldensted, 2017, p. 23). Positive psychology revolves around the idea of indi-vidual and societal well-being and thriving (Fredrickson, 2001). Such techniques integrate prac-tical solutions as well as explanations of how and why resolving strategies work. More im-portantly, solutions-oriented stories outline the impact of applied responses (Solutions Journal-ism Network, 2017). Compared to conventional journalistic practice, problem-solving report-ing, thus, not only presents negativities and challenges of an issue. Practitioners aim to depict a more comprehensive picture of reality by prioritizing solutions as the most salient part within a news story (Curry & Hammonds, 2014) to contribute to a positive social impact.
Hence, citizens who read about solutions in the context of climate change might per-ceive the issue as a solvable challenge. Although there are only few studies on solutions-ori-ented news coverage, and none relating the approach to climate change messages to date, ex-isting findings point in a promising direction. In view of the negativity bias in news, McIntyre (2017) examined the impact of effective, ineffective and no solutions within information con-tent on positive and negative affect. Findings indicate that an effective solutions story caused participants to feel significantly less negative and resulted in positive attitudes towards both the article and its solutions. Whereas the news article containing an ineffective solution and the one
2Solutions journalism shares common grounds with constructive journalism, that identifies through objective coverage of
ways to solve social issues. However, constructive journalism aims not to endorse solutions. For detailed definitions, see Aitamurto & Varma, 2018.
7 solely framing conflict had no effect on participant’s feelings. However, results concerning levels of efficacy or positive attitudes about the story topic were not significant3. In contrast, Curry and Hammonds (2014) investigated the effects of a non-solution version compared to an identical version including solutions. Three different social issues were chosen, with a focus on the problem only, or including additional solutions. Results reveal that solutions significantly affected people’s perceived knowledge and sense of efficacy, increased their interest and like-lihood of engagement4. Given the outcome inconsistencies of these two initial studies, further research is needed to accumulate findings that allow claims about the impact of solutions jour-nalism (McIntyre & Gyldensted, 2017). Since climate change also represents a substantial so-cial issue that people find difficult to grasp and to engage with (Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006), solution-oriented content might be an effective approach. Engesser & Brüggemann (2016) stress that environmental journalists value solutions as one of the most important parts of mate change coverage. However, solution-oriented approaches have not been tested within cli-mate change communication. This study aims to fill this research gap by incorporating problem-solving content into common climate change coverage.
Framing in Climate Change Communication
As previously mentioned, media portrayals focused on the man-made causes and severe environmental impacts, in line with scientific advancements and the established consensus about global warming. Over the past decades, the general depiction of climate change domi-nated the news (Shehata & Hopman, 2012). More recently, communication frames aim atten-tion at the responsibility of politics and society to tackle the problem (Moser, 2016). The media therefore frames climate change by selecting and presenting a specific perspective concerning
3McIntyre’s (2017) sample, however, was not representative. The majority consisted of young, female college students that
tend to be more supportive of solutions journalism than males (McIntyre, Dahmen, Abdenour, 2016).
4Curry and Hammonds’ (2014) study constitutes drawbacks that threaten the external validity of their results. They neither
randomly selected respondents from the population, nor did they randomly assign them to their six treatment groups. It is therefore uncertain whether effects randomly appeared or were due to other factors, influencing people’s perception.
8 the issue. Depending on the frame, some aspects become more salient than others. These choices help simplify the breadth and complexity of global warming by providing structure and assigning meaning to special considerations (Entman, 1993). In other words, framed messages present a problem and its causes as well as what should be done about it (Nisbet, 2009). Given the value of negativity in news, most scholarly research focused on news content framing in terms of a problem (Cacciatore, Scheufele & Iyengar, 2016). In contrast, this conception draws attention to frame characteristics that Entman (1993) calls the diagnosis of causes, moral judge-ments and suggested remedies. Following Entman’s (1993) outlined definition and early work on framing, this study sheds light on to the attributes of creating meaning and offering remedies to treat existing problems and anticipate likely outcomes. Investigating the impact of solutions in view of climate change therefore represents a particularly important approach. Solutions may stimulate the level of engagement that has so far been lacking.
Biologist E. O. Wilson, for example, framed climate change as an ethical duty to protect God’s creation. He succeeded in gaining the confidence of religious leaders who relate the pro-tection of nature to their faith (Nisbet, 2009). Wilson contextualized global warming by giving weight to society’s moral obligation and therefore attributed personal relevance to the issue. How recipients perceive this information is relative to their values and beliefs, pre-existing opinions and mental processes. Depending on the terminological and visual composition of a climate change message, the way a news story describes and presents its content can prompt different responses. Hence, specific frames that relate to people’s predispositions are more rel-evant and therefore more influential in shaping their perceptions of the topic at hand (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009; Jones & Song, 2014). The impact of news media frames on public perceptions and understanding of societal issues has long been a focus of social science (Gamson & Modi-gliani, 1989). A considerable body of framing conceptualizations and operationalizations has grown within recent decades (De Vreese, 2005; Chong & Druckman, 2007; Cacciatore, Scheufele & Iyengar, 2016). In view of climate change, findings suggest that certain frames are
9 more effective in influencing public attitudes than others (Myers et al., 2012). Alternative to the previously stated general climate change frames, communication scholars suggest empha-sizing domains that are more personally relevant to the public (Nisbet, 2009). A social progress frame for example, has the potential to make global warming relatable. Hypothetically, the frame presents the implementation of renewable energy as a sustainable job opportunity for many. This association to lifestyle improvements connects the issue to a familiar and important social dimension. Hence, information about climate change becomes useful and applicable to people’s direct and personal considerations (Nisbet, 2009).
In doing so, reframing can have the potential to capture an otherwise inattentive audi-ence (Maibach et al., 2010). As outlined in the introduction, not everyone cares equally about the environment. Other social concerns such as healthcare, financial support or food supply lie at the heart of individuals daily life and are often considered more urgent. Nisbet (2009) argues that either a social progress or a public health frame in the context of climate change are more effective to address disinterested or divided audiences. A social progress frame emphasizes the improvement of people’s quality of life (Nisbet, 2009) through scientific and technological ad-vances (Chetty, Devadas & Fleming, 2015). A public health frame stresses the health risks attributed to climate change as well as health benefits in case of action to mitigate the conse-quences (Myers, et al., 2012). Nisbet (2009) composed a generalizable typology, consisting of frames that highlight climate change impacts in terms of personal concerns. His typology and several other studies identify commonly used frames in climate change communication that emerged throughout science-related debates (also Nisbet, 2009; Maibach et al., 2010; Myers et al., 2012; Chetty, Devadas & Fleming, 2015; Feldman & Hart, 2018). Their findings underline the potential of climate change frames relating to personally relevant domains to engage the public in climate protection (see also Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009). In line with communication research, social progress as well as public health represent two prominent news frames. Based on Nisbet’s (2009) typology, Chetty, Devadas & Fleming (2015) conducted a content analysis
10 covering climate change. Based on their findings, social progress was specified as deriving solutions for the development of a sustainable future (e.g. efforts to curb emissions or lifestyle decisions). Moreover, the adaptation to the changing climate can be interpreted as an alternative way of social progress (e.g. relocation planning as a reaction to rising sea levels). According to their results, the social progress frame was amongst the most prominent in reporting on global warming. In a broader context, Spence and Pidgeon (2010) used a frame that referred to positive improvements and gains for society in case of emission reduction. By highlighting mitigation procedures and their positive impacts on public life, the frame indirectly relates to the concept of solutions journalism (Aitamurto & Varma, 2018). Their findings propose that a gain frame increased positive attitudes towards mitigation measures compared to loss framed information (Spence & Pidgeon, 2010; see also Bilandzic, Kalch & Soentgen, 2017). Since a story about climate change mitigation efforts involves solution-oriented content, it is expected that the in-corporation of solutions within a social progress frame shows similar effects on environmental attitudes.
Several findings suggest a health-related frame to be particularly effective when it comes to the issue of climate change (Maibach et al., 2010; Myers et al., 2012; Feldman & Hart, 2018). Already familiar health concerns in relation to climate change or potential benefits in case of mitigation policies draw upon the desire of individuals to maintain high levels of health (Maibach et al., 2010). Exploring people’s reactions to a health-related essay content about climate change, Maibach et al. (2010) found evidence that respondents perceived a public health frame highlighting benefits as more useful and clearer than a health threat frame. Myers et al. (2012) conducted an experimental survey and investigated emotional responses to an environ-mental risk frame, a national security frame, and a public health frame. While exposure to en-vironmental risks and national security resulted in different emotional reactions, the public
11 health frame was the most powerful in evoking hope across all audience segments5. The suc-cessful use of a health benefits frame compared to a health threat frame by Maibach et al. (2010), already supports the idea of integrated solutions in climate change news. Content that highlights how to maintain high health levels while mitigating climate change, could also be perceived as more useful and clearer. Myers et al. (2012) underline this assumption as individ-uals showed positive emotional reactions to the public health frame. Taken together, past fram-ing research stresses the importance of personally relevant dimensions in climate change com-munication. The prominence and positive influence of a social progress and a public health frame therefore seems specifically useful in transmitting solutions to climate change.
Interpersonal Solidarity to an Environmentally Conscious Trusted Other
Research points towards framing strategies that activate an otherwise inattentive audi-ence to climate change. Several factors play a role whether someone cares for the environment. Once individuals care about an issue, they might be more likely to engage in information about it (source). Psychologists as well as social scientists stress the importance of interpersonal sources of information within the climate change debate (Geller, 1995; Nisbet, 2009; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009). Interpersonal sources identify individuals that communicate climate change and environmental protection to their peers and are therefore expected to have an impact on attitudes of their trusted social groups (Nisbet, 2009). The study of interpersonal influence in the context of effective climate change framing, however, has been mostly unobserved. Early attempts to look at factors that drive environmentally protective behaviour stem from behav-iourism and humanism (Geller, 1995, Allen & Ferrand, 1999). Geller (1995) claimed that indi-viduals who look beyond themselves and that are concerned about the community at large, are more likely to actively care for others and therefore act pro-environmentally (see also Kollmuss
5Additionally, Feldman and Hart’s (2018) selective exposure study tested how six different frames that emphasize personally
relevant dimensions motivate readers’ likelihood to choose climate change news information. In view of their findings, a public health frame was the most likely to be selected (Feldman & Hart, 2018), pointing towards its importance for people.
12 & Agyeman, 2002). He suggested that actively caring only occurs when the need for altruistic traits such as self-esteem, belonging, personal control, self-efficacy and optimism have been satisfied. He introduced the ‘actively caring’ model that identifies individuals “who care enough about a particular problem or about other persons to implement an intervention strategy that could make a beneficial difference” (Geller, 1995, p. 190). These individuals feel sympathy and get involved with the attempt to benefit others. Hence, the five altruistic factors affect actively caring that subsequently leads to environmentally responsible behaviour such as energy con-servation or recycling. Allen and Ferrand (1999) tested Geller’s (1995) model relative to envi-ronmental concern and action as the outcome variables. Results suggested that factors of per-sonal control and sympathy play a significant role in pro-environmental behaviour.
The impact of interpersonal sources of communication requires the interaction of such environmentally conscious individuals with their social circle (Wheeless, 1976). In line with Allen and Ferrand’s (1999) claim, this relationship should involve sympathetic feelings to likely affect one another’s environmental perception. Therefore, it is important to determine the rela-tionship between environmentally conscious sources and potentially affected participants of this study regarding their environmental attitudes. Wheeless (1976) conceptualized interper-sonal solidarity as a relationship between people that is based on shared similarities, pleasant sentiments and physical as well as social closeness (status). The feeling of solidarity therefore involves sympathy, liking, trust and self-disclosure. One could argue that being close to an environmentally caring individual and sharing his/her views likely results in similar attitudes (Allen & Ferrand, 1999). With these considerations in mind, I assume that levels of interper-sonal solidarity to someone who cares about the environment influences one’s own environ-mental perceptions (see also Duarte, Escario, and Sanagustín’s, 2017). Aside from Allen & Ferrand’s (1999) attempt to examine effects of actively caring for the environment, research focusing on the impact of interpersonal solidarity on environmental attitudes seems scarce. This
13 study aims to fill this gap by addressing pre-dispositional solidarity in interpersonal communi-cation that can play a role in processing climate change related content.
Impacts on Environmental Attitudes
Existing communication literature suggests that attitudes are expressed in terms of con-cern as well as interest in climate change, in response to news content (Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006; Moser & Dilling, 2012). Once exposed to information about the issue, individuals expe-rience a cognitive and an affective process in order to understand global warming, therefore experiencing emotional reactions. Based on these psychological dimensions, individuals come to their attitudinal evaluation of climate change (Moser & Dilling, 2012). Environmental atti-tudes are defined as a psychological mechanism that constitutes the evaluation of perceptions or belief of the natural environment (Milfont, 2009). Approaches from social-cognitive theory propose that individual attitudes concern dimensions of the self, others and the environment (Geller, 1995). These attitudes develop depending on an individual’s perceived connection to oneself and others, or between oneself and the nature (Schultz, 2001; Duarte, Escario, Sana-gustín, 2017).
Reflecting on positive psychology techniques in solutions reporting, that contribute to positive associations with solutions, this study expects problem-solving content to be promising in this context. The findings from solutions journalism (McIntyre, 2017; Curry & Hammonds, 2014) underline the assumption that solutions might work towards more positive attitudes. The same holds for the reflection on studies regarding climate change framing (Nisbet, 2009; Spence & Pidgeon, 2010; Maibach et al., 2010; Myers et al., 2012). Their results support the idea to incorporate solutions within a more personally related social progress as well as within a public health frame to increase positive attitudes.
14 In line with these considerations, this study firstly addresses the central research ques-tion and investigates how exposure to soluques-tions within different climate change news frames affect environmental attitudes. The respective hypotheses are states as follows:
H1a: Exposure to solutions will affect environmental attitudes more than exposure to no solutions.
H1b: Exposure to solutions within a social progress frame will affect environmental attitudes more than exposure to no solutions.
H1c: Exposure to solutions within a public health frame will affect respondent’s envi-ronmental attitudes more than exposure to no solutions.
Additionally, Duarte, Escario, and Sanagustín’s (2017) experimental study investigated how student relationships with close trusted others affect attitudes toward the environment. Re-sults show that environmentally aware close others shape and strengthen environmental per-ceptions. The attempt furthermore underlines the assumption that close relationships with en-vironmentally conscious others influence people’s own environmental attitudes (Allen & Fer-rand, 1999). Therefore, the study assumes that a respondent with an environmentally conscious trusted other from their social group, will likely be influenced by this interpersonal source of communication. A feeling of solidarity towards someone who cares about the environment pos-sibly affects the exposure of differently framed solutions content and its outcomes. With the presented literature in mind, I furthermore test how the effect of differently framed solutions news articles on environmental attitudes depends on a respondent’s level of interpersonal soli-darity to this trusted other. A second hypothesis summarizes the moderation expectations for each solutions condition compared to no solutions:
H2a: Exposure to neutral solutions, to a social progress solutions frame, and to a public health solutions frame will lead to more positive environmental attitudes, compared to exposure to no solutions, the higher a respondent scores on interpersonal solidarity.
15 The Underlying Potential of Solutions and Interpersonal Solidarity to Induce Efficacy
Efficacy constitutes an individual’s belief in the capability to address an issue, situation or event and to feel able to cope with it (Bandura, 1977). As previously outlined, research sug-gests that individuals who read solutions-oriented news content perceive a stronger feeling of efficacy towards the issue (Curry & Hammonds, 2014). With explanations of how a problem can be tackled, reasons why these ways are effective, as well as positive impacts of responses, solutions stories constitute efficacy characteristics. Hence, a solution story possesses a degree of efficacy that likely influences receiver’s efficacy perceptions (Curry & Hammonds, 2014). Based on their findings, Hart and Feldman (2016) suggest that exposure to a news story includ-ing positive efficacy information increases an individual’s own perceived efficacy and therefore potentially promotes engagement around climate change. Therefore, information on a climate change issue that is personally relevant with applicable solutions, has the potential to induce perceived efficacy. Furthermore, environmentally conscious trusted others potentially evoke an initial sense of efficacy by communicating how they contribute to climate protection. Also, Geller’s (1995) outline of someone who cares enough to get involved for the benefit of others involves self-efficacy. These individuals are likely to endorse their level of efficacy as an inter-personal source of information. Individuals who thus, feel interinter-personal solidarity to these trusted others are therefore predisposed to be even more affected in their own efficacy percep-tion. Hence, I assume that solutions content within specific climate change message frames induces perceived efficacy. Moreover, the interaction with interpersonal solidarity to an envi-ronmentally conscious trusted other might even increase this effect. I expect that higher levels of interpersonal solidarity and the interaction with solutions information will increase efficacy. As a result, environmental attitudes are likely to be more positive. The hypothesis summarizes all three manipulations compared to no solutions content, identifying their conditional indirect effects on environmental attitudes as follows:
16 H2b: Respondents who score higher on interpersonal solidarity, and are exposed to neu-tral solutions, a social progress solutions frame, and a public health solutions frame, compared to a no solutions frame will react with higher efficacy and will subsequently show more positive environmental attitudes.
Since these concepts have not yet been tested in such combination, I aim to detect a central difference between conventional reporting and a solutions-oriented approach on the one hand. Analytical examinations of the second set of hypotheses potentially reveal whether there are tendencies in effectiveness.
Method
To investigate the effects of solutions within climate change frames, and the moderating impact of interpersonal solidarity on environmental attitudes, I conducted an online experiment among a sample of the German general population. Germany represents an interesting case regarding climate change. Known for its commitment to mitigation procedures, it has long rep-resented a leading industrial country that promotes the energy transition (Schäfer, 2015). How-ever, its government is in the spotlight of criticism (Eddy, 2018). The commission for coal regulations struggles to come to an agreement regarding a potential phase-out, although Ger-many already missed its national climate mitigation targets early in 2018. With its mostly alarmed and climate aware audience (Metag, Füchslin, & Schäfer, 2017), Germany is of special interest how several frames of solution information is being perceived and to what extent inter-personal solidarity plays in to affect environmental attitudes.
Research Design
The study design consisted of a single factor (no solutions, neutral solutions, social progress solutions frame, public health solutions frame) between-groups post-test only
17 experimental design (see Appendix 1, Figure 1). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. The study was conducted in view of the United Nations Conference of the Parties on Climate Change that was held during the first two weeks in December 2018.
Procedure
The experiment was conducted from the 21st to 27th December 2018 and the survey company Survey Sampling International (SSI) provided recruitment of respondents among the German population. Those who completed the survey received compensation by SSI. Partici-pants filled in a pre-test questionnaire about demographic information, as well as predisposi-tions about their interpersonal solidarity. Afterwards, respondents were randomly exposed to one of the four stimulus articles. Finally, participants completed a post-test questionnaire, in-cluding manipulation checks, questions about the mediator and about the dependent variables. The randomization check on control variables such as age, gender, education and political ori-entation showed a successful randomization (see Appendix 2).
Participants and Sample
The original sample consisted of a total of 1261 respondents from the German popula-tion. Cases had to be excluded from the analysis, due to not signing the consent form, not ful-filling the minimum age requirement of 18 years to suit the adult target population, drop-outs prior to finishing the study or missing values on relevant variables. Furthermore, speeded par-ticipation with a response time below 400 seconds was observed in line with non-serious an-swers in the open questions as well as consistent response patterns on counter-valenced items. Data for these respondents were also discarded. In conclusion, a total of 255 cases were ex-cluded from the analysis. Since I only focus on four conditions from my originally larger design, the sample size reduced accordingly. The final sample for the utilized conditions therefore con-sists of 374 participants in total, with an average age of 37 years (SD = 16.47), ranging from 18
18 to 80 years. 188 respondents were female (50.4%), 185 were male (49.6%), and 1 with missing gender. A total of 81 (21.7%) completed a degree or higher education, 239 (63,9%) had sec-ondary education, and 54 (14.4%) had primary education. The average political orientation was rather centre (M= 5.75, SD= 2.19), ranging from 1 (left) to 11 (right).
Stimulus Material
The stimulus material consisted of four different news articles (see Appendix 3). The baseline stimulus only reported on the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Katowice. The content concerned the recent discussion about challenges to realize international climate targets and composing a unified rulebook to implement the Paris Agreement, and the urgency to reduce carbon emissions. This news article served as the introductory part of all stimuli and as the overall no solutions (control) condition, only including relevant information on current affairs. The additional three stimuli contained three different solutions to tackle climate change. Hence, the three solution messages were kept identical in content throughout all solutions con-ditions and several sentences were framed regarding the presented climate change frames. One of the additional three solution conditions was kept neutral and was produced in view of the outlined theoretical background on existing solutions-oriented reporting. Despite the no solu-tions and the neutral solusolu-tions condition, I used another two stimuli with the identical solusolu-tions content that were framed according to the presented typology of climate change frames (Nisbet, 2009; Myers et al., 2012). In other words, each of the additional two stimulus articles consisted of the neutral solutions content, where several sentences were framed regarding either social progress or public health with factual information kept identically as much as possible. All stimulus material was composed for the purpose of the study, based on existing information about the UN Climate Change Conference as well as potential solutions for climate protection. Exposure to produced content ensured more control over the manipulations, since respondents may have been familiar with the subject in general, but not with the exposed material content.
19 All four conditions were identically titled “Herausforderungen bei Umsetzung der Klimaziele” (“Challenges to Realize the Climate Goals“).
Manipulation Checks
Three different manipulation check measures determined whether respondents correctly perceived the stimulus content. The first question asked participants whether the article they read was generally either more negative or more positive in tone (1 very negative, 7 very posi-tive). I expected individuals to perceive solutions content to be more positive compared to the no solutions condition since solutions theoretically identify with more positive information. Results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a successful manipulation, F(3,370) = 7.89, p < .001. Respondents in the no solution condition perceived the article content significantly more negative (M= 3.92, SD= 1.41) than individuals in the three solution condi-tions (Mneutralsolutions= 4.63, SD= 1.20; Msocialprogress= 4.76, SD= 1.38; Mpublichealth= 4.62, SD=
1.30).
Next, I posed another two questions to determine whether respondents clearly perceived either a) climate change problems (no solution condition) exclusively or also b) solutions to help mitigate climate change. Separate ANOVA’s were conducted with the four conditions as the independent variable and each question separately as the dependent variable. Higher scores for the first question on the seven-point scale (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree) represented agreement with exclusive problem exposure. Results reveal significant differences between groups, F(3,370) = 3.26, p = .022. Post-hoc tests showed that respondents in the no solution condition confirmed the exclusive exposure to problems (M = 3.72, SD = 1.03, n = 98) com-pared to the social progress (Msocialprogress = 3.33, SD = .99, n = 90) and the public health
solu-tion condisolu-tion (Mpublichealth = 3.32, SD = 1.00, n = 91). The ANOVA for the second question of
whether respondents clearly perceived solutions also revealed significant differences, F(3,370) = 16.07, p < .001. Respondents in the no solution condition rather disagreed (M = 3.06, SD =
20 1.24) with the exposure of solutions, while the three treatment groups significantly agreed with being exposed to solutions (Mneutralsolutions = 3.81, SD = .90; Msocialprogress = 3.89, SD = .91,
Mpublichealth = 3.93, SD = .92). Higher scores for the second question stated that the received
content highlighted solutions. The third manipulation check question aimed at distinguishing between the two differently framed climate change solutions conditions and tested whether par-ticipants correctly perceived either solutions within a social progress frame or solutions within a public health frame. Respondents indicated their level of agreement on a seven-point agree-disagree scale. I asked (“The article you just read was mainly about…”) two questions about each of the frames (“…the improvement of quality of life and the increased social progress, if there will be immediate action to protect the climate.”, “…health advantages, if there will be immediate action to protect the climate.”). I conducted two independent samples t-tests, con-taining the social progress solutions condition as the first group, and the public health solutions condition as the second group. Each of the frame questions were used as the dependent variable in separate t-tests. Outputs showed no difference for neither the first, t(179) = -.73, p = .465, (Msocialprogress = 5.19, SD = 1.29; Mpublichealth = 5.33, SD = 1.30), nor the second question,
t(179) = -1.52, p = .129, (Msocialprogress = 5.07, SD = 1.41; Mpublichealth = 5.37, SD = 1.31).
Given these results, it can be assumed that further analyses potentially show similarities be-tween the social progress and the public health solutions frames. However, capturing perceived frame differences with these manipulation check items is challenging and it could be that these questions were difficult to answer for respondents. The difficulties do not exclude the chance that respondents perceived the frames to be different. I will elaborate on this point under limi-tations in the discussions section.
21 Measures
Moderation
Interpersonal solidarity
6Seven agree-disagree statement items measured the interpersonal solidarity of the par-ticipant towards an environmentally conscious trusted family member, friend or colleague (see Appendix 4). The items were derived from Wheeless’s (1976) Interpersonal Solidarity Scale (ISS) and were adjusted for the current research purpose. I aimed to measure the relationship between a participant to an environmentally caring individual as well as their solidarity toward this person’s opinion on climate protection. Respondents answered on a seven-point scale (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree) stating their agreement with the seven statement items (“This person has a great deal of influence over my behaviour.”, “This person and I regularly share the same opinion.”, “I like how this person thinks about the topic of climate protection and I find it worth supporting.”). After the adjustment of several items, I conducted a principal axis factoring analysis to ascertain a reliable measurement of the interpersonal solidarity con-struct. The analysis showed one factor with an eigenvalue of 4.10, explaining 58.52% of the variance in the data. All seven items correlate positively with the overall factor, and item two had the strongest factor loading with .78. All items were averaged into a reliable scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .88) (M= 5.32, SD= .89).
6
A categorical filter question was posed prior to the interpersonal solidarity measure to detect whether a respondent has one or more persons within the family, friends or social group who care/s about climate protection (1 none, 2 one person, 3 several
persons). A total of 292 (78.1%) respondents indicated to have one or more people in their social circle who cares about climate
protection. These people were told to think of a conversation about climate protection with one of these persons. I intended to provoke a thinking process about this individual and about the issue. Hence, the participant considers the environmentally caring trusted other during participation.
22
Mediation
Efficacy
The measure for efficacy in the context of climate change was based on Hart and Feld-man (2016). Their items were adjusted and combined for the current research purpose concern-ing solutions. Respondents indicated on a seven-point scale (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree) how much they agreed or disagreed with eleven statement items (“I can make a positive contribution with my own actions to reduce climate change.”, “I am convinced that there are solutions to effectively handle the negative consequences of climate change.”) (see Appendix 4). Prior to analysing whether the items appropriately measure the efficacy constructs, I reverse coded items when necessary. Higher scores eventually represented stronger agreement with the statements and more efficacy. Thus, I conducted a principal axis factoring analysis to assess whether the items form the intended efficacy construct. The analysis revealed four factors. Since one item loaded on two factors and was therefore not mutually exclusive, I decided to drop this item from the analysis (“I think that the global governments will never agree on ef-fective ways to handle the negative consequences of climate change.”). Moreover, factor 3 and 4 were unreliably measuring the expected constructs. Hence, I also excluded these from further analyses.
The first factor had an eigenvalue of 2.99 and explained 29.87% of the variance in the data, while the second factor had an eigenvalue of 1.83 and explained 18.25% of the variance. The three items forming the first factor all correlated positively. Also, the two items within the second factor correlated positively. None of the items loaded on another factor at above .4. The reliability analysis for the first factor showed a reliable scale (Cronbach’s alpha= .78) (M= 4.55, SD= 1.09). The two items of the second factor were also averaged into a reliable scale (r = .70, p < .001) (M= 3.67, SD= 1.54). Since I aim to investigate an increase in a general sense of efficacy, I combine the two factors to measure overall efficacy. All five items combined form a reliable efficacy scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .73) (M = 4.20, SD = .97).
23
Dependent Variable
Environmental attitudes
Environmental attitudes were measured on a seven-point scale (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree) and participants were asked whether they agree or disagree with four statement items. (“The government should take stronger and more immediate action to protect the country from the impacts of climate change.”, “Our government officials have to spend more money on climate protection, even if less resources will be left for other official tasks”) (see Appendix 4). All four items formed a reliable scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .89) and higher scores indicated stronger agreement with the statements and thus more positive environmental attitudes (M= 5.48, SD= 1.23)7.
Results
Main Effects
To test the first three hypotheses concerning the three treatment conditions in compari-son with the no solutions group, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc tests was conducted to detect potential group differences. The condition variable contained the four stimulus conditions (no solutions, neutral solutions, social progress solution frame, public health solution frame) as the categorical independent variable and the environmental attitudes scale as the dependent variable. Results show no significant difference between the four groups concerning environmental attitudes (F(3,370) = .57, p = .638).
7The high average already indicates high environmental attitudes among the public and the high Cronbach’s alpha shows
that there is not much variation in attitudes. Hence, it is important to keep a potential ceiling effect in mind when measuring attitudes later.
24 Table 1 Differences in environmental attitudes between the four groups
N M SD
Exposure
Control condition, no solutions Neutral solutions, no frame Social progress solutions frame Public health solutions frame
Total 98 5.44 1.33 95 5.54 1.12 90 5.31 1.36 91 374 5.49 5.45 1.22 1.26 Participants who are exposed to neutral solutions do not show significantly more positive atti-tudes, compared to respondents who are exposed to the no solutions condition (see Table 1) (H1a). Conversely, neither exposure to solutions within a social progress frame leads to signif-icantly more positive attitudes (H1b), nor does exposure to a public health solutions frame, compared to the no solutions condition (H1c). In conclusion, different types of news articles containing several solutions – no matter if these are kept neutrally or framed in terms of social progress or public health – regarding climate change, reveal no difference in environmental attitudes compared to an article without solutions content. The first three hypotheses are there-fore not supported.
Moderation
I expect that a participant’s level of interpersonal solidarity to an environmentally con-scious trusted other affects the perceptions of solutions in a climate change news article, and subsequently influences the individual’s own environmental attitudes (H2a). For this step, each solution condition was dummy coded with the respective condition as 1, keeping the no solution condition as the reference group. I ran SPSS PROCESS (Model 1; 1000 bootstraps, Hayes, 2018) to test whether each of the three condition dummies (neutral solutions, social progress solution frame, public health solution frame) leads to more positive environmental attitudes, compared to the control group, depending on a participant’s interpersonal solidarity to an envi-ronmentally caring trusted other. The model summaries for the three solutions frame conditions
25 moderated by interpersonal solidarity are all significant8. The unstandardized coefficient for the interaction term of neutral solutions and interpersonal solidarity, however, is insignificant, b = .10, SE = .19, p = .584, 95% CI [-.27,.47]. The result suggests that no matter the level of inter-personal solidarity, a news article including neutral solutions does not influence participants environmental attitudes significantly. Same holds for the interaction between the social pro-gress solutions frame and interpersonal solidarity, b = .10, SE = .18, p = .578, 95% CI [-.26,.46], as well as for the public health solutions frame interacting with the moderator of interpersonal solidarity, b= -.11, SE = .18, p = .570, 95% CI [-.47,.26]. Consequently, I reject hypothesis 2a.
Moderated Mediations
Next, I examine conditional indirect effects of the outlined solutions conditions in three separate steps. The hypothesis states that higher levels of interpersonal solidarity and the inter-action with solutions information (neutral solutions, social progress solutions frame, public health solutions frame), compared to no solutions will increase efficacy, and this effect will lead to more positive environmental attitudes (H2b). To test this assumption, I used the SPSS PROCESS macro (Model 7; 1,000 bootstraps; Hayes, 2013) for three separate examinations. Firstly, I investigated the conditional indirect effect for neutral solutions. The analysis con-tained the neutral solutions condition dummy as the independent variable (n = 154), interper-sonal solidarity as the moderator, efficacy as the mediator and environmental attitudes as the dependent variable (see Model 1).
8Neutral solutions*interpersonal solidarity, F(3,150) = 17.83, p< .001; social progress solutions frame*interpersonal
soli-darity, F(3,140) = 19.08, p < .001; public health solutions frame*interpersonal solisoli-darity, F(3,142) = 13.05, p < .001. Hence,
26 Model 1
Moderated mediation of the neutral solutions condition on environmental attitudes
Note: n = 154
Results reveal that the interaction effect of neutral solutions and interpersonal solidarity on ef-ficacy on the a-path is non-significant (see Model 1) 9. Hence, regardless of how low or high a participant’s interpersonal solidarity level, the interaction with the neutral solutions manipula-tion does not influence efficacy significantly. Furthermore, the b-path is insignificant, suggest-ing that efficacy has no effect on environmental attitudes10.
The second conditional indirect analysis contained the dummy of the social progress solutions frame as the independent variable (n = 144), and the moderator, mediator and depend-ent variable used as previously stated. I tested whether the social progress condition increases efficacy, depending on interpersonal solidarity towards an environmentally conscious trusted other, and whether these dynamics produce more positive environmental attitudes (H2b).
9The model summary for the a-path of the conditional indirect analysis is significant, F(3,150) = 7.60, p < .001. 10Insignificant model summary for the b-path, F(2,151) = 1.21, p = .302.
Direct effect, b = -.01, SE = .18, p = .957, 95% CI [-.36,.34] Indirect effect, ind = .04, 95% CI [-.02,.15]
b= .14, SE = .09, p = .123, 95% CI [-.04,.33] b = .31, SE = .18, p = .086, 95% CI [-.04,.66] b-path p = .302 a-path p < .001
Neutral solutions Environmental attitudes
Interpersonal
27 Model 2
Moderated mediation of the social progress solutions frame on environmental attitudes
Note: n = 144
Results of the a-path reveal a significant, positive and moderately strong interaction effect of the social progress solutions frame with interpersonal solidarity on efficacy (b = .44, SE = .17, p = .011, 95% CI [.10,.78]) (see Model 2) 11. The positive effect of a social progress solutions frame on efficacy becomes significantly stronger for respondents with higher levels of interper-sonal solidarity. In other words, with every unit increase of the moderator, the interaction effect increases efficacy by .44 units (see Table 2). The b-path additionally reveals a positive, weak significant effect of efficacy on environmental attitudes (b = .23, SE = .09, p = .014, 95% CI [.05,.41]) (for results, see Model 2)12. With every unit increase in efficacy on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), environmental attitudes increase by .23 units. In sum-mary, the effect of a social progress solutions frame on environmental attitudes via efficacy significantly increases, the higher a participant’s level of interpersonal solidarity (see Table 2).
11The model summary for the a-path is significant (F(3,140) = 12.69, p < .001). 12The b-path is also significant (F(2,141) = 3.12, p = .047).
b= .23, SE = .09,
p = .014,
95% CI [.05,.41]
Direct effect, b = -.11, SE = .18, p = .560, 95% CI [-.47,.26] Indirect effect, ind = .10, 95% CI [.003,.24]
b = .44, SE = .17, p = .011, 95% CI [.10,.78] b-path p = .047 a-path p < .001 Social progress
solutions frame Environmental attitudes
Interpersonal
28
Table 2 Conditional indirect effects of social progress solutions frame on environmental attitudes, per
unit increase in interpersonal solidarity on efficacy.
95% CI Interpersonal
solidarity moderator
Effect Point estimate (boot SE)
Lower limit Upper limit
4.43 -.04 .04 -.13 .04
5.29 .05 .04 -.02 .13
6.29 .15 .09 .004 .34
Note. N = 144
The last conditional indirect analysis examined whether higher levels of interpersonal solidarity and the exposure to a public health solutions frame, compared to no solutions increase efficacy, and subsequently lead to more positive environmental attitudes (H2b). The analysis contained the public health solutions frame as the independent variable (n = 146), as well as the previously elaborated moderator and mediator affecting environmental attitudes.
Model 3
Moderated mediation of the public health solutions frame on environmental attitudes
Note: n = 146
The interaction effect of the public health solutions frame with interpersonal solidarity on effi-cacy, however, is not significant, and showing a negative unstandardized interaction coefficient (see Model 4)13. Although insignificant, it is interesting to mention the negative direction. Given
13 The a-path is significant, F(3,142) = 2.93, p = .036.
Direct effect, b = -.02, SE = .18, p = .917, 95% CI [-.38,.34] Indirect effect, ind = -.00, 95% CI [-.11,.08]
b= .24, SE = .11, p = .031, 95% CI [.02,.46] b = -.01, SE = .15, p = .924, 95% CI [-.31,.28] b-path p = .096 a-path p = .036 Public health
solutions frame Environmental attitudes
Interpersonal
29 that I hypothesized the interaction to have a positive direction. However, units of interpersonal solidarity of 1SD above and below the mean show, that a potential effect of public health solu-tions decreases with every unit increase in the moderator (see Table 3). Outcome implicasolu-tions will be discussed later. Additionally, the b-path is insignificant14 and therefore does not reliably predict influences on the outcome variable. Despite the b-path insignificance, it is worth men-tioning that the mediator shows a significant p-value (b= .24, SE = .11, p = .031, 95% CI [.02,.46]), suggesting that if efficacy had been evoked, efficacy would have had the potential to increase environmental attitudes. Given the non-significant interaction effect, I cannot confirm a conditional indirect effect on environmental attitudes.
Table 3 Conditional indirect effects of public health solutions frame on environmental attitudes, per unit
increase in interpersonal solidarity on efficacy.
95% CI Interpersonal
solidarity moderator
Effect Point estimate (boot SE)
Lower limit Upper limit
4.43 .006 .04 -.09 .09
5.29 .003 .04 -.07 .08
6.14 .000 .06 -.13 .13
Note. N = 146
In summary, hypothesis 2b is partly supported by the significant second conditional indirect effect. Respective results showed that respondents with higher levels of interpersonal solidarity who were exposed to a social progress solutions frame, compared to the no solutions group, reacted with higher efficacy and subsequently indicated more positive environmental attitudes. However, respondents who scored higher on interpersonal solidarity in the neutral solutions group as well as in the public health solutions frame group showed no significant different in view of their perceived efficacy and were therefore not affected in their environmental attitudes. These outcomes failed to support hypothesis 2b. Interpretations will be discussed in the follow-ing section.
30 Discussion
This study aimed to investigate the effects of exposure to solutions within different cli-mate change news frames on environmental attitudes. A special focus laid on the level of inter-personal solidarity to an environmentally conscious trusted other and how the interaction with news exposure affected environmental attitudes. I found significant evidence that participants with higher levels of interpersonal solidarity, that were exposed to a social progress solutions frame responded with increased efficacy, and consequently showed more positive environmen-tal attitudes (see, Results). In other words, a respondent who feels solidarity with a close others’ environmental care, processes information about climate change in terms of social progress solutions as follows: News of effective ways to improve one’s own quality of life increase a reader’s perceptions of being able to contribute to solutions. With this efficacy perception elic-ited, one’s environmental attitudes become more positive. These results support presented ar-guments regarding the impact of solutions journalism (McIntyre, 2017), reporting on climate change in context of personally relevant domains (Nisbet, 2009), and their combined strength to drive perceived efficacy (indirectly, see Hart & Feldman, 2016; Spence & Pidgeon, 2010; Curry & Hammonds, 2014) among people with high interpersonal solidarity to increase envi-ronmental attitudes (Allen & Ferrand, 1999). However, the sole exposure to any of the three differently framed solutions articles did not result in more positive attitudes, compared to an article without solutions. Moreover, the simple interaction of any of the solutions conditions with interpersonal solidarity did also not affect environmental attitudes. Differences only be-came visible through a respondent’s efficacy perceptions. Thus, only the aforementioned social progress solutions frame, in combination with the moderator showed significant results. In con-clusion, exposure to solutions only influences environmental attitudes if these are framed in terms of social progress, with a respondent’s prerequisite of higher interpersonal solidarity. These dynamics increase an individual’s efficacy perceptions that subsequently lead to more positive environmental attitudes.
31 Limitations and Implications
The insignificant differences of sole exposure to any of the three solutions articles, com-pared to an article without solutions, questions whether problem-solving reporting in the con-text of climate change has benefits. At this point, it is important to address limitations. First, a solutions-oriented news article aims to provide a coherent story (McIntyre & Gyldensted, 2017). Typically, this includes practical solutions to a present issue, explanations of how and why strategies are effective, as well as what positive impact these responses can have (Solutions Journalism Network, 2017). Given the confined space within a controlled experimental setting, elaborations on these characteristics have possibly not met the standards of solutions journal-istic practice. Same holds for the construction of the stimulus articles without practical expertise in solutions reporting. Hence, external validity was low, threatening the generalizability of the findings. However, the stimuli construction, based on existing news article content and style, with regards to solutions-oriented content tried to heighten validity in that sense (see Methods). Although the central goal was to detect differences for solutions conditions to an article without solutions, it is important to refer to the unsuccessful third manipulation check at this point (see Methods). Participants did not show a difference on whether they perceived either solutions within a social progress frame or solutions within a public health frame. One reason could be poor execution of not making clear what stimulus content was meant by the question item. Another could arise from the assumption, that the two climate change frames were hardly dis-tinguishable. Climate change mitigation measures that improve people’s quality of life, such as the previously described implementation of renewable energy to reduce emissions, also involve a public health dimension (Chetty, Devadas & Fleming, 2015)15. Inconsistencies in existing literature support this claim. While Nisbet (2009) treats each frame separately, Chetty, Devadas & Fleming, (2015) view public health as part of social progress. Within the current research
32 context, my results show strong support for a social progress solutions frame. Findings on a public health solutions frame, however, were ambiguous. A cautious interpretation of the in-significant effect of the solution frame on environmental attitudes, per higher levels of interper-sonal solidarity through efficacy showed that the interaction decreased efficacy (see Results). In other words, respondents with higher levels of interpersonal solidarity who were exposed to the public health solutions frame felt less efficacious about solutions content. Furthermore, the stimulus article generally discussed solutions such as the economic measures to reduce carbon emissions, greener city planning and individually realizable strategies. Hence, information con-tent possibly blurred the lines between the two frames, making it difficult to differentiate in a manipulation check. With these considerations in mind, insignificant results are not surprising.
However, examinations of the environmental attitudes measure gave important indica-tions regarding missing effects within this study, and public environmental attitudes in a wider sense. The measure showed that respondents on average stated to have positive environmental attitudes from the beginning (see Methods). The high reliability result for environmental atti-tudes implies a ceiling effect, suggesting that it is strongly reliable because there was not much attitudinal variation among participants in the first place. Given the environmental awareness in Germany (Metag, Füchslin, & Schäfer, 2017) the sample majority possibly already had pos-itive attitudes prior to the experiment, which explains why attitudes have not increased signifi-cantly. There was simply not much scope to rise. Although this represents a disadvantage in analytical terms, pre-existing positive environmental attitudes are nonetheless interesting. Given the high levels of environmental attitudes, the significant finding regarding a social pro-gress solutions frame is therefore promising in view of climate change communication. One could argue, that the sense of interpersonal solidarity to an environmentally conscious trusted other is not always given. The sample however, showed that out of the 374 respondents, 78.1% indicated to have an environmentally conscious family member, friend or colleague. Hence, the majority confirmed that a sense of interpersonal solidarity was apparent for most people.
33 Further research is needed in relation to the presented dynamics to come to more generalizable conclusions about how solutions journalism could integrate effective strategies to mitigate cli-mate change on a level, where individuals feel efficacious and express more positive attitudes. A bulk of existing literature on personally relevant climate change frames consist of content analyses. More experimental approaches in this context could refine the expertise on which frames work. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are needed, that show how these exposure ef-fects causally develop over time, and potentially uncover tendencies in effective solutions fram-ing. Solutions journalism stresses the importance to investigate rigorously on effective solutions (Solutions Journalism Network, 2017), hence, future practice could benefit from closer work relations to the scientific field as well as to communication science (Moser, 2016). Interdisci-plinary exchanges could enrich problem-solving reporting and help make climate change more accessible. Not only for the readers, but also among communication practitioners. This investi-gation of interpersonal solidarity towards an environmentally conscious trusted other uncovered the importance of these interactions. These ways might accomplish the requirements to not only fully understand climate change, but also activate engagement.
Conclusion
In view of possibly the most critical time of climate change, this study offers new per-spectives on how communication can build a bridge between scientific complexity and individ-ual applicability. By highlighting the importance of problem-solving responses to the issue of global warming, and the potential of interpersonal sources of information to trigger people’s beliefs in their own capabilities of coping, hopefully sparks effective approaches in the future. Because, as the initially presented quote of Petteri Taalas, Secretary-General of the World Me-teorological Organization (WMO) stated, our generation determines the future regarding cli-mate change.
34 References
Aitamurto, T., & Varma, A. (2018). The Constructive Role of Journalism. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 695-713. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2018.1473041
Allen, J. B., & Ferrand, J. L. (1999). Environmental Locus of Control, Sympathy, and Proenvi-ronmental Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31(3), 338–353.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972137
Ballew, M., Marlon, J., Maibach, E., Gustafson, A., Goldberg, M., & Leiserowitz, A. (2018) Americans are More Worried about Global Warming and Show Signs of Losing Hope. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Cli-mate Change Communication
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychologi-cal Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191
Bilandzic, H., Kalch, A., & Soentgen, J. (2017). Effects of Goal Framing and Emotions on Per-ceived Threat and Willingness to Sacrifice for Climate Change. Science Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017718553
Brants, K., & van Praag, P. (2017). Beyond Media Logic, Journalism Studies, 18(4), 395-408, doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2015.1065200
Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2016). The End of Framing as we Know it … and the Future of Media Effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811/
Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., & Upham, P. (2015). International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. Wiley Inter-disciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(4), 435-435. doi: 10.1002/wcc.343
Chapman, D. A., Lickel, B., & Markowitz, E. M. (2017). Reassessing emotion in climate change communication. Nature Climate Change, 7(12), 850–852.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0021-9
Chetty, K., Devadas, V., & Fleming, J. S. (2015). The framing of climate change in New land newspapers from June 2009 to June 2010. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zea-land, 45(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2014.996234
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054/
Curry, A. L., & Hammonds, K. H. (2014). The Power of Solutions Journalism. Solutions Jour-nalism Network and Engaging News Project, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510366746
Davis, M. H. (1983). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51(2), 167–184.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00860.x
De Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal, 13(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1075/idjdd.13.1.06vre
Duarte, R., Escario, J. J., & Sanagustín, M. V. (2017). The influence of the family, the school, and the group on the environmental attitudes of European students. Environmental Edu-cation Research, 23(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1074660
Eddy, M. (2018, October 10). Why ‘Green’ Germany Remains Addicted to Coal. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/world/europe/germany-coal-climate.html
Engesser, S., & Brüggemann, M. (2016). Mapping the minds of the mediators: The cognitive frames of climate journalists from five countries. Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 825–841. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515583621
