CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 144Climate Change Communication and PerceptionEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityClimate Change Policy and Economics

Effects of Goal Framing and Emotions on Perceived Threat and Willingness to Sacrifice for Climate Change

Open access
Bilandzic, Helena, Kalch, Anja, Soentgen, Jens·2017·Science Communication
DOI 10.1177/1075547017718553
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study explores discrete emotions (guilt, fear, hope) as mediators for effects of goal framing on perceived threat of climate change and willingness to sacrifice. To reconcile conflicting evidence, the study introduces and tests the distinction between gain-positive frames (positive consequences of engaging in climate protection), gain-negative frames (avoiding negative consequences when engaging in climate protection), and loss frames (negative consequences of not engaging in climate protection). Results show that gain-negative frames increase perceived threat and willingness to sacrifice, while loss frames increase them through guilt and fear. Hope is increased by a gain-positive frame but subsequently lowers both outcomes.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1075547017718553

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Loss-framed messages are especially likely to elicit emotional arousal compared to gain-framed messages.

    “Loss-framed messages, which emphasize the adverse consequences of inaction, are especially likely to elicit emotional arousal compared to gain-framed messages that focus on positive outcomes [29].”

    From The power of loss: message framing, climate anxiety, and engagement in personal carbon trading (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    In “Tests for Hypotheses and Research Questions” (page unavailable), the paper reports that loss frames increase fear and guilt, while the gain-negative frame does not affect the emotions measured. But the gain-positive frame increases hope, so the findings support a comparison about negative emotions, not a general claim that loss frames elicit more emotional arousal than gain frames. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 15, 77-86. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005 · DOI
  2. Brown, P. M., & Stewart, S. (1999). Avoiding severe environmental consequences: Evidence on the role of loss avoidance and risk attitudes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 38, 179-198. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00005-0 · DOI
  3. Chadwick, A. E. (2015). Toward a theory of persuasive hope: Effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Communication, 30, 598-611. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.916777 · DOI
  4. DARA & Climate Vulnerable Forum. (2012). Climate vulnerability monitor: A guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://daraint.org/ wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CVM2-Low.pdf
  5. De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313, 684-687. doi:10.1126/science.1128356 · DOI
  6. Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson, H. Goldsmith & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572-595). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  7. Engels, A., Huther, O., Schäfer, M., & Held, H. (2013). Public climate-change skep- ticism, energy preferences and political participation. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 23, 1018-1027. doi:10.1016/j.gloenv- cha.2013.05.008 · DOI
  8. Feldman, L., & Hart, P. S. (2016). Using political efficacy messages to increase cli- mate activism: The mediating role of emotions. Science Communication, 38, 99- 127. doi:10.1177/1075547015617941 · DOI
  9. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300-319. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Gifford, R., & Comeau, L. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 21, 1301-1307. doi:10.1016/j.gloenv- cha.2011.06.004 · DOI
  11. Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852-870). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  12. Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communica- tion: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polariza- tion about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646 · DOI
  13. Hastings, G., Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2004). Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and ethical reasons for concern. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 961-986. doi:10.1002/mar.20043 · DOI
  14. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicat- egorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451-470. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Kühberger, A., & Tanner, C. (2010). Risky choice framing: Task versions and a comparison of prospect theory and fuzzy-trace theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 314-329.
  16. Kühne, R., & Schemer, C. (2015). The emotional effects of news frames on informa- tion processing and opinion formation. Communication Research, 42, 387-407. doi:10.1177/0093650213514599 · DOI
  17. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  18. Lecheler, S., Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Dealing with feelings: Positive and negative discrete emotions as mediators of news framing effects. Communications-European Journal of Communication Research, 38, 189-209. doi:10.1515/commun-2013-0011 · DOI
  19. Lindsey, L. L. M., Yun, K. A., & Hill, J. B. (2007). Anticipated guilt as motiva- tion to help unknown others: An examination of empathy as a moderator. Communication Research, 34, 468-480. doi:10.1177/0093650207302789 · DOI
  20. Lu, H. (2016). The effects of emotional appeals and gain versus loss framing in communicating sea star wasting disease. Science Communication, 38, 143-169. doi:10.1177/1075547015619173 · DOI
  21. Lu, H., & Schuldt, J. P. (2015). Exploring the role of incidental emotions in support for climate change policy. Climatic Change, 131, 719-726. doi:10.1007/s10584- 015-1443-x · DOI
  22. Major, L. H. (2011). The mediating role of emotions in the relationship between frames and attribution of responsibility for health problems. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 502-522.
  23. Marcus, G. E., Neumann, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  24. Markowitz, E. M., & Shariff, A. F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate Change, 2, 243-247. doi:10.1038/nclimate1378 · DOI
  25. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement's counter-claims. Social Problems, 47, 499-522. doi:10.1525/sp.2000.47.4.03x0305s Mccusker, C., & Carnevale, P. J. (1995). Framing in resource dilemmas: Loss aver- sion and the moderating effects of sanctions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 190-201. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1995.1015 · DOI
  26. McGraw, A. P., Larsen, J. T., Kahneman, D., & Schkade, D. (2010). Comparing gains and losses. Psychological Science, 21, 1438-1445. doi:10.1177/0956797610381504 · DOI
  27. Meijnders, A. L., Midden, C. J. H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). Role of negative emotion in communication about CO 2 risks. Risk Analysis, 21, 955-966. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.215164 · DOI
  28. Metag, J., Füchslin, T., & Schäfer, M. S. (2015). Global warmings's five Germanys: A typology of Germans' views on climate change and patterns of media use and information. Public Understanding of Science, 26, 434-451. doi:10.1177/0963662515592558 · DOI
  29. Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500-510.
  30. Milinski, M., Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H. J., Reed, F. A., & Marotzke, J. (2008). The collective-risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dan- gerous climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 2291-2294.
  31. Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 21, 103-109. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Moser, S. C. (2007). More bad news: The risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change information. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a cli- mate for change (pp. 64-80). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Moser, S. C. (2016). Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change, 7, 345-369.
  34. Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113, 1105-1112. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Newman, C. L., Howlett, E., Burton, S., Kozup, J. C., & Tangari, A. H. (2012). The influence of consumer concern about global climate change on framing effects for environmental sustainability messages. International Journal of Advertising, 31, 511-527. doi:10.2501/Ija-31-3-511-527 · DOI
  36. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment, 51, 12-23. doi:10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005). The boundaries of loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 119-128. doi:10.1509/jmkr.42.2.119.62292 · DOI
  38. O'Keefe, D. J. (2002). Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 329- 344). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  39. O'Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta- analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59, 296-316. doi:10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2009.01417.x · DOI
  40. Renaud, D., & Unz, R. (2006). The M-DAS: A modified version of the Differential Affect Scale for measuring affective states in media reception. Journal of Media Psychology, 18, 70-75. doi:10.1026/1617-6383.18.2.70 · DOI
  41. Reyna, V. F. (1989). Fuzzy-Trace theory and framing effects in choice. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 530-530. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960040403 · DOI
  42. Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 127-146. doi:10.1086/209499 · DOI
  43. Roeser, S. (2012). Risk communication, public engagement, and climate change: A role for emotions. Risk Analysis, 32, 1033-1040. doi:10.1111/j.1539- 6924.2012.01812.x · DOI
  44. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.121.1.3 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Nisbet, S. Ho, E. Markowitz, S. O'Neil, M. S. Schäfer & J. Thaker (Eds., in prep. for 2018), Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communica- tion (pp. 1-29). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acre- fore/9780190228620.013.448 · DOI
  46. Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multi-level sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Jonhnstone (Eds.), Appraisal pro- cesses in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92-120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  47. Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the com- ponent process model. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 1307-1351, doi:10.1080/ 02699930902928969 · DOI
  48. Shapiro, M. A. (2002). Generalizability in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 491-500. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00819.x · DOI
  49. Spence, A., Leygue, C., Bedwell, B., & O'Malley, C. (2014). Engaging with energy reduction: Does a climate change frame have the potential for achieving broader sustainable behaviour? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 17-28. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.006 · DOI
  50. Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 20, 656-667. doi:10.1016/j.gloenv- cha.2010.07.002 · DOI
  51. Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Butler, C., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2011). Perceptions of cli- mate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature Climate Change, 1, 46-49. doi:10.1038/Nclimate1059 · DOI
  52. Stern, P. C. (2012). Fear and hope in climate messages. Nature Climate Change, 2, 572-573. doi:10.1038/nclimate1610 · DOI
  53. Stoknes, P. E. (2014). Rethinking climate communications and the "psychological climate paradox." Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 161-170. doi:10.1016/j. erss.2014.03.007 · DOI
  54. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference- dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039-1061.
  55. Van de Velde, L., Verbeke, W., Popp, M., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2010). The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy, 38, 5541-5549. doi:10.1016/j. enpol.2010.04.053 · DOI
  56. van der Linden, S. (2014). On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: The case of climate change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 430-440. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2008 · DOI
  57. van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Improving public engage- ment with climate change: Five "best practice" insights from psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 758-763. doi:10.1177/ 1745691615598516 · DOI
  58. Wiest, S. L., Raymond, L., & Clawson, R. A. (2015). Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 31, 187-198. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006 · DOI
  59. Witte, K., Cameron, K. A., McKeon, J., & Berkowitz, J. (1996). Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health Communication, 1, 317-341. doi:10.1080/108107396127988 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bilandzic, H., Kalch, A., & Soentgen, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
  • University of Augsburg (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Science Communication
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2017-07-25
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
466-491
ISSN
  • 0164-0259 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-5470
  • 1552-8545
DOI
10.1177/1075547017718553
OpenAlex
W2739128152
Cited by
144
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2
FWCI
17.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Science Communication (publishedVersion)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
Keywords
goal framing, climate change, threat perception, willingness to sacrifice, guilt, fear, hope, loss frame

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