The behavioral research is in, and it rewrites almost everything we thought we knew about climate communication and moving people to act on climate, biodiversity, and ocean loss. If you care about any of this, you need to read it.
Table of Contents
I have a confession to make.
For years, I did it wrong. I shared the scary headlines. I posted the melting glacier photos. I sent the articles about parts per million and tipping points and the latest IPCC alarm. I believed, at some level, that if I could just get people to understand how bad it was, they would feel what I felt and do something about it.
I was not alone in this. Virtually the entire climate communication infrastructure has operated this way for decades, and we now have the behavioral science to know, with increasing confidence, that this approach has not worked anywhere near as well as we needed it to. In some measurable ways, it has backfired.
This is not a piece about whether climate change is real or whether the stakes are catastrophic. They are. This is a piece about something different: how human beings actually change their minds and their behavior, what the latest research tells us about the gap between believing something and acting on it, and what any of us can do right now to become genuinely more effective at moving the people around us.
I spend a lot of time thinking about communication strategy professionally. When I started looking seriously at the behavioral science behind climate and environmental communication, I was honestly surprised by how much the field has evolved and how little of that evolution had filtered down into the way most advocates, journalists, and concerned citizens actually operate. The gap between what researchers know and what practitioners do is enormous, and that gap is costing us.
So this is my attempt to close it a little. Let me tell you what I found.
The Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About
Here is a number that should stop you cold: climate doomism is now more prevalent in the United States than climate skepticism, and it causes the same amount of inaction.
Doomism is the belief that catastrophic warming is now inevitable, that effective mitigation is impossible, that it is basically too late. Researchers at the University of British Columbia have documented that this view is now the primary reason people cite for not supporting climate action, having overtaken outright denial. Think about that for a moment. We spent so much energy trying to defeat denial that we did not notice a new obstacle building up right behind it, one that our own messaging helped create.
Doom and gloom content feels urgent. It feels honest. It feels like we are not sugarcoating a crisis. But there is now substantial research showing that messaging which induces fear without a clear path forward produces paralysis, not mobilization. A global study of 59,000 participants across 63 countries found that while fear-based messaging might get people to share a post (which requires very little effort), in some countries it actively reduces support for real, harder actions like policy change or reforestation. Shares are not the same as action. We have been optimizing for the wrong metric.
And then there is the carbon footprint problem, which deserves its own paragraph.
British Petroleum introduced the concept of the personal carbon footprint in a major advertising campaign in the early 2000s. The intent was straightforward: shift public attention from the systemic role of fossil fuel companies to the individual choices of consumers. It was one of the most effective pieces of corporate PR in recent memory, and we walked right into it. We adopted the framework, built calculators around it, made it a centerpiece of environmental education, and pointed it at our friends and neighbors.
A landmark intervention study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2025, led by researchers at Penn’s Annenberg School including climate scientist Michael Mann and communication neuroscientist Emily Falk, tested 17 different psychological strategies for motivating climate action across 7,624 American adults. Carbon footprint information did not increase intentions to act. One of our most commonly used tools, across decades of environmental communication, is not moving the needle.
This is not a reason for despair. It is a reason to get smarter.
What Is Actually Going On in People’s Heads
Before we get to what works, it helps to understand why the gap between believing in climate change and acting on it is so persistent. The Penn researchers identified three core psychological barriers that keep people stuck.
The first is perceived distance. Climate change feels abstract, far away in time and geography, something that happens to polar bears and coastal cities and people in other countries. Even people who are intellectually aware of the science can hold it at arm’s length emotionally. It is real, but it does not feel real in the way that a bill on the kitchen counter is real.
The second is a sense of personal irrelevance. About 40 percent of Americans report little to no impact of climate change in their communities and do not expect to see much impact in the next 30 years. This is a misperception, but it is a stable and consequential one. If you do not believe it is happening near you or to people you know, the urgency does not register.
The third is response efficacy, which is a research term for “I don’t think my actions matter.” Many people, even those who care deeply, have a quiet background belief that what any individual does is irrelevant against the scale of the problem. Why eat less meat if the steel industry is pumping out that much carbon? Why change your habits if certain countries are going to do whatever they want regardless? This is not apathy, exactly. It is a rational-feeling response to feeling powerless.
The critical insight from the research is this: facts alone do not fix any of these barriers. Knowing it is real does not make it feel proximate. Knowing the science does not translate into a felt sense of personal relevance. And knowing the statistics does not give someone a meaningful sense of agency. Something else is needed.
The Climate Communication Research That Rewrote My Approach
The Penn study I mentioned above is, in my view, the most important piece of climate communication research to come out in years. They ran what they call an “intervention tournament,” which is essentially a systematic competition between different psychological strategies to see which ones actually move the needle on intended behavior. Here is what they found.
Future thinking won, convincingly.
The single most effective category of intervention was helping people think concretely about the future, specifically a future involving themselves and people they care about. Not abstract futures. Personal ones.
Two strategies stood out above everything else. The first was asking people to vividly imagine experiencing a negative future that could result from not addressing climate change, with the key being that this imagined future was personal and specific, not generalized. The second was even more striking: writing a letter to a child about the world being left to them.
Not a petition. Not a carbon calculator. A letter.
Both strategies increased intentions to take individual action (driving less, eating differently) and collective action (donating, volunteering) more than almost anything else tested. The letter-writing approach also had the highest impact on intentions to share petitions on social media and send them directly to friends.
This tells us something profound about how human motivation actually works. We are not primarily moved by data or by moral abstraction. We are moved by concrete, emotional, personal connection to something we love and might lose. The most effective climate message is not “the planet is dying.” It is “I am thinking about the future my kids are going to inherit, and I want it to be different than what I am seeing.”
Relevance drove sharing.
The strategies most effective at getting people to share news articles and climate content were not the most alarming ones. They were the ones that answered the question: why does this matter to me and people I know? Describing why a headline matters to your specific life, your community, your relationships, was consistently more effective at driving meaningful engagement than simply broadcasting the scariest version of the news.
This is a complete inversion of how most of us think about climate content strategy. We assume more alarming equals more sharing equals more impact. The research says: more personally relevant equals more sharing, and the sharing is more likely to lead somewhere.
What did not work.
The researchers also identified ineffective strategies, and this is just as important. Carbon footprint reduction information did not increase intentions to act. “Response efficacy” messaging, the kind that tells people their actions make a difference in the abstract, increased people’s perception of impact but did not consistently move them toward action.
In other words, telling people “your choices matter” as an abstract statement is less effective than helping them feel concretely why and for whom their choices matter.
The Framing Problem No One Wants to Own
If you have worked in environmental advocacy or communication for any length of time, you have probably been in the conversation about whether we should call it “climate change” or “global warming” or “the climate crisis.” That conversation is real but it is also, at a certain level, inside baseball.
The bigger framing issue is whether to lead with the environment at all.
Oceans, forests, wetlands, biodiversity: these are not things that exist “out there” separate from human welfare. They are the biological infrastructure that keeps us alive, and when we communicate about them as environmental issues rather than human survival issues, we are allowing a significant fraction of our potential audience to mentally file them under “nature stuff” and move on. That is a costly categorization error.
Research is clear on this: the public health frame for climate and environmental issues is one of the most consistently effective across political lines. “This is making our air worse, our water less clean, our summers more dangerous, and our kids sicker” lands differently than “the environment is at risk.” The first is personal. The second is not.
A major multi-country study published in Communications Earth and Environment found that positive framing (opportunity rather than pure threat), health framing, and immediate/local framing all significantly boost public support for climate policies. The “environment” as a primary frame actually performs below health and economy frames for most audiences. We are not being told to stop caring about nature. We are being told to explain why nature is the economy, the health system, and the survival infrastructure for civilization.
Here is another critical framing insight from Yale’s Six Americas research, which is the most comprehensive ongoing study of American climate opinion. Twenty-five percent of Americans are now in the “Alarmed” category, meaning they are already with us on the urgency. The Dismissive crowd is only 11 percent. We outnumber them more than two to one, and yet much of our messaging is written as if we are the fringe fighting uphill against a skeptical majority. We are not. We just act like it.
The more important audience is the “Concerned,” which is the next biggest group after the Alarmed. And here is the key data point about them: their top worries are the economy, the cost of living, and government accountability. These are climate issues. The clean energy transition is an economic story. Energy independence is a security story. Heat deaths and more severe storms are a public health and infrastructure cost story. If we are not making those connections explicitly in our communications, we are leaving a massive persuadable audience on the table.
The Trusted Messenger Problem (and Opportunity)
One of the most consistent findings across decades of persuasion research is that the source of a message matters as much as the content. Possibly more.
This is why the same climate information hits differently depending on who delivers it. A scientist is trusted by some audiences and actively distrusted by others. A politician is trusted almost nowhere on this particular issue. A doctor, a farmer, a local meteorologist, a faith leader: these are sources that research has consistently shown to cut through in ways that the traditional environmental communication machinery does not.
But here is the finding that should change your behavior today: your friends and family trust you.
Ed Maibach at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication and Tony Leiserowitz at Yale, two of the leading researchers in this field, both emphasize the same thing. On climate, people typically trust most the people they know personally. “Most of us are really affected by the people in our own lives,” Leiserowitz has said. “It’s our kids. It’s our friends. And we need to talk about it.”
This is the trusted messenger opportunity that is almost entirely underutilized. We pour enormous energy into crafting messages for large platforms while undervaluing the irreplaceable impact of a real conversation between two people who know and trust each other. Research on social norm change consistently shows that when people in our immediate networks start making a behavior visible and normal, our own sense of what is expected and possible shifts. You, talking to someone who knows you, is not a small thing. It might be the most important thing.
The research on social norms adds another dimension here. Most people significantly underestimate how many of their neighbors, colleagues, and community members already care about climate and biodiversity loss. When that misperception gets corrected, behavior shifts. Simply making the existing concern visible, letting people know that the quiet majority around them is actually quite worried, nudges people toward action. If you are the person in your network who is willing to say “I care about this, here is why, and I would love to talk about it,” you are performing a social norm correction for everyone watching. That matters.
Solutions Journalism Is Not Soft. It Is What Works.
There is a persistent belief in advocacy circles that leading with solutions feels like downplaying the urgency. That showing what is working is somehow letting people off the hook. That if we tell good news stories, people will think things are fine and go back to sleep.
The research does not support this.
A 2024 study in the journal Environment and Behavior found that exposure to solutions journalism increased intentions for pro-environmental action, but critically, it did so through two specific mechanisms: positive affect (how people feel after reading) and collective efficacy (the belief that we as a group can actually accomplish something). Problem-focused-only framing did not produce the same effect.
Think about what this means practically. When you share a story about a community that fought a pipeline and won, a city that hit its renewable energy target ahead of schedule, a reef restoration effort that is showing real results, you are not just reporting good news. You are building the sense that change is possible and that groups of people who organize and push can actually shift outcomes. That belief is a prerequisite for sustained action. Without it, even highly alarmed people slide into the doom and paralysis that is now, remember, our biggest obstacle.
Solutions journalism is not the soft option. It is the strategically smarter option, grounded in what we know about how collective efficacy drives behavior change.
This does not mean we stop naming what is wrong or how serious it is. The research suggests the most effective communication acknowledges both the urgency and the possibility. It says: this is real, it is serious, and here is what people are doing about it, and here is what you can do.
The Inoculation Strategy (Pre-Bunking Works Better Than Debunking)
One more research-backed tool that most people are not using.
There is a substantial body of work around what researchers call “inoculation theory” in communication. The basic idea is that if you warn people in advance that they are likely to encounter misleading or manipulative claims, and give them a small dose of that misinformation alongside the correct information, they become more resistant to the full-strength version when they encounter it later. Pre-bunking is significantly more effective than debunking.
This has direct practical applications. If you are having a conversation about ocean acidification and you know the person is likely to later see content claiming it is natural variability, you can inoculate them right then. “You might hear this framed a certain way, and here is what the actual science says and why the other framing is misleading.” You are not just conveying information. You are building resilience against the counter-narrative.
This is particularly important right now, when disinformation infrastructure around climate and environmental issues is well-funded, sophisticated, and accelerating. Waiting to debunk after the damage is done is playing catch-up. Getting ahead of it, even in individual conversations, is more effective.
What This Means for How You Communicate
I want to be specific here because the research only matters if it changes what we actually do.
Lead with the future and make it personal. Instead of sharing a statistic, try framing it as: “I keep thinking about what this means for the next 20 years here, for the kids we know.” That is the frame the research says is most effective for motivating action. You are not softening the issue. You are routing it through the part of the brain that actually drives behavior change.
Swap your framings deliberately. “The environment” becomes “our health, our safety, our economy.” “Emissions” becomes “the air our kids breathe.” “Climate justice” becomes “who gets left behind when this gets worse.” Same truth. Better reach.
Make your own concern visible. The social norm correction happens when people who care stop hiding it. You do not need a platform. You need to be willing to say “I am genuinely worried about this, and here is why” in the spaces where people who know you will hear it. That is not a small thing.
Share wins, not just warnings. For every piece of alarm content, try to find and share something about what is working. Make progress visible. Build collective efficacy. This is not spin. It is the communication strategy that the research says actually moves people toward sustained action.
Have the conversation, not just the post. Research is consistent that person-to-person conversation among trusted contacts is more powerful than broadcast messaging. Find the people in your life who are “Concerned” but not yet acting. Ask them what they are worried about. Connect it to what they care about. That conversation is worth more than a hundred shares.
Tell people what to do. One of the most consistent failures in climate communication is informing people without giving them a clear, specific, manageable action. The research on response efficacy shows that abstract “your choices matter” messaging is not enough. Concrete, specific, achievable asks are.
Stop leading with carbon footprints. Move that tool to the back of the drawer. It is not pulling its weight, and it is carrying the fingerprints of the industry that invented it to redirect attention from the systemic changes we actually need.
A Word About “The Environment” as a Frame
I want to return to this because it matters for how we talk about all of this, including ocean health, biodiversity loss, and habitat destruction, not just the temperature of the atmosphere.
These issues are sometimes siloed in public conversation as distinct “environmental” concerns, each with its own advocacy community, its own technical vocabulary, its own policy apparatus. And that siloing is, to a significant degree, a communications problem.
Oceans regulate our climate, produce a substantial portion of the oxygen we breathe, and provide food security for more than three billion people. Biodiversity loss degrades the agricultural systems, the natural filtration systems, and the disease resistance mechanisms that human civilization depends on. Habitat loss accelerates all of the above while also driving the spillover of zoonotic diseases into human populations in ways that should be viscerally familiar after the last few years.
These are not nature stories. They are human stories, economic stories, security stories, and health stories. When we communicate about them as environmental concerns, we are accepting a frame that makes them feel optional, peripheral, a luxury concern for people who have the time to care about things beyond their immediate circumstances.
The research on effective framing keeps pointing in the same direction: connect to what is already at stake for people, in their lives, in their communities, in their futures. The issues are real and urgent regardless of what we call them. But what we call them, and how we explain their stakes, determines who shows up to care.
The Bottom Line
I started this piece by confessing that I did it wrong for years. I want to be fair to myself and to everyone else who has been operating this way: we were working from the available knowledge, and we cared. The intent was never wrong.
But the landscape has changed. We now have years of rigorous behavioral research, large-scale intervention studies, and communication science specifically designed around these issues. We know things we did not know a decade ago. And that knowledge comes with a responsibility.
Here is the short version of what the research says:
Doom without a path forward paralyzes people. Carbon footprint guilt transfers blame without changing outcomes. “The environment” is too abstract a frame for too many people. Fear gets shares; relevance gets action. Future thinking, specifically imagining a personal, concrete future for people we love, is the most powerful motivational tool we have tested. Solutions build the collective efficacy that sustains engagement over time. Your personal conversations with people who trust you are worth more than you probably think. And the majority of Americans already care about this. They are waiting for permission, for a path, for someone they trust to show them what to do.
That someone can be you. But only if you are using the right playbook.
The playbook has been updated. It is time to start using it.
This post synthesizes research from the Penn/Annenberg PNAS intervention tournament (Sinclair, Mann, Falk et al., 2025), Yale Program on Climate Change Communication’s Six Americas research (Fall 2025), George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, Communications Earth and Environment, the global 63-country intervention study (Science Advances, 2024), and a range of peer-reviewed literature on solutions journalism, framing, trusted messengers, and social norm change.
If you found this useful, share it with someone who is already motivated but not sure how to be effective. That is who it was written for.
Sources
Primary intervention research
Sinclair, A.H., Cosme, D., Lydic, K., Reinero, D.A., Carreras-Tartak, J., Mann, M.E., & Falk, E.B. (2025). Behavioral interventions motivate action to address climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(20), e2426768122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2426768122
Vlasceanu, M., Doell, K.C., Bak-Coleman, J.B., Todorova, B., Berkebile-Weinberg, M.M., Grayson, S.J., et al. (2024). Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Science Advances, 10(6), eadj5778. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adj5778
Six Americas and audience research
Leiserowitz, A., Kotcher, J., Verner, M., Rosenthal, S., Goddard, E., Carman, J., Myers, T., Ettinger, J., Fine, J., Richards, E., Goldberg, M., Marlon, J., & Maibach, E. (2026). Global Warming’s Six Americas, Fall 2025. Yale University and George Mason University. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warmings-six-americas-fall-2025/
Verner, M., Carman, C., Rosenthal, S., Goddard, E., Goldberg, M., Scheuch, E., Maibach, E., Kotcher, J., & Leiserowitz, A. (2025). Top Public Worries in the U.S. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/top-public-worries-in-the-u-s/
Ayers, M., Marlon, J.R., Ballew, M.T., Maibach, E.W., Rosenthal, S.A., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2024). Changes in Global Warming’s Six Americas: An analysis of repeat respondents. Climatic Change, 177, 96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03754-x
Trusted messengers and conversation
Orr, M., Borth, A., Kotcher, J., Campbell, E., Myers, T., Maibach, E., et al. (2024). Breaking the climate silence: Predictors of discussing global warming with family and friends. PLOS Climate. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000538
Goldberg, M., van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2019). Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(30), 14804-14805. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906589116
Framing
Dasandi, N., Graham, H., Hudson, D., Jankin, S., vanHeerde-Hudson, J., & Watts, N. (2022). Positive, global, and health or environment framing bolsters public support for climate policies. Communications Earth & Environment, 3(1), Article 239. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00571-x
Solutions journalism
Maduneme, E., & Segrè Cohen, A. (2024). Solutions journalism stories boost pro-environmental behavioral intentions through positive affect and collective efficacy beliefs. Environment and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165241286874
Inoculation and pre-bunking
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
Roozenbeek, J., Traberg, C.S., & van der Linden, S. (2022). Technique-based inoculation against real-world misinformation. Royal Society Open Science, 9(5), 211719. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211719
Maertens, R., Anseel, F., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Combatting climate change misinformation: Evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101455
Social tipping points and norm change
Centola, D., Becker, J., Brackbill, D., & Baronchelli, A. (2018). Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science, 360(6393), 1116-1119. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas8827
Everall, J.P., Tschofenig, F., Donges, J.F., & Otto, I.M. (2025). The Pareto effect in tipping social networks: from minority to majority. Earth System Dynamics, 16, 189-214. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-189-2025
Belief-action gap
Grandin, A., Boon-Falleur, M., & Chevallier, C. (2022). The belief-action gap in environmental psychology: How wide? How irrational? In The Cognitive Science of Belief: A Multidisciplinary Approach (J. Sommer, J. Musolino, P. Hemmer, Eds.). Cambridge University Press, pp. 536-554.
Get the next swap before it’s public
I send new vetted swaps, the economics behind them, and the occasional warning about a product that did not earn its hype. No spam, I never sell your address, and you can unsubscribe anytime.
Leave a Reply