The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tools for a new climate conversation: A mixed-methods study of language for public engagement across the political spectrum
Open accessAbstract
Political orientation and ideology are amongst the most significant influences on climate change attitudes and responses. Specifically, those with right-of-centre political views are typically less concerned and more sceptical about climate change. A significant challenge remains to move beyond this ideological impasse and achieve a more open and constructive debate across the political spectrum. This paper reports on novel mixed-methods research in the UK to develop and test a series of ‘narratives’ to better engage citizens with centre-right political views. Qualitative work in Study 1 revealed two particularly promising narratives. The first focused on the idea that saving energy is predicated on the ‘conservative’ principle of avoiding waste; the second focused on the advantages of ‘Great British Energy’ (based on patriotic support for domestic low-carbon technologies). An online experiment in Study 2 with a representative UK sample compared these narratives with a more typically left-of-centre narrative focused on the concept of ‘climate justice’ with a representative sample of the UK public. Results indicate that the first two narratives elicited broad agreement and reduced scepticism amongst centre-right participants, while the ‘climate justice’ narrative (which reflects a common environmental message framing) polarised audiences along political lines. This research offers clear implications for how climate change communicators can move beyond preaching to the converted and initiate constructive dialogue about climate change with traditionally disengaged audiences.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 · Cited by 14,619
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822
Value orientations, gender and environmental concern
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993) · Environment and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0013916593255002 · Cited by 2,162 · cited 1×
“Individuals with stronger egalitarian and communitarian worldviews tend to perceive climate change as riskier than those with individualistic and hierarchical views (Stern et al., 1993).”
BackgroundCultural cognition of scientific consensus.
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246 · Cited by 1,686
Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2943 · Cited by 1,616 · cited 4×
“…a range of factors are now understood to influence public engagement, the role of values (Schwartz, 1992), worldviews (Douglas, & Wildavsky, 1982) and, as a consequence, political ideology are among the key predictors of scepticism and engagement (Corner et al., 2014; Hornsey et al., 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612449177 · Cited by 928 · cited 1×
“…conservation can protect the ‘American way of life’, or as ‘morally pure’, whereby environmental harm is positioned as a violation of the sanctity of nature, are effective ways of reaching the US right on climate change (Feygina et al, 2010; Feinberg & Willer, 2013; cf. Wolsko et al. 2016).”
BackgroundFeygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167209351435 · Cited by 720
Psychological research and global climate change
Clayton, S., Devine-Wright, P., Stern, P. C., Whitmarsh, L., Carrico, A., Steg, L., Swim, J., & Bonnes, M. (2015) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2622 · Cited by 601
Self-citationSolution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief.
Campbell, T. H., & Kay, A. C. (2014) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0037963 · Cited by 560
Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H., & Seiden, J. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.005 · Cited by 470
Cited by
The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries
Pearce, W., Niederer, S., Özkula, S. M., & Sánchez Querubín, N. (2019) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.569 · Cited by 334
Behaviour change to address climate change
Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., & Capstick, S. (2021) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.002 · Cited by 322
Self-citationMoral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2019) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12501 · Cited by 302
Terror Management Theory and mortality awareness: A missing link in climate response studies?
Wolfe, S. E., & Tubi, A. (2019) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.566 · Cited by 80
Motivation and climate change: A review
Brick, C., Bosshard, A., & Whitmarsh, L. (2021) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.001 · Cited by 76
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Whitmarsh, L., & Corner, A.
- Venue
- Global Environmental Change
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 42
- Pages
- 122-135
- ISSN
- 0959-3780 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2571462394
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 44.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tools for a new climate conversation: A mixed-methods study of language for public engagement across the political spectrum. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.008
- The paper
- Whitmarsh, L., & Corner, A. (2017). Tools for a new climate conversation: A mixed-methods study of language for public engagement across the political spectrum. Global Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.