Inspiring climate change engagement. A case for stories

INSPIRING CLIMATE

CHANGE ENGAGEMENT

A case for stories

IN COLLABORATION WITH LARA SIJNESAEL

Inspiring climate change engagement: A case for stories

Simone Schoonwater (s1006554) in collaboration with Lara Sijnesael (s1007443)

Supervisor: Irene Dankelman

Number of words: 33,0021

Bachelor thesis Geography, Planning and Environment (GPE), Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen

Summary

Climate change is one of the biggest issues currently challenging mankind. However, climate change engagement continues to be lacking. Much research has been done to establish what the most effective ways are to engage individuals with climate change. Multiple angles can be taken when considering this topic.

For example, it has been argued that factual information is not sufficient when it comes to engaging individuals. Neuroscientists have proven that there are two ways the brain can process information. One way is the so-called peripheral route, which is a semi-automatic process where information does not get scrutinised – because of the large amounts of information a brain has to process every day, the peripheral route exists to save the brain energy. The alternative is the so-called central route, which is a process were information does get elaborated on by the brain. Thus,

information is more likely to be remembered and to bring about long-term attitude adjustment. When factual information (about climate change, for example) is presented to an individual over and over again, this information will be processed through the peripheral route, rendering its impact low. Stories, on the other hand, are favoured by the brain and will also most likely be processed through the central route, thus increasing its impact on an individual’s attitudes. It is therefore an interesting idea to frame climate change messages as stories.

Within the field of environmental psychology, barriers have been identified which prevent individuals from engaging with climate change. These include for example denial of the problem, mistrust in information sources, and psychological distance (in time and place). Psychologists such as Stoknes (2014) have argued that stories can be used to break through these barriers and bring about long-term engagement.

One of the most pervasive barriers to engagement is psychological distance felt to climate change, which means the problem is seen as spatially distant. Within geography, Space Place Theory poses that an individual’s world is divided into spaces and places: a space is an abstract area that lacks meaning and that the individual does not feel attached to, whereas a place is an area that holds meaning and significance in an individual’s life. When psychological distance to climate change is felt, this can also be seen as a Space Place problem: climate change is seen by the individual as affecting spaces, rather than personally meaningful places. Thus, an individual does not think climate change will impact them. It has been argued that stories are an effective way of rendering space into place, as stories convey meaning and establish bonds. Therefore, Space Place Theory is also a useful concept when thinking about climate change engagement.

Previous studies into place-based climate change engagement have mostly focused on individual’s local environment. However, as climate change is a global problem whose cause and effect chain does not (only) operate on a local level, this thesis argues that a global sense of place also needs to be created. This would disable the barrier of psychological distance.

In this research the effects of narratives on climate change engagement were compared to the effects of factual information. To examine how place attachment plays a role in engagement, two different narratives were devised: one set in the Global North and one set in the Global South. Both stories were identical in plot, but the setting and characters differed. A control group was established who only read factual information about climate change. Difference in engagement was measured through a pre- and post-test questionnaire, followed by an interview to provide in-depth

understanding of the experiences of the participants. All participants came from the Province of Noord-Brabant.

The results proved that it was more difficult to increase engagement than expected. The main cause of this was that the participants in the narrative groups did not have a basic knowledge of climate change (a major barrier), which prevented them from grasping the urgency of the problem, and made it easy for them to discard the events in the narratives as irrelevant fiction. However, the factual overview by itself was also not sufficient to raise engagement. This means that a baseline of

can be promoted using narratives. Depending on the participant’s attitudes towards the problem and their personal preferences, the impact of the narrative differed from participant to participant. For almost all participants, concern for the problem had risen after reading the narrative.

Place attachment turned out to be extremely complex as well. The participants from the Global South group found it easy to bond with and feel concern for the setting in their story

(Bangladesh), while the Global North group did not feel connected to their setting (the coastal area of the Netherlands) at all. It thus appear that narratives can be successful in place-making, but that this was easier for the global setting than the local setting. An explanation for this can be that participants are less likely to accept that climate change is a threat for them and their own country and thus display more barriers when reading a narrative about their own country.

Therefore, it can be concluded that narratives can be effective when creating a global sense of place and raising concern. Further research should be done to establish the complex way factual knowledge and narrative persuasion influence each other, and how climate change narratives can be written to ensure maximum rise in engagement. This research is hopeful for the role climate change narratives and global place attachment can play in the future.

Content

2 Aim of the research and research questions...4

3 Literature overview...5

3.1 Space Place Theory...5

3.2 Perceptions of climate change and barriers for engagement...6

3.3 Climate change engagement and place...8

3.4 Communication strategies...10

3.5 Narrative and place...14

3.6 Identifying research niche...15

4 Theoretical framework...16

4.1 Space, place, attachment...16

4.2 Engagement...16 4.3 Narrative...16 4.4 Research design...17 4.5 Barriers:...18 4.6 Conceptual model...18 5 Method...19 5.1 Materials...19 5.2 Participants...22 5.3 Procedure...23 5.4 Data analysis...23

6 Results and analysis...26

6.1 G1-1...26 6.2 G1-2...31 6.3 G1-3...35 6.4 G0-1...39 6.5 G0-2...42 6.6 G0-3...46 7 Conclusion...51

7.1 Conclusion group 1...51

7.2 Conclusion G0 (control group)...53

7.3 Comparing group 1 and group 2...54

7.4 Comparing all groups...57

8 Discussion...58

8.1 Recommendations for climate change narratives...58

8.2 Limitations...60

8.3 Further research...61

9 References...62

Appendix...66

1 Societal subjects survey...66

2 Narrative transportation scale...67

3 Engagement questionnaire...69

4.1 Narrative Global North (group 1)...74

4.2 Narrative Global South (group 2)...78

5 Factual narrative (group 0)...82

6 Results questionnaires...84

Foreword

This thesis has partially been written in collaboration with Lara Sijnesael. We worked together on the research design and came up with the aim and the research questions together. After that, we decided each should have their own angle on this topic. In terms of theoretical background, Lara focused on the neurological and psychological aspects of engagement and storytelling, and I focused on Space Place Theory, place-based engagement, and the relationship between storytelling and place. We then combined our theoretical overviews into one theoretical framework, which became the basis for our joint method section.

In executing the research, we divided the work: Lara conducted and analysed the interviews/questionnaires for the group of participants who read a Global South narrative, and I conducted and analysed those of the Global North group. The control group, who read a factual overview, was interviewed and analysed partly by Lara and partly by me. Each of us drew conclusions for their own group. After that, we compared our findings and wrote a joint conclusion, also taking into account the results from the control group. We reflected on our research process and wrote a Discussion and Limitations section together.

Therefore, parts of the thesis presented here (theoretical framework, method, final conclusion, and discussion) are identical to those in Sijnesael’s (2018) thesis. The introduction, literature overview, analysis of group 1, and conclusion of group 1 are my own. Because this research was a collaboration, it was wider in scope and therefore the word limit of 25,000 words has been somewhat exceeded. Also important to note is that the research in this thesis applied testing; it was not just an exploration of participant’s perceptions, but an intervention was included (the reading of a narrative). This also contributed towards the larger number of words.

We would like to thank our thesis supervisors, Irene Dankelman and Maria Kaufmann, for their support and insights!

1 Introduction

Climate change is a fast-growing concern all over the world and quite possibly the biggest challenge humanity faces at this point in time. An enormous amount of scientific literature exists on this topic; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports are regarded as the leading sources on the problem of climate change. Its First Assessment Report was published in 1990 and since then, the projections made by the panel have only worsened. The Fifth Report stated that the observed changes in climate are “unprecedented over decades to millennia” (IPCC 2014, p.2). Currently, four possible scenarios of future climate change exist, based on different levels of global warming and peak emissions. At this point in time, the two worst-case scenarios seem most likely to come true. Although the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement holds 2 degrees Celsius of global warming as its maximum, a leaked IPCC report set for late 2018 states that a breach of the 1.5 degrees threshold is likely to be reached soon unless drastic and rapid action is taken by governments to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere (Venkatesh 2018).

The science is clear, yet climate change engagement of governments, companies, and individuals, particularly in more developed countries, continues to be lacking (European Commission 2009; Pidgeon 2012; Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf et al. 2013). This phenomenon has been dubbed the ‘psychological climate paradox’ (Stoknes 2014). It seems that impersonal, abstract facts and numbers are not enough to convince people to change their habits and undertake action to reduce emissions. Now, for the first time, the IPCC panel is devoting attention to this engagement problem as well. Corner reports in The Guardian (30 January 2018) that a handbook has been released to “provide social science-based guidance for IPCC scientists to use in their communication and public engagement” – these guidelines include the need for “ensuring [that] the powerful human stories buried deep in the IPCC assessments are not swamped by ‘the big numbers’” (n.p.).

The need for stories in addition to all these ‘big numbers’ in order to increase engagement can be linked to the process of meaning-making. Facts are abstract; something is needed to provide them with meaning, whether a form of narrative, visualisation, or another strategy. A surge of interest in communication through narratives rather than facts has recently occurred (see for example Dahlstrom 2014). More specifically, where spatial sciences are concerned, meaning-making has to do with space and place theory. Space and place are two key concepts in human geography; they were first elaborated on by Tuan (1977) and Relph (1976). Space is an abstract idea that has no meaning or value, whereas place is something that has been assigned meaning by humans. According to Tuan, the assigning of meaning to a place can either be done directly, through the senses, or indirectly, through symbols. Language is a prominent example of an indirect, symbolic way to assign meaning. For example, meaning can be assigned to a space through humans talking about it or telling a story about it, thus rendering it a place.

The space-place theory is a highly useful theory to apply to the problem of climate change engagement. For most people, the concept of ‘our planet’ is highly abstract and something they do not feel directly connected to – just a space. Because the earth as a whole is regarded as a space, people do not feel responsible for maintaining and protecting it. This disengagement has been studied for example by Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole, and Whitmarsh (2007) and Etkin & Ho (2007). In order to create connection and engagement, the earth needs to be transformed in a place; it needs to carry meaning for people. This poses a big challenge for governments, policy makers, and NGOs all over the world. Tuan (1977) states that meaning-making can occur through the senses or in a symbolic way. Since it is impossible to let all humans directly experience the vast variety of natural environments the earth has to offer, a symbolic way seems a more viable option. This thesis will focus

on the use of narratives or stories to attribute meaning to the concept of ‘our earth’ and the problem of climate change, in order to increase climate change engagement.

1.1 Scientific relevance

Since climate change is possibly the most urgent problem humanity faces at this time, the relevance of studying this topic cannot be overstated. It will sooner or later affect all humans, animals, and ecosystems on the entire planet.

Climate change can be studied from the angle of almost any scientific field. An

interdisciplinary approach is thus highly valuable; combined, it can lead to insights that would not have been attained had the problem only be studied from a single discipline. In this thesis,

psychology, cognitive neuroscience, geography, communication sciences, and narrative studies are combined into a single research design. Moreover, the approach is qualitative, which can lead to a more in-depth understanding than the quantitative approaches which are more commonly used. Hopefully, this thesis can provide insights into the way individuals engage with climate change and how this can be enhanced, in this case through narratives.

1.2 Societal relevance

As has been said, climate change will affect every single living organism on the earth. If no action is taken, the enormous impact of its destructive consequences cannot be foreseen. Insights gained from this thesis about the role of narratives in climate change engagement can be adopted into policies and communication strategies, thus ensuring that more people will start to take action against climate change, in their daily lives or otherwise.

2 Aim of the research and research questions

Despite the urgency of the climate change problem, there is still a lack of engagement with climate change in individuals. It is therefore important that research is done as to how to increase this level of engagement. A possible strategy to render the earth a meaningful place (as opposed to an abstract space) to people is the use of narratives.

One of the aims of this research is to gain insight in individual’s responses to narratives, compared to the factual information which people are usually presented with (for example in the news). Another aim is to establish whether narratives succeed in breaking through the barriers that are often preventing people from engaging with climate change, and thus increase the level of engagement felt with the problem. Lastly, it is studied whether narratives can enhance place attachment and if this place attachment in turn enhances climate change engagement.

The main research question of this thesis is therefore:

To what extent can narratives increase the level of engagement individuals feel with the problem of climate change?

This thesis compares two different narratives: one set in the Global North (the Netherlands) and one set in the Global South (Bangladesh). All participants are from the Netherlands. Thus it is interesting to see how the responses (in terms of place attachment) to these narratives will

potentially differ; stories set in the Global South might seem less relevant because the story does not take place in the participant’s familiar surroundings, but on the other hand stories set in a different part of the world might enhance global place attachment and thus have a positive effect on

engagement.

The main research question is thus split in two parts:

1 To what extent can narratives set in the Global North increase the level of engagement individuals from the Global North feel with the problem of climate change?

2 To what extent can narratives set in the Global South increase the level of engagement individuals from the Global North feel with the problem of climate change?

The research questions are divided into four sub-questions:

a. To what extent do individuals experience narrative transportation?

b. To what extent do individuals experience barriers preventing them from engaging with climate change?

c. To what extent does the narrative break through these engagement barriers?

d. How did place attachment play a role in narrative transportation and climate change engagement?

3 Literature overview

3.1 Space Place Theory

From the early 1970s on, there was a growing feeling among the so-called humanistic geographers that place and human experience are inextricably linked, and that the way experience creates place needed further attention. Examples of such thinkers are Yi-Fu Tuan (1977) and Edward Relph (1976) (Seamon & Sowers 2008). Both writers take a phenomenological approach to place; they are seen as the two most important contributors to the development of space-place theory. In fact, as Seamon & Sowers (2008) point out, Relph’s work has been increasingly cited over the years since its publication, and it remains highly relevant today; Cresswell (2008) makes a similar claim for Tuan’s work and shows how his work has been a major influence on geography and philosophy. It should be noted, however, that the notion of power and social exclusion in relation to place is largely missing from Relph’s and Tuan’s works; these play a more central role in recent works drawing on Space-Place Theory. Recent applications of Space-Place Theory on environmentalism and climate change engagement will be discussed in a later section.

3.1.1 Relph

Relph’s key work, Place and Placelessness (1976), includes the now well-known distinction between space and place. He states that space is not just an empty void, but should also be studied in terms of experience, in order to better be able to relate it to place. He therefore defines numerous kinds of space, such as perceptual space and existential space. Space can be differentiated into places, which Relph describes as “centres of special personal significance” (p.11), or “a centre of action and intention” (p.42). Various sources contribute to the meaning of a place, such as location, landscape, time, and community. “To be human is to live in a world that is filled with significant places” (p.3). Central in place-making is the idea of lived experience and direct attachment to a place, such as your hometown.

According to Relph, space and place are not a dichotomy, but rather a “continuum that has direct experience at one extreme and abstract thought at the other” (p.9). The two concepts are dialectical: human understanding of space is the basis of place, whereas place derives meaning from the spatial context in which it exists. Place is set apart from the surrounding space, but remains a part of it. The most important distinction between place and space is the notion of insideness and

outsideness: space is experienced from the outside whereas place is experienced from an insider’s point of view.

Relph was worried that the “means of experiencing, creating, and maintaining significant places” would be lost, and that “placelessness” would become dominant (p.6). Being rooted in a place means that a “sense of deep care and concern” is felt for that place (p.37); it includes respect, commitment and responsibility. Relph sees the sense of placelessness as a result of increasing geographical and cultural uniformity, and dominant attitude of inauthenticity.

An inauthentic attitude to place is essentially no sense of place, for it involves no awareness of the deep and symbolic significances of places and no appreciation of their identities. It is merely an attitude which is socially convenient and acceptable […] places are seen only in terms of more or less useful features. (p.83)

3.1.2 Tuan

Tuan (1979) states: “Space and place together define the nature of geography” (p.387). He builds on ideas by Lukermann (1964), who already recognised that place was a special entity. Tuan asserts that this is because place is something that has a history and has been assigned meaning by people. Space, on the other hand, is an abstract, quantifiable, and objective concept. At the time of Tuan’s writing, geographers had mostly devoted attention to space. Tuan recognised the need for a more phenomenological approach in geography, to understand the subjective meanings contained in place. Tuan distinguished two types of place: public symbols and fields of care (p.412). Places that are public symbols derive their meaning from eye-catching symbols, such as the Statue of Liberty or a temple, which command attention and awe. They can be known from the outside. Fields of care do not possess high visibility and need to be known from the inside; they derive their meaning from

prolonged, subjective experience, and evoke affection. An example would be the notion of ‘home’ or the typical character of a neighbourhood. “The emotion felt among human beings finds expression and anchorage in things and places” (p.417), which in turn inspires emotions in humans. Repeated experience or habit is key to fields of care.

The sense of connection to a place can feel very acute when it is threatened, for example by ‘strangers’ moving into a neighbourhood or if a neighbourhood is being changed by urban renewal. Tuan recognises that the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ can occur in space on two different scales: among the “lower middle socio-economic class” he sees a more local and national sense of place, with “suspicion” towards strangers and foreigners. Among “cosmopolitan and highly educated types” he sees that there is a broader sense of place, which includes “familiarity with the

international life style” (420). It should be noted, however, that Tuan does not cite any empirical sources to support this idea and that it can be seen as an overgeneralisation.

Tuan and Relph agree that human experience of a space is key when it comes to creating meaningful places. However, Tuan (1977) notes that this experience can be “direct and intimate, or it can be indirect and conceptual, mediated by symbols” (p.6), whereas Relph primarily gives examples of direct interaction and experience of people with their surroundings. Tuan (1977) analyses the rise of the modern nation-state as an example: in pre-modern times, people felt mostly attached to their village, city or region – through direct experience. This attachment had to be transferred to the nation-state as a whole, which is too large to be personally experienced. Tuan sees that this can be done in a symbolic way, for example by using history books in which the state was highly personified.

3.2 Perceptions of climate change and barriers for engagement

Another relevant field for this thesis is climate change perceptions. Two key studies about people’s perceptions of climate change were done by Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole, and Whitmarsh (2007) and Stoknes (2014). Lorenzoni et al. (2007) combined the findings of three UK studies which used a variety of methods, both quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews, focus groups). The study identified a widespread awareness of climate change, but this did not translate into engagement. The perceived barriers that were mentioned by participants were analysed and divided into individual and social barriers. Individual barriers included (p.450):

 Lack of knowledge of climate change

 Uncertainty and scepticism about the seriousness of the problem and the effectiveness of actions to mitigate climate change

 Distrust in information sources  Externalising responsibility and blame

 The conviction that technology will save humanity from the impacts of climate change  Perception of climate change as a distant threat in space and/or time

 Other things are seen as more important  Reluctance to change lifestyles

 Fatalism

 Feeling of individual helplessness (‘drop in the ocean’) Social barriers included (p.451):

 Lack of political action

 Lack of action by business and industry

 Worry about the free-rider effect (‘no one else is taking action, so why should I?’)  Social norms and expectations

 Lack of enabling initiatives

Lorenzoni et al. state that many of the barriers can be seen as “mechanisms of denial” (p.453) to cope with cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957). A number of the barriers identified here have also been observed by other researchers, as Lorenzoni et al. show.

The study concludes with some policy recommendations. These include the need for the provision of basic information about the problem, on a regular basis, through credible channels; the linking of climate change to people’s personal lives and local environment; the need for supportive institutions and infrastructures; and promoting public involvement to overcome political distrust.

Stoknes (2014) has also written extensively about the barriers that can prevent humans from engaging with, or feeling in some way responsible for, climate change. He identified five key

categories of barriers, which are called “the Five Ds” (p.162-165):

 Distance: the consequences of climate change are placed in the future, or the consequences will be felt the most in other parts of the world. For someone in the Global North, this could concern climate change effects occurring in the Global South.

 Doom: the media usually cover various doom scenarios when climate change is concerned, which often does not lead to increased engagement but to a denial or numbness to the problem.

 Dissonance: this refers to cognitive dissonance, a phenomenon first identified by Festinger (1962). Cognitive dissonance occurs when people’s behaviour is at odds with their attitudes or beliefs. In order to resolve dissonance, either the behaviour or the beliefs need to be changed. Because it is easier to believe that climate change is not as big a problem as it is made out to be or that nothing can be done than to change one’s behaviour and lifestyle, changing one’s beliefs about climate change is often what happens. For elaboration on cognitive dissonance, see Sijnesael (2018).

 Denial: people can deliberately ignore the problem of climate change to prevent having to deal with it or experiencing mental discomfort.

 Identity: facts are filtered by people’s belief-system: people are inclined to only accept facts that strengthen beliefs they already hold.

Wolf & Moser (2011) reviewed a number of studies on climate change perception and engagement. They conclude that perceptions of climate change are “strongly contextualised and encompass other, not necessarily environmental, issues”: social, economic and health issues are also included into the way participants regard the problem (p.552). Pre-existing worldviews play a large role in the

engagement as Lorenzoni et al. (2007), including denial and distancing, and they found no evidence for a link between correct understanding of climate change and engagement.

Some additional information about attitudes towards climate change throughout history can be found in Sijnesael (2018).

3.3 Climate change engagement and place

3.3.1 The importance of place attachment for sustainable attitudes

On a local scale, various studies have shown that place attachment is an important factor in environmental concern for the direct environment, but that it can also lead to the rejection of renewable energy initiatives. The construction of for example a wind farm can threaten place identity; this phenomenon is often described using the term ‘not in my backyard’ (Devine-Wright 2013). However, if residents feel that the renewable energy ‘fits’ with the character of their surroundings, place attachment can enhance public acceptance of this technology (Devine-Wright 2011).

Vorkinn & Riese (2001) studied local attitudes towards a hydropower plant in Norway, which was expected to have negative effects on the natural environment and tourism, but positive

economic benefits. They measured the strength of place attachment people felt for their natural environment by looking at how long they had lived there, how often they went out in nature for recreational purposes and what types of activities they engaged in. They also measured the attachment people felt for their municipality. It was found that attachment to the natural environment was the biggest predictor for a negative outlook on the hydropower plant, and that attachment to the municipality led to higher acceptance of the plant.

Uzzell and Pol (2002) studied two neighbourhoods in England to better understand the relationship between place attachment, social cohesion, residential satisfaction, and sustainability attitudes. A survey was used, as well as mental maps. They found a strong positive correlation between place attachment, social cohesion and environmental sustainability in one neighbourhood, but weaker in the other. This can be explained because the first neighbourhood had lower residential satisfaction due to air and noise pollution, which led to greater environmental concerns among the residents.

Lewicka (2005) tested a large number of participants in Poland and also found a positive relationship between local place attachment and civic involvement, although not specifically related to sustainability.

Hess et al. (2008) recognise that climate change will “complicate and undermine human relationships with place” (p.468) as the ecology of many areas around the world will be drastically disrupted by the effects of climate change. Thus place attachment is not only a factor in promoting sustainable attitudes, but also something that will be severely affected by climate change. They emphasise that local environmental risks and responses should be stressed, as people’s motivations to take action are strongest when they directly relate to their own surroundings.

3.3.2 A global sense of place

“Place can be as small as the corner of a room or as large as the Earth itself” (Tuan 1977, p.419-21).

Most research on the role of place attachment in sustainability practices has been done on a local level (Devine-Wright 2013). There is, however, one big downside of this approach: in many cases, it is not only local activities that impact the local ecosystem, or local problems that can be solved by taking action on a small scale. Climate change is a global problem and the result of activities that

“generate local benefits, but whose costs are borne on a much wider social scale” (Feitelson 1991, p.399). Devine-Wright (2013) warns against the assumption that local impacts of climate change are more relevant than global impacts. He states that strong local place attachment increases the chance of place-protective behaviour, but “the relevance of local events does not imply that more distant events are necessarily less relevant” (p.67). This is a highly important statement, because if a person only feels local place attachment and protectiveness, this might prevent them from feeling that climate change is a relevant problem to them personally. If they perceive the threat of climate change to be very low for their local surroundings, they might not feel spurred to take any action against climate change. In addition, by focussing only on a local level, the indirect impact of climate change elsewhere on their personal life might be overlooked (for example, if the agricultural section of another country fails, this can impact personal food supply).

In 1991, Feitelson wrote an article in which the link between attachment to place and the ability to respond to large-scale environmental problems was first made. He notes that most

environmental policies are developed for a local or regional level, such as watershed management or air quality, and attempts to analyse how geographic scale makes a difference when it comes to approaches to deal with global environmental change. Feitelson determines four categories that play a role in this: input-output relations in production; the spatial extent of benefits and costs from various activities; the spatial extent of administrative control; and lastly the individual attachment to place (397). Feitelson sees three different place attachments:

‘Familiarity’ is attachment to place based on past personal experience. ‘Belonging’ is attachment to place based on an association between a place and a group with which a person currently identifies. ‘Ideology’ is attachment to place based on aspirations of the future. (p.399)

Feitelson recognises that awareness of the problem of climate change is not enough reason for people to take action – or, as he puts it, to “sacrifice some of their economic well-being” (p.402). This idea is consistent with the previously discussed findings of Lorenzoni et al. (2007), who also found that awareness does not automatically lead to engagement. According to Feitelson, attachment to place can play a crucial role in creating this motivation, as can for example be seen by people’s willingness to enter military service for their country, which can be traced back to ideological attachment to place. Feitelson, like Tuan (1977), takes the building of nation-states as an example here and notes that this process centred around identifying “common interests between the parties, often by emphasising common threats” (p.404).

Feitelson sees ideological attachment as the strongest form, but notes that there is only a small group of people who feel the global ideological attachment that is needed for environmental action. Most people are primarily attached to place on lower spatial levels; they might be willing to take some action for the ‘global good’ but this sacrifice will be small. Feitelson admits it is unclear how global attachment can be increased over local attachment, and that more research is needed into the relative strengths of different place attachments. Although he recognises that “more technical studies” or scientific research are important when it comes to creating awareness, awareness alone is not enough; place attachment is needed as a supplement to inspire people into action (p.406). This is, of course, a key point in this thesis, which sees factual knowledge as

insufficient to promote climate change engagement.

Donohoe (2017), in a similar vein to Feitelson (1991), focuses on the relationship between the abstract notion of ‘the environment’ and the places of our lives. The natural sciences traditionally present nature as a unified, singular entity, separate from the human cultural sphere. However, Donohoe stresses that the world is not experienced in this way by humans: “we humans cannot see our world, our globe in its wholeness. We can only ever experience it from our respective positions

enquiry” (p.435) makes it difficult for humans to concern themselves with it. Their own day-to-day world is seen as detached from the bigger world as a whole, and the reliance of this small world on the big world is easily forgotten. Thus Donohoe also seems to argue for a more global sense of place, or at least for a bigger awareness of the connection between the day-to-day world and the earth as a whole. It has to be noted, of course, that some people might already have a global sense of place and understand the connection between the local and the global.

Heise (2008) observes that in the 1960s and the 1970s sense of place was the key concept in environmental discourse. She calls for a detachment of this local setting, instead arguing that the focus should shift from local manifestations of climate change to a global perspective, or ‘sense of planet’. This sense of planet can be created by fostering an international solidarity based on shared risk exposure.

Devine-Wright (2013) recognises the importance of Feitelson’s article and states that it has largely been overlooked. In his own article, he expands on Feitelson’s ideas and takes an

interdisciplinary approach to the problem. Devine-Wright observes that ‘localist’ discourses on climate change have become the common-sense approach in recent years, for example in Lorenzoni et al.’s (2007) article, and wonders if behavioural change could also arise from global concerns. He states: “Studies have largely overlooked the global scale advocated by Feitelson (1991), restricting their emphasis to particular localities that are directly affected by environmental change” (p.65).

A large body of research in environmental psychology exists which is trying to establish how people form emotional bonds with places (Devine-Wright 2013). The particular focus has been on the notion of ‘home’ or neighbourhood, however, and not on a larger-scale place attachment – it is estimated that 75% of all research on place attachment has concentrated on the neighbourhood level (Lewicka 2011).

Two studies have found that attachments on a national level are generally higher than regional or global attachments (Laczo 1995; Gustafson 2009). Gustafson (2009) found that place attachment on a European scale was stronger under people who often travelled abroad for work; these people were still also attached on a local level, however. Arrow and Sundberg (2004) researched what they call ‘global identity’, e.g. a sense of identification with people all over the world. Similarly to Gustafson (2009) they found that this global place attachment arose from international travel or living abroad. It can thus be concluded that place attachment can occur simultaneously on multiple levels, and that place attachment on a larger geographical scale is definitely possible. This to some extent contradicts Feitelson’s (1991) conclusion that global place attachment could only be possible by weakening lower-scale place attachment.

Apart from spatial distance, other dimensions of distance exist: social, temporal, and certainty of outcome. These four dimensions are the basis of the term ‘psychological distance’. This concept seems especially applicable to climate change concerns, as these are often seen to have the biggest impact in distant places in the future (Milfont 2010). For an account of psychological distance, see Sijnesael (2018).

The way place attachment can be used in communication in order to increase climate change engagement will be discussed in the next section.

3.4 Communication strategies

3.4.1 General guidelines for climate change communication

In general, a wide range of factors play a role in whether or not communication is successful. These include demographics, such as gender, age or income, belief systems, and education. When frames are used that comply with a person’s beliefs and ideologies, a story is most successful (Jones 2017). Stoknes (2014) identified five requirements for successful climate change communication:

 The communication feels personal, near and urgent.

 The correct cognitive framings are used that do not backfire.

 Dissonance is reduced by providing opportunities for visible and consistent action.  Triggering the emotional need for denial is avoided.

 Cultural and political polarisation on the issue is avoided. (p.165)

In addition, Stoknes emphasises the need to present positive environmental stories instead of doom scenarios, a notion which was also put forward by Wolf & Moser (2010).

Leiserowitz (2005) also identified communication strategies for climate change, which are to a degree similar to those of Stoknes:

 Potential local and regional climate change impacts need to be highlighted.

 Current impacts of climate change should be communicated to prevent it from being seen as a distant problem.

 Health impacts of climate change must be stressed, as general public perceptions of the effects of climate change are often only about non-human nature.

 Remaining uncertainties about climate change should be talked about openly, in order not to destroy public trust in climate change science. However, it needs to be stressed that a certain degree of uncertainty is no reason to not take action.

 Climate change messages should be tailored for specific communities which share similar risk perceptions, values, and socio-demographic characteristics. (p.11-19)

3.4.2 Place-based engagement communication

Two studies that have researched the way place attachment can be used in increasing climate change engagement are Schweizer et al. (2013) and Scannell & Gifford (2013). The first study used national parks and wildlife refuges in the US as their specific empirical topic in order to establish a relationship between engagement and place attachment, but eventually the goal was to establish a theoretical framework for creating place-based climate change engagement. Schweizer et al. (2013) used a combination of qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (surveys) methods. The participants, who were regular visitors to the national park, were tested on four topics: their concern about climate change and willingness to change their behaviour; their knowledge about local climate change impacts; their learning preferences about climate change; and the degree of place attachment they felt to the wildlife park/refuge. Schweizer et al. found that over half of their participants felt attached to the natural parks and that there was a significant correlation between place attachment and willingness to change behaviour. They also found that climate change messages were effective when they took into account the cultural values of the audience and included references to the

meaningfulness of place. They therefore suggest three key points of place-based climate change engagement for their framework:

1. Illustrate the impacts of climate change by emphasising impacts in the immediate local context

2. Connect climate change impacts to human behavioural choices through system-based explanations

Two side notes need to be made related to Schweizer et al.’s findings. Firstly, around 50% of the participants considered themselves to be engaged with and concerned about climate change, which is more than the average American. This makes them more likely to be willing to change their behaviour, regardless of place attachment to a specific wildlife park. Secondly, this study was once again done on a local level, taking into account only local effects of climate change.

Scannell and Gifford (2013), on the other hand, take into account both a local and global perspective in their research. They presented one group of participants with a poster containing information about climate change in their local area, one group with a poster about global climate change, and a control group with no message. The degree of engagement felt with climate change after reading the messages was measured, as well as place attachment. This was done through a survey adapted from O’Neill (2008). The expectation was that the locally framed message would be most effective, as this demonstrated personal relevance of the problem to the participants. Scannell & Gifford indeed found a significant increase in engagement for the group that was exposed to a local message as compared to the control group; the group that read a global message did not show significant increase in engagement. In addition, local place attachment proved a predictor for climate change engagement, as well as being female.

However, in another study by Spence & Pidgeon (2010) comparing local versus ‘distant’ message framing, different results were found. They presented their participants with four different messages, either framed locally or distanced, and in terms of gains of climate change mitigation, or losses from climate change. The local message was focused on the UK/South Wales and the ‘distant’ message on other European countries (notably Rome). A survey was then administered to measure attitudes towards climate change and how well the given information was processed. Spence & Pidgeon found that using a gain frame had significantly better effects on attitudes towards climate change mitigation than the loss frame. However, as opposed to Scannell & Gifford (2013), a distant frame led to participants judging climate change significantly more severe than the local frame. Spence & Pidgeon state that this might be because participants tend to judge the effects of climate change more severe for people in other countries than for themselves, due to the psychological distance that is often felt towards the problem.

3.4.3 Mediums of communication

Whether locally or globally framed, it is obvious that almost all climate change communication to date revolves around factual information, most notably of course through news broadcasts. This is also apparent in the abundance of sources discussed in this section, where all participants are presented with facts about (local or global) climate change. However, it is unsure whether facts are the most effective means to communicate the problem of climate change to the public. For an in-depth synthesis of the psychological evaluation of the efficiency of facts, see Sijnesael (2018).

There are some studies that have focused on other, non-factual means of climate change communication. An example is visual communication, a medium that is already often present in climate change communication (photographs in newspapers, graphs, etc.). O’Neill & Hulme (2009) conducted a study into climate change icons, asking participants to select images that they thought represented climate change well. Another group was then exposed to these images and their level of engagement with climate change was measured before and after seeing the images. The icons were accompanied by a short text which introduced the image and gave more information on how the icon could be impacted by climate change (for example a polar bear). Statistical analysis of the pre- and post-test surveys showed that significantly more participants disagreed with the statement ‘too much fuss is made about climate change’. There was also a slight rise in the number of participants who regarded climate change as a real problem. Thus O’Neill & Hulme conclude that exposure to climate change icons has an impact on engagement with climate change. In addition, the majority of

participants stated that they were most drawn to images of their own local environment (in this case the Norfolk Broads). However, many participants were also drawn to the image of the polar bear.

Another very interesting alternative to facts is the use of narrative; a method of

communication which has gained attention in recent years. Dahlstrom (2014) reviews the possibility of communicating science to nonexpert audiences using narratives. Synthesising a large number of sources, Dahlstrom shows that narratives are read faster and recalled better than factual texts and that narrative cognition is thought to be the “default mode of human thought” (p.13615). For a more in-depth analysis of narrative transportation and persuasion, see Sijnesael (2018).

A range of research into narrative communication already exists, mostly related to politics, media, and policy-making (Jones 2014). Narratives here can either be written stories or films. In terms of empirical studies concerned with narratives and climate change engagement, there are a few examples. Lowe, Brown, Dessai et al. (2006) conducted a survey of people who went to see the film The day after tomorrow, which depicts a severe doomsday scenario where the earth gets trapped in a new Ice Age due to climate change effects. The survey focused on four aspects: how people perceived the likelihood of these extreme impacts; how concerned they were about climate change; how motivated they were to take action; and how responsible they felt for the problem of climate change. The researchers concluded that there was a change in people’s attitudes, showing a much greater concern about climate change and increased motivation to act on climate change. The narrative thus did have a significant impact on the filmgoers. However, the long-term impacts on filmgoers were not measured and the film does not provide people with information on what possible action to take. In addition, people’s belief in the likelihood of these extreme events actually went down after seeing the film – possibly because of the high doom factor of the story, or because the participants had trouble separating fiction from reality.

A very similar study was done by Howell (2011), looking at the effects of the film The age of stupid, a film which combines a fictional story about a future world devastated by climate change with real documentary footage and animated sequences which explain the science behind climate change. Like Lowe et al. (2006), the participants completed a survey before and after seeing the film; however, a third survey measuring the long-term effects of the film (10-14 weeks) was also included. The survey focused on concern about climate change, motivation to act, fear for a potential

catastrophe, responsibility for action, and agency. Although most participants already showed high concern for climate change, it seemed that their concern had increased after seeing the film, with over 50% saying that their concern for climate change had increased a lot. There was also a significant rise in feelings of motivation to act. Contrary to Lowe et al.’s (2005) findings, a large majority of the participants believed that the likelihood of a catastrophe as showed in the film was very high. However, the follow-up survey after 10-14 weeks showed a decrease in motivation to act, but the level of concern did not significantly change, remaining high. Most viewers had already been engaged in some environmentally friendly behaviour before seeing the film, but 60% stated that at least one environmentally friendly action they took was because of seeing the film.

It must be noted that The day after tomorrow attracted an audience that were not

particularly interested in climate change and The age of stupid did. Another difference between the films is that the climate change in The day after tomorrow is not scientifically founded, whereas the climate change impacts in The age of stupid mostly are. It is interesting that both films employ a disaster narrative, which has been said to be ineffective (Spence & Pidgeon 2010; Stoknes 2014; Jones & Peterson 2017), but in these two cases did lead to increased engagement.

Jones (2014) conducted an online experiment with 1,700 respondents to measure the degree of narrative transportation that occurred when the respondents read one of three narratives about

action against climate change. The groups who read narratives were compared to groups who only read lists of facts. Contrary to the hypotheses, Jones found that narrative transportation did not lead to more support for the climate change policies that were argued for in the story when compared to the control groups who only read fact lists. This is opposed to narrative theories, which assert that narratives are more persuasive than abstract facts. However, Jones observes that his results are somewhat ambiguous and that more research is clearly needed; no explanation for the results could be perceived.

3.4.4 Guidelines for successful climate change narratives

Jones & Peterson (2017) combined findings from climate change science communication literature and narrative policy framework’s empirical climate change studies to determine five key

characteristics for writing effective climate change stories:

 When communicating scientific findings, use a narrative form

 Determine the characteristics of the audience and tailor the setting of the story and the language to make it relevant to this specific audience

 Choose characters who the audience feels related to and will care about and focus on positive emotions (like motivation)

 Give the story a temporal dimension by devoting attention to causality, risk and human agency

 The story needs to have a clear point in terms of risks and benefits: this is the moral of the story.

Some complementary guidelines for successful climate change narratives can be found in Sijnesael (2018).

Apart from being a successful strategy to increase climate change engagement, narratives also play a role in place-making and place attachment. This will be discussed in the next section.

3.5 Narrative and place

Tuan (1977) already makes a passing remark on the role of narratives in creating meaning: “A function of literary art is to give visibility to intimate experiences, including those of place” (p.162). Relph also recognises this, stating that in order to capture the “essential character” of a place, “artistic insight and literary ability” are needed (p.44). It thus seems that (literary) narratives can portray the essence of a place and render space into place.

Recently, quite a number of theoretical accounts on narrative and place have been written. Schlitte (2017) combines literature and spatial theory, drawing on a wide variety of philosophers. She stresses that narrative and setting are intrinsically intertwined: “One could say that the tie to place makes things graspable and vivid, and helps us to anchor our knowledge in a concrete locality” (p.44). Places are not just a precondition for experience, but also an object of experience, and “stories […] contribute to the identity of places” (p.46).

Gschwandtner (2017) uses the terms ‘Umwelt’ and ‘Welt’, first coined by Ricoeur (1976), in his analysis. ‘Umwelt’, meaning environment, is similar to space; ‘Welt’, or world, is the way the environment is experienced by humans, so similar to place. Narratives are able to create worlds, and thus turn Umwelt into Welt. Ricoeur thinks it is not enough for people to see the dependency of their own world on the bigger world, as was argued by for example Donohoe (2017) in an earlier section of this literature overview. Something more than just this physical dependency is needed; people must care for a place and understand it is worthy of protection. Gschwandtner (2017) thinks that there is a

need for “‘interpreted’ representation of natural spaces” which can be done through stories, for example nature writing – these stories are “so powerful precisely because they also appealed to the imagination and were not merely ‘factual’ descriptions of data” (p.180). Gschwandtner concludes his essay as follows: “I think if we are to protect this earth […] from the increasingly dire future we are currently preparing for it, natural places have to become meaningful to us in new ways” (p.181).

Treanor (2014) also stresses the importance of meaning-making for environmental

engagement. He observes that traditionally there are two primary ways to gain understanding: theory or practice. However, Treanor wants to add a third way, namely narrative. He argues against Turner’s (1996) claims that the only way to appreciate nature is through direct contact and that narratives only provide us with a mediated experience. Treanor argues that for many people, extensive direct contact with the wilderness is impossible and that such contact would damage nature. Treanor thus states that we can approximate direct contact through rich and complex narratives. Even if they cannot replace actual experience, “the power of narratives to help us ‘see things anew’ can hardly be overstated” (185). Like Schlitte (2017) and Gschwandtner (2017), Treanor also draws in Ricoeur’s (1984) ideas of the narrative self and his definition of a narrative as an ‘ethical laboratory’, to try on different possibilities. Treanor also rightly observes that the valuation of scientific ‘facts’ over

imagination is not entirely honest, as science is far from unbiased and objective itself. In addition, like the writers previously discussed, Treanor also states that science is not the best way to elicit concern for nature. There are limitations to a “purely cognitive approach to truth, based on arguments regarding facts” (194), as research in psychology and political science has shown (see Sijnesael 2018). Thus it is vital to address people’s underlying worldview, not just present them with facts – and this is where narrative can play an important role.

3.6 Identifying research niche

As has become clear from this literature overview, an extensive body of research exists on the topic of space-place theory, climate change engagement and communication, and the effectiveness of narratives. This study aims to draw these fields together by looking at how narratives can be used to increase climate change engagement, specifically by promoting a global sense of place or attachment to the earth. So far, it seems that a study in this vein has not yet been done. Studies about the role of place attachment in engagement exist (Schweizer et al. 2013; Scannell & Gifford 2013; Spence & Pidgeon 2010), but these focus mostly on local place attachment and do not look at narratives as a means of increasing engagement. The link between narratives, a global sense of place and

environmental engagement has been made by Gschwandtner (2017) and Treanor (2014), but strictly in a philosophical sense; no empirical research was involved. The influence of narratives on climate change engagement has been empirically studied by for example Lowe et al. (2006) and Howell (2011), who looked at films, and Jones (2014), who looked at written narratives. These studies, however, were not linked to space-place theory. In addition, all these three studies made use of quantitative methods only (surveys). Jones (2014) had trouble explaining his results and said more in-depth research was needed as to why narrative transportation did not lead to increased engagement. It can thus be concluded that a qualitative study into narratives, climate change engagement and place-making would be relevant for the field of environmentalism. Using semi-structured interviews can lead to new insights in how people experience reading these narratives, to what degree they feel transported into the story, and how, if so, the story has changed their perception and engagement with climate change. Hopefully, this research can gain a little more insight in how narratives and a (global) sense of place can (positively) impact climate change engagement.

4 Theoretical framework

4.1 Space, place, attachment

The definition of place used in this research is the one put forward by Relph (1976): places are “centres of special personal significance” (p.11). Central to the notion of place is place attachment. It is also assumed that place-making can occur through symbols, as stated by Tuan (1977). An example Tuan gives of symbolic place-making is that of history books, which gave identity to nation-states. Thus it is assumed in this research that stories, like historical narratives, can play a role in place-making; something which has also been argued by Treanor (2014), Gschwandtner (2017), and Schlitte (2017).

Another central notion in this research is the idea that place attachment can lead to

environmental engagement, as has for example been shown by Devine-Wright (2011), Uzzell and Pol (2002), Vorkinn & Riese (2001), Scannell & Gifford (2013) and Scheizer et al. (2014). It is also

recognised that local place attachment is not sufficient and can even be a disadvantage when it comes to climate change engagement on a wider scale, as has been argued by Feitelson (1991), Donohoe (2017), Heise (2008), and Devine-Wright (2013). This research looks if a global sense of place can be established through narrative; in this case by using a narrative set in the Global South (Bangladesh) which will be compared to a narrative set in the Global North (the Netherlands).

4.2 Engagement

Our definition of engagement is derived from the one by Lorenzoni et al. (2007), which is also used by several other studies cited in this research, such as O’Neill (2008). Thus engagement is identified as a “personal state of connection with the issue of climate change” which is comprised of cognitive, affective, and behavioural aspects. “In other words, it is not enough for people to know about climate change in order to be engaged; they also need to care about it, be motivated and able to take action” (Lorenzoni et al. 2007 p.446). The three aspects of engagement will be incorporated into the survey used in this research.

A neurocognitive theory on which the assumption lies that emotions and engagement are closely connected is the somatic marker hypothesis. As explained in Sijnesael (2018) in section 2.3.2, the somatic marker hypothesis posits that when making a decision, the brain considers all possible options and then uses emotion to guide the decision. This thus means that emotion is a necessary component in the decision-making process. This hypothesis states that emotion is required for moral decision-making. Thus, when emotion is evoked there is a higher chance of creating engagement.

4.3 Narrative

Findings from the field of cognitive neuroscience suggest that narratives are a surprising but effective way of influencing people’s ideas and beliefs as shown by Prentice, Gerrig, & Bailis (1997); Green & Brock (2000) and Armstrong (2013). Stoknes (2014), too, argues that stories are a very effective way of informing people on climate change as opposed to just bare facts. This is supported by research as it has been found that factual information that is given with the intent to change people’s minds or behaviours often has the opposite effect as shown by Allyn and Festinger (1961), Kiesler and Kiesler (1964), Petty and Cacioppo (1977), and Knowles and Linn (2004). Psychologist Stoknes (2014) and Neurologist Zak (2015) both argue that emotionally engaging narratives have the power to inspire engagement and behavioral change and so have the ability to break through the psychological

barriers people put up when faced with alarming information. This research will test if stories have the ability to inspire a raise in climate change engagement versus factual narratives.

The narrative used in this research was written according to the guidelines set by Jones (2017), Stoknes (2014), and Trexler (2015). For a more detailed overview of the narrative and how the guidelines are incorporated in the narrative, see method section. A flood was chosen as the subject of the narrative because of the recommendation provided by Trexler (2015) who argues that floods are an effective way of rendering climate change in a specific place as an effect of climate change.

4.4 Research design

In various ways, this research builds on previous studies which have been discussed in the literature overview. Similar to Lowe et al. (2006), Howell (2011) and Jones (2014), this research will use pre- and post-test surveys. However, these three studies only used quantitative survey data, whereas this research will also include semi-structured interviews to gain more in-depth understanding of the experiences of the participants when reading the narrative and filling in the survey.

The survey we used was adapted from the one used by O’Neill (2008), since this was the only engagement study that had made a complete list of their materials available online. O’Neill measured engagement in four categories: general perceptions, level of concern, general attitudes, and

perceived vulnerability. Lowe et al.’s (2006) four categories were slightly different: likelihood of the extreme events depicted in the film, motivation to take action, level of concern, and feeling of responsibility. Lastly, the categories used Howell (2011) were: level of concern, level of fear, responsibility to take action, and agency. Combining these studies, eventually four categories to measure engagement were established for this study:

 General perceptions  Level of concern  Feeling of responsibility  Motivation to take action

These four categories were measured in the survey through a series of questions. Lorenzoni et al.’s (2007) three aspects of engagement are thus measured: cognitive aspects through general

perceptions, affective aspects through level of concern and feeling of responsibility, and behavioral aspects through motivation to take action (note that only a willingness for behavioral action is measured, not the action change in behaviour; this is similar to the research done by Schweizer et al. 2013).

Two narratives are used in this study, one set in the Global North and one set in the Global South. This is similar to the research done by Spence & Pidgeon (2010) and Scannell & Gifford (2013), who compared the impact of a locally and globally framed climate change message. Since these two studies found different results, it is interesting to see what the results of this study will be.

Green and Brock (2000) have established that persuasion works via narrative transportation which is defined as “immersion into the text” or, in other words, the extent to which the reader loses him or herself in the narrative (p. 702). To establish whether or not participants would be immersed in the narratives presented to them, narrative transportation was measured using the transportation questionnaire which was adapted from Green and Brock (2000). More information about the

questionnaire, and how it has been adapted for the current study can be found in the method under section 5.1.2.

4.5 Barriers:

Stoknes (2014), Lorenzoni et al. (2007), and Swim et al. (2009) all identified barriers that can prevent people from engaging with climate change. It was decided that Stoknes’ (2014) barriers were too broad to be used in this study and important aspects, such as lack of knowledge, were missing. Instead, a combination of barriers from Lorenzoni et al. (2007) and Swim et al. (2009) was made to ensure exhaustiveness and detailedness. These barriers were all used as the basis for codes; thus, for a complete list of all barriers used in this study see method 5.4.3. An exploration of all barriers provided by Swim et al. (2009) can be found in Sijnesael (2018) section 2.3.1, an exploration of the barriers provided by Lorenzoni et al. (2007) can be found in Schoonwater (2018) in section 3.2.

4.6 Conceptual model

The current research will use theories from multiple disciplines: psychology, cognitive neuroscience, environmental studies, geography and literature study, to make one coherent hypothesis.

Summarized, the point made by this research reads as follows:

When it comes to climate change communication that intends to get people to adapt their behaviour, facts and troubling apocalyptic warnings are not enough to cause engagement with the issue and thus attitude change, because the human brain builds up defences against problems as complex and overarching as climate change. Humans are, however, predisposed to tell stories, and research in both psychology and cognitive neuroscience has proven that the human brain has a knack for processing stories. In order for climate change, a problem that affects the entire earth, to become a reality in the minds and hearts of people, the earth itself and specific spaces already affected greatly by climate change must become meaningful. The way to do this is through written narratives. The conceptual model of this argument can be seen below.

5 Method

5.1 Materials

5.1.1 Societal subjects survey

For this study we used purposive sampling through a survey (see Appendix 1) to select our

participants. The reason for the selection of participants before the start of the actual research is that climate change engagement can only be measured for individuals who both know little about climate change and do not worry about climate change. Otherwise, a change in engagement and willingness to adapt would be impossible to measure, as the participants would already have high levels of engagement before the narrative. Despite the use of purposive sampling, the outcomes of the study will still be able to be generalized because of the way psychology and cognitive neuroscience theories are used to underpin the theory.

For the current thesis, a survey was designed about various societal matters. In total, 26 societal issues were selected. The selection of the topics was based on the 2017 Dutch General Election party programs in order to get a coherent overview of current social issues. The party programs were skimmed for topics; those topics that were used multiple times by several parties were included in the list.

The designed survey is an example of the Q-methodological research technique in which participants are asked to rank a number of statements or subjects. In this case, participants were given a list of 26 societal subjects. Among these items were things such as poverty, the European Union, immigration, climate change, etc. The survey only has three simple questions. The first question: which of the following subjects do you find most important? (pick three). The second question: which of the following subjects do you find least important? (pick three). Finally, the third question asked: of which of the following subjects do you have the most knowledge? The same list of subjects is used for all three questions. Participants were only invited to further participate in the study if the box for subject climate change was not checked in the first question. If participants checked the box in the second question they were invited only if climate change was unchecked for the third question. This is because we wanted to avoid inviting participants who deny the existence of climate change altogether. How the persuasion and framing process of climate change information would need to be adjusted to measure engagement in climate change skeptics is a subject that was outside of the scope of the current thesis.

The aim of this survey was to identify participants that do not feel particularly engaged with climate change. The Q-methodological approach is therefore well suited to this aim as “Q

methodology's purpose is to reveal subjective structures, attitudes and perspectives from the standpoint of the person or persons being observed” (Cross, 2005, p. 210). The current survey was designed in such a way that participants do not know what the study is going to be about. If participants would have been told that we, the researchers, were doing a study on climate change, they might have checked the box of climate change in the first question more easily. Social desirability is thus eliminated in this first survey.

Usually, surveys using the Q-methodological approach ask participants to rank everything on the list. It was decided, however, that this would be too time-consuming and would also be very hard to do for the participants. Choosing three subjects is easier and for the current research, it only matters that participants do not already feel engaged with the climate change issue. The survey was designed in such a way that participants would only be able to move on to the next question if three boxes were checked.