A while back, our research teams categorized Americans into six distinct groups: Global Warming’s Six Americas
The proportion identified as Alarmed has more than doubled in the past five years.
Are there subsegments WITHIN the Alarmed? Highlights from our new study… 1/x
We segmented the Alarmed based on their reported political and consumer behaviors, their willingness to perform a variety of activism behaviors, and discussion with close others.
We identified three subsegments: the Active, Willing, and Inactive
2/x
The Active are most likely to say they’re already participating in a campaign to convince elected officials to take action, but still few overall.
Majority of the Willing say they would join a campaign, whereas the Inactive are likely to say they’re unsure if they would.
3/x
The Active and the Willing both report high levels of willingness to take a variety of actions, but the Active are far more likely to say they “definitely“ would.
The Inactive are much more likely to say they don’t know if they would.
4/x
The segments differ in a variety of other ways as well. E.g., the Active are more likely than the other segments to say they are “very“ angry, disgusted, or outraged when they think about global warming.
5/x
We hope this work helps improve the climate community’s ability to organize, identify, and convince the climate Alarmed in the US to take action.
We describe this as a question of breadth (convince more people) versus depth (convince people to a larger degree).
When we usually compare messages, we compare their overall average effects. Averages miss whether the message effects are driven more by breadth or depth.
2/x
We looked at our entire experimental archive and selected studies that met a range of criteria, namely that several messages were compared and pre- and post-message measurements were taken.
Strategic communication has enormous value, but our knowledge on it is fragmented. How do we distill it all into a general overarching framework?
I spoke to @AbelGustafson about this question for the last two years. Here's what we've come up with... 1/x
First, we developed this framework for *strategic* communication, to be applied to purposeful, specific goals (e.g., increase vaccinations, convince people to take action on climate change, etc.).
This is familiar to our #scicomm#envcomm and many of our other colleagues.
2/x
We go way back and build on Lewin and others by conceptualizing the *driving force* as all the efforts, contexts, and systems that advance a campaign’s goals, and the *restraining force* as all the efforts, contexts, and systems that restrict a campaign’s goals.
Our latest Climate Change in the American Mind politics report is now out!
Some highlights... 1/x
The biggest takeaway is that many policies currently being considered by Congress have strong support among a large majority of registered voters, including many Republicans.
Strongest support is for tax incentives to make existing buildings more energy efficient (86%)
2/x
We also find that a majority of registered voters would support a president declaring a national emergency to act on global warming.
Our latest Climate Change in the American Mind politics report is now out!
Some highlights... 1/x
A large majority of Democrats say GW should be a high or very high priority for the president and Congress. Far fewer (but a non-trivial %) Republicans say the same. 2/x
Compared to GW, a much larger proportion of people across the political spectrum say clean energy should be a high or very high priority for the president and Congress. 3/x
🚨New report: American Public Responses to COVID-19🚨
Quick THREAD on some highlights on our findings 1/x
By a HUGE margin, Americans prefer to stop the spread of the virus over stopping economic decline 2/x
Most Americans correctly identify true/false statements about COVID-19 (great!), but still an alarming proportion of Americans (22%) do not understand important facts, for example, that the virus can live on some surfaces for days. 3/x