Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame cli...

Research

Electronic data

  • 1-s2.0-S027249442030387X-main

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Environmental Psychology. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464

    Accepted author manuscript, 596 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Letter › peer-review

Published

Standard

Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support. / Ecker, Ullrich K.H.; Butler, Lucy H.; Cooke, John et al.
In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 70, 101464, 01.08.2020, p. 101464.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Letter › peer-review

Harvard

Ecker, UKH, Butler, LH, Cooke, J, Hurlstone, MJ, Kurz, T & Lewandowsky, S 2020, 'Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support', Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 70, 101464, pp. 101464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464

APA

Ecker, U. K. H., Butler, L. H., Cooke, J., Hurlstone, M. J., Kurz, T., & Lewandowsky, S. (2020). Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101464. Article 101464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464

Vancouver

Ecker UKH, Butler LH, Cooke J, Hurlstone MJ, Kurz T, Lewandowsky S. Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2020 Aug 1;70:101464. 101464. Epub 2020 Jul 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464

Author

Ecker, Ullrich K.H. ; Butler, Lucy H. ; Cooke, John et al. / Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2020 ; Vol. 70. pp. 101464.

Bibtex

@article{c8c63db92da04590af69647d2a087a04,
title = "Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support",
abstract = "The COVID-19 pandemic has understandably dominated public discourse, crowding out other important issues such as climate change. Currently, if climate change enters the arena of public debate, it primarily does so in direct relation to the pandemic. In two experiments, we investigated (1) whether portraying the response to the COVID-19 threat as a “trial run” for future climate action would increase climate-change concern and mitigation support, and (2) whether portraying climate change as a concern that needs to take a “back seat” while focus lies on economic recovery would decrease climate-change concern and mitigation support. We found no support for the effectiveness of a trial-run frame in either experiment. In Experiment 1, we found that a back-seat frame reduced participants{\textquoteright} support for mitigative action. In Experiment 2, the back-seat framing reduced both climate-change concern and mitigation support; a combined inoculation and refutation was able to offset the drop in climate concern but not the reduction in mitigation support.",
keywords = "COVID-19, Climate action, Climate change communication, Framing, Mitigation support",
author = "Ecker, {Ullrich K.H.} and Butler, {Lucy H.} and John Cooke and Hurlstone, {Mark John} and Tim Kurz and Stephan Lewandowsky",
note = "This is the author{\textquoteright}s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Environmental Psychology. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464",
year = "2020",
month = aug,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
pages = "101464",
journal = "Journal of Environmental Psychology",
issn = "0272-4944",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support

AU - Ecker, Ullrich K.H.

AU - Butler, Lucy H.

AU - Cooke, John

AU - Hurlstone, Mark John

AU - Kurz, Tim

AU - Lewandowsky, Stephan

N1 - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Environmental Psychology. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464

PY - 2020/8/1

Y1 - 2020/8/1

N2 - The COVID-19 pandemic has understandably dominated public discourse, crowding out other important issues such as climate change. Currently, if climate change enters the arena of public debate, it primarily does so in direct relation to the pandemic. In two experiments, we investigated (1) whether portraying the response to the COVID-19 threat as a “trial run” for future climate action would increase climate-change concern and mitigation support, and (2) whether portraying climate change as a concern that needs to take a “back seat” while focus lies on economic recovery would decrease climate-change concern and mitigation support. We found no support for the effectiveness of a trial-run frame in either experiment. In Experiment 1, we found that a back-seat frame reduced participants’ support for mitigative action. In Experiment 2, the back-seat framing reduced both climate-change concern and mitigation support; a combined inoculation and refutation was able to offset the drop in climate concern but not the reduction in mitigation support.

AB - The COVID-19 pandemic has understandably dominated public discourse, crowding out other important issues such as climate change. Currently, if climate change enters the arena of public debate, it primarily does so in direct relation to the pandemic. In two experiments, we investigated (1) whether portraying the response to the COVID-19 threat as a “trial run” for future climate action would increase climate-change concern and mitigation support, and (2) whether portraying climate change as a concern that needs to take a “back seat” while focus lies on economic recovery would decrease climate-change concern and mitigation support. We found no support for the effectiveness of a trial-run frame in either experiment. In Experiment 1, we found that a back-seat frame reduced participants’ support for mitigative action. In Experiment 2, the back-seat framing reduced both climate-change concern and mitigation support; a combined inoculation and refutation was able to offset the drop in climate concern but not the reduction in mitigation support.

KW - COVID-19

KW - Climate action

KW - Climate change communication

KW - Framing

KW - Mitigation support

U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464

DO - 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464

M3 - Letter

C2 - 32834341

VL - 70

SP - 101464

JO - Journal of Environmental Psychology

JF - Journal of Environmental Psychology

SN - 0272-4944

M1 - 101464

ER -