Video Communication, Blue Marble Awe, and Attitudes Toward Climate Change and Renewable Energy

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4966312/v1

Download PDF

Article

Video Communication, Blue Marble Awe, and Attitudes Toward Climate Change and Renewable Energy

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4966312/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

We conducted a survey experiment to examine how respondents’ attitudes toward climate change and renewable energy are affected by six communication approaches using online video. Three interventions used single message approaches, which focused either on facts about climate change science or solar PV technology, or on blue marble awe (the feeling of awe for the Earth arising from the realization that we live on a fragile planet). Two interventions used dual message approaches, which combined blue marble awe with climate change science or solar PV technology facts. One intervention used a dual reinforced message approach, which combined blue marble awe, solar PV technology facts, and a message from an astronaut who is an ambassador for renewable energy. Results show that the dual reinforced message approach has the strongest effects on energy and environmental attitudes. Our findings offer important lessons for scientists and educators interested in energy communication.

Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences

Scientific community and society/Social sciences

Scientific reports show that human influence has warmed the climate at an unprecedented rate over the last 2,000 years and warn that time is running out to prevent major irreversible damage to the Earth’s climate^{1, 2}. Nevertheless, public opinion in countries such as the United States remains divided about the causes and consequences of climate change. Due to growing ideological polarization, there is a considerable gap between liberals and conservatives in terms of climate change attitudes and beliefs^3–5. For example, in 2021 only 64 percent of Americans and 32 percent of Republicans believed that climate change is caused mostly by human activities⁶. Moreover, only a minority of people are willing to engage in climate change mitigation through personal actions such as installing solar panels or paying more for renewable energy. For instance, in 2021 only 4 percent of U.S. single-family homes generated electricity from small-scale solar arrays⁷. A key question for scientists and policymakers is: how is it possible to increase public awareness about climate change and support for low-carbon technologies through effective communication of science and technology?

Climate change communication has become a vibrant and highly interdisciplinary area of research^8–10. Indeed, a growing number of climate scientists are asking “how to communicate the increasingly urgent, ‘bad’ and ‘unwelcome’ messages to a seemingly indifferent public.”⁹ Research shows that public perception of the salience of the climate change problem is influenced by factors such as individual values and beliefs^11–18, emotions^19–23, weather events^24–29, political discourses and polarization^30–34, and mass media coverage^35–37. Research also has demonstrated that watching movies and documentaries related to climate change can affect climate change attitudes^38–41, even though climate change is rarely mentioned in current films and TV shows⁴². Despite this growing area of research, scholars lack assessments of the effectiveness of different communication approaches for increasing pro-environmental attitudes. In particular, we lack evidence that video communication can increase not only awareness about climate change but also support for low-carbon technologies.

Here we implemented a survey experiment to examine how respondents’ attitudes toward energy and environment are affected by video communication that employs facts, feelings, and a combination of the two. Our interventions use online video communication because we build upon multi-disciplinary research which shows that watching movies and documentaries can enhance pro-environmental attitudes^38–41 and may even stimulate collective actions to address environmental issues^{43, 44}. Additionally, studies suggest that online videos can be an effective tool for science communication^{45, 46}. Our study allows us to compare the efficacy of different online videos on attitudes and beliefs that are relevant to climate change mitigation.

Our interventions also use communication approaches that combine facts and feelings because we build upon work examining the influence of emotions such as awe on prosocial tendencies^{47, 48}. Although awe can be triggered by various experiences associated with art, music, religion, and spirituality, it is frequently elicited by stimuli that are immense in size and complexity, such as the night sky or majestic nature scenes⁴⁹. A particularly powerful trigger for the feeling of awe is the first-hand experience of viewing the Earth from orbit or from the moon, which is described as the “overview effect”^{50, 51}. This effect represents a major shift in awareness experienced by astronauts due to the realization that the Earth is fragile, and that life on our planet is protected by a paper-thin atmosphere. However, the feeling of awe for our planet can be experienced without traveling to outer space, by looking at photographs and watching videos of Earth from space. Photographs such as “Earthrise”, taken by NASA astronauts in 1968, and “the blue marble”, taken by NASA astronauts in 1972, are credited with creating public awareness about the Earth’s vulnerability and have become symbols of the environmental movement^{52, 53}. Similarly, it is possible that watching a video of the Earth that highlights the fragility of the atmosphere elicits the feeling of blue marble awe in some individuals, enhancing their understanding of the interconnection of all life and their responsibility to take care of the environment. Our study allows us to examine if the efficacy of communication approaches that focus on climate change science or renewable energy technology can be improved by emphasizing blue marble awe.

We examined the efficacy of six approaches, based on their use of facts about science and technology, the feeling of blue marble awe, a combination of the two, and a reinforced message from an ambassador, to enhance awareness about climate change and support for renewable energy. First, we used a single message approach that focused on climate change science facts because this focus is common in research on climate change communication^8–10. Second, we used a single message approach that focused on solar photovoltaic (PV) technology facts because the adoption of this technology can accelerate the decarbonization of the electric grid⁵⁴. Third, we used a single message that focused on “blue marble awe”, or the feeling of awe for the Earth arising from the realization that we live on a fragile planet, because research suggests that emotions can play a significant role in shaping environmental attitudes^19–23. Fourth, we used a dual message approach that combined blue marble awe and climate change science facts because it is likely that blue marble awe can enhance individuals’ openness to receive subsequent information about climate change science. Fifth, we used a dual message approach that combined blue marble awe and solar PV technology facts because we anticipated that blue marble awe can improve individuals’ receptivity to subsequent information about solar technology. Sixth, we used a dual reinforced message approach that included facts, feelings, and direct communication from a high credibility “ambassador” for solar PV technology because climate change communication research highlights the importance of trusted messengers^8–10. Furthermore, because Americans’ attitudes about climate change differ by political orientation^3–5, we also examine whether some communication approaches are more effective for conservatives, while others are more effective for liberals.

Our research makes four contributions. First, we show that brief online videos can enhance certain pro-environmental attitudes. More specifically, watching a short video that communicates climate change science facts can influence climate change attitudes, while watching a short video that communicates solar photovoltaic (PV) technology facts can influence attitudes toward solar energy. Although several studies have examined the effectiveness of education efforts that use climate change-related movies and documentaries^38–41, to our knowledge no prior research has compared the efficacy of short videos that communicate climate change science with that of videos that communicate solar technology information. Second, we show that brief videos that combine blue marble awe with facts about either climate change science or solar photovoltaic (PV) technology can enhance attitudes towards both climate change and solar energy. Thus, we contribute to the growing evidence that awe, or the feeling of being diminished in the presence of something greater than the self, can significantly increase not only the motivation to be good to others^{47, 48} but also pro-environmental attitudes when (and only when) it is combined with information about climate change science or solar PV technology. Third, our research adds to research about the “overview effect”, or the shift in awareness experienced by astronauts during spaceflight that results in a sense of responsibility for taking care of the environment^{50, 51}, by revealing that a similar shift in awareness is possible for some people after watching a video that includes a message from an astronaut who acts as an ambassador for solar PV technology. Finally, our study offers a partial solution to the problem of growing ideological polarization of climate change attitudes and beliefs^3–5, by showing that while climate change communication approaches can enhance pro-environmental attitudes among liberals, blue marble communication approaches can enhance pro-environmental attitudes among conservatives.

Study overview

We fielded a survey experiment through Qualtrics in January 2023 to a nationally representative sample of 2847 American adults. To reduce social desirability bias, which results from the respondents’ desire to answer survey questions in a way they believe is morally or socially acceptable, we omitted information about the purpose of the research. Instead of informing the respondents that the purpose of the survey experiment was to examine how their attitudes related to energy and the environment are affected by different types of communication, we informed them that we conducted a study about how various issues related to science and technology can be communicated more clearly. We randomly assigned one of seven short videos to each respondent.

The control: A video that described blockchains, a topic related to technology but not to climate change or renewable energy.

The first treatment: A climate change video that described results from scientific research related to climate change.

The second treatment: A solar PV video that described how solar PV technology works and discussed some of its benefits, such as mitigating climate change.

The third treatment: A blue marble video that described the fragility of the Earth as it is viewed from space.

The fourth treatment: A blue marble and climate change video that described the fragility of the Earth viewed from space and results from scientific research related to climate change.

The fifth treatment: A blue marble and solar PV video that described the fragility of the Earth as it is viewed from space and also explained how solar PV technology works and how it can mitigate climate change.

The sixth treatment: A blue marble, solar PV, and ambassador video that described the fragility of the Earth as it is viewed from space, explained how solar PV technology works and how it can mitigate climate change, and included a testimony from an astronaut (Scott Kelly) who is a high credibility ambassador for solar PV technology and environmental protection.

We deliberately edited all videos and used language and images that are as close as possible to the language and images used on websites of scientific agencies (e.g. NASA) and online documentaries about climate change science and solar PV technology produced by reputable media sources (e.g. British Broadcasting Corporation, Deutsche Welle), thus creating realistic videos. To ensure that the respondents watched the video, we created a timer which did not allow moving to the next section of the survey experiment before the video ended. Additionally, we checked for comprehension by asking respondents to answer the question “the video presented to me was about…”, which had one correct answer and three incorrect answers. Only respondents who answered correctly were allowed to move to the next section.

Next, we asked respondents who correctly answered the comprehension question several questions organized in different sections. In one section, respondents were asked to answer several questions about the information presented in the videos and their responses to this information. We asked the questions “What are your thoughts after watching this video?”, “What are your feelings after watching this video?”, and “Would you say that you have learned anything from this video?” Respondents were asked to briefly answer these questions by writing between 1 and 3 sentences.

In the following section we assessed respondents’ attitudes related to climate change. We asked respondents to indicate to what degree they agree with the following statements: “Human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, contributes to global climate change” (labeled “climate change human activity”), and “I personally worry about climate change” (labeled “climate change personal worry”). For these questions respondents could choose from “agree 0 percent” to “agree 100 percent” in 10 points increments.

In the following section we gauged respondents’ attitudes towards solar power and other types of energy. To further reduce the possibility that respondents would deduce the real purpose of the study, we also asked several questions that were not related to environment or energy (these questions are described in the Methods section). We asked respondents to indicate to what degree they support expanding solar panel farms, wind turbine farms, offshore drilling, nuclear power plants, expanding natural gas, and expanding coal mining (“Please indicate to what degree you support expanding [solar panel farms/wind turbine farms/offshore drilling/nuclear power plants/natural gas/coal mining]”. For these questions respondents could choose from “support 0 percent” to “support 100 percent” in 10 points increments (labeled “Support solar PV energy”). We asked respondents to indicate to what degree they agree with the statement “I am planning to install solar panels on my own home as soon as possible” (labeled “Plan install solar PV”). For these questions respondents could choose from “agree 0 percent” to “agree 100 percent” in 10 points increments. Additionally, we assessed willingness to pay (WTP) for renewable electricity by asking “Would you be willing to pay more each month on your electricity bill to purchase all of your electricity from clean, renewable sources (such as wind and solar)?” (labeled “Pay more for RE”). Respondents could choose different options, from 0 dollars to 45 dollars and above, in five-dollar increments. Finally, we asked respondents questions about their age, gender, level of education, race, and political views. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the five dependent variables: Climate change human activity; Climate change personal worry; Support solar PV energy; Plan to install solar PV; Pay more for renewable energy.

Table 1

Summary statistics for dependent variables.
Variable	Mean	SD	N
1. Climate change human activity. “Human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, contributes to global climate change” (0 = agree 0%; 10 = agree 100%)	7.31	3.05	2,846
2. Climate change personal worry. “I personally worry about climate change” (0 = agree 0%; 10 = agree 100%)	6.47	3.40	2,846
3. Support solar PV energy. “Please indicate to what degree you support expanding solar panel farms” (0 = support 0%; 10 = support 100%)	7.40	2.80	2,846
4. Plan install solar PV. “I am planning to install solar panels on my own home as soon as possible” (0 = agree 0%; 10 = agree 100%; missing = I already have solar panels)	4.27	3.58	2,755
5. Pay more for RE. “Would you be willing to pay more each month on your electricity bill to purchase all of your electricity from clean, renewable sources (such as wind and solar)?” (0 = No; 10 = $45 and above)	3.57	3.37	2,846

The Methods section describes the data collection process and the ordered logistic regression used in our models. The Supplementary Materials documents provides (1) descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the control variables; (2) the script used in each video and links to each video; (3) quotes illustrating positive and negative responses; (4) additional results from text analyses; (5) tables of results from regression analyses; (6) results from additional variables that were not included in the main text due to lack of space.

We present the results from the survey experiment in four parts. First, we examine whether the treatments had an influence on respondents’ emotions. Next, we present the effects of the six treatments and their interactions with political orientation on climate change attitudes, followed by the effects of the treatments and interaction effects with political orientation on solar energy attitudes. Finally, we present the effects of the treatments and interaction effects with political orientation on willingness to pay for renewable energy.

The effects of treatments on respondents’ emotions

We examine whether the treatments that attempted to induce blue marble awe had an influence on respondents’ emotions by examining responses to the question “What are your feelings after watching this video?” The word maps from Fig. 1 present the frequency of words (size of the bubble) and the association between words (shown as the spatial proximity between words and calculated using Jaccard’s coefficient) for treatments T1-T3. This figure shows that respondents who received the first treatment (climate change video) frequently mentioned words related to negative emotions such as sad (ranked as number 4 in frequency), concerned (10), worried (19), and scary (28), but not awe. Respondents who received the second treatment (solar PV video) frequently mentioned words related to positive emotions such as good (ranked as number 4 in frequency), hope (11), hopeful (17), positive (18), great (19) and happy (20). Respondents who received the third treatment (blue marble video) frequently mentioned words related to blue marble awe such as awe (ranked as number 12 in frequency) and amazed (25), positive emotion words such as fine (9) and good (13), and a few negative emotion words such as sad (17) and concerned (34).

The word maps from Fig. 2 present the frequency of words and the association between words for treatments T4-T6. Respondents who received the fourth treatment (blue marble and climate change video) frequently mentioned words related to negative emotions such as sad (ranked as number 3), worried (11) and scared (16), but also words related to positive emotions such as good (17), and words related to blue marble awe such as beautiful (24) and fragile (43). Respondents who received the fifth treatment (blue marble and solar PV video) mentioned primarily words related to positive emotions such as good (ranked as number 9 in frequency), love (15), great (32) and hope (33), hopeful (34), and happy (36), but they also mentioned words related to negative emotions such as worried (38) and sad (44). Respondents who received the sixth treatment (blue marble, solar PV, and solar ambassador video) mentioned primarily words related to positive emotions such as good (ranked as number 8 in frequency) and happy (24), but also words related to negative emotions such as sad (23) and worried (44), and words related to blue marble awe such as amazed (45).

Individual statements also illustrate that many respondents had positive emotional responses, but some had negative responses. We present examples and additional results from text analyses in the Supplementary Material section.

The effects of treatments and interaction effects on attitudes toward climate change

Next, we examined the efficacy of different communication approaches for shaping climate change attitudes. Figure 3 shows the effects of treatments and interaction effects on the variable “climate change human activity”. This figure presents the effects of the six treatments (T1-T6) and of interaction effects between treatments and political orientation (T1XPO, etc.) on personal belief that climate change is caused by human activity. Figure 4 shows the effects of treatments and interaction effects on the variable “climate change personal worry”. This figure presents the effects of the six treatments (T1-T6) and of interaction effects between treatments and political orientation (T1XPO, etc.) on personal concern about climate change. The dots in these figures show odds ratios from ordered logistic regressions, and the lines show 95% confidence intervals. Because we are showing the odds ratios, values above 1 indicate that the effect is positive, and values below 1 indicate that the effect is negative. For simplicity in interpretation, we color coded the values of odd ratios as follows: the blue dot indicates that the odds ratio is significant at p < .05 or higher. The regressions include all treatments and control for respondent’s age, gender, level of education, race, and political orientation.

Results from Fig. 3 show that the first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth treatments (T1, T2, T4, T5, T6) have significant positive effects on personal belief that climate change is caused by human activity. Due to lack of space, we interpret results only for one of these measures. For example, for respondents who watched the climate change video (T1) the odds of agreeing 100 percent versus agreeing 90 percent or less with the “climate change human activity” statement are 1.74 times greater (p < .001) than for respondents who watched the control video. Additionally, results show that the interaction between the first treatment and political orientation (T1XPO) is significant (p < .01) and positive, indicating that those with a liberal political orientation are more likely to believe that climate change is caused by human activity after watching the climate change video than those with a conservative political orientation. However, the interaction between the third treatment and political orientation (T3XPO) is significant (p < .01) and negative, indicating that those with a conservative political orientation are more likely to believe that climate change is caused by human activity after watching the blue marble awe video than those with a liberal political orientation.

Results from Fig. 4 show that the first, fourth, fifth and sixth treatments (T1, T4, T5, T6) have significant positive effects on personal concern about climate change. For example, for respondents who watched the climate change video (T1) the odds of agreeing 100 percent versus agreeing 90 percent or less with the “climate change personal worry” statement are 1.42 times greater (p < .01) than for respondents who watched the control video. Results from Fig. 4 also show that the interaction between the first treatment and political orientation (T1XPO) is significant (p < .01) and positive, indicating that those with a liberal political orientation are more likely to be personally concerned about climate change after watching the climate change video than those with a conservative political orientation. Moreover, the interaction between the third treatment and political orientation (T3XPO) is significant (p < .01) and negative, indicating that those with a conservative political orientation are more likely to personally worry about climate change after watching the blue marble awe video (T3) than those with a liberal political orientation. Similarly, the interaction between the fourth treatment and political orientation (T4XPO) is significant (p < .01) and negative, indicating that those with a conservative political orientation are more likely to personally worry about climate change after watching the blue marble awe and climate change video (T4) than those with a liberal political orientation.

Taken together, results from Figs. 3 and 4 suggest that watching a climate change video (T1) had a significant positive effect on both climate change attitudes, and that watching a video that combine blue marble awe and either climate change or solar technology facts (T4, T5, T6) also had a significant positive effect on climate change attitudes. Additionally, watching the blue marble awe (T3) video has a stronger effect for conservatives than for liberals on both climate change attitudes.

The effects of treatments and interaction effects on attitudes toward solar energy

We also examined the efficacy of different communication approaches for shaping solar energy attitudes. Figure 5 shows the effects of treatments and interaction effects on the variable “support solar PV energy”. Figure 6 shows the effects of treatments and interaction effects on the variable “plan to install solar PV”. The interpretation of these figures is similar to the interpretation of Figs. 3 and 4.

Results from Fig. 5 show that the second, fourth, fifth and sixth treatments (T2, T4, T5, T6) have significant positive effects on personal support for solar PV energy. Due to lack of space, we interpret results only for one of these measures. For example, for respondents who watched the blue marble awe, solar PV technology, and solar ambassador video (T6) the odds of agreeing 100 percent versus agreeing 90 percent or less with the “support solar PV energy” statement are 2.01 times greater (p < .001) than for respondents who watched the control video. Additionally, results from Fig. 3 show that the interaction between the first treatment and political orientation (T1XPO) is significant (p < .05) and positive, indicating that those with a liberal political orientation are more likely to support solar PV technology after watching the climate change video (T1) than those with a conservative political orientation. Yet, the interaction between the third treatment and political orientation (T3XPO) is significant (p < .05) and negative, indicating that those with a conservative political orientation are more likely to support solar PV technology after watching the blue marble awe video (T3) than those with a liberal political orientation.

Results from Fig. 6 show that the second, fifth and sixth treatments (T2, T5, T6) have significant positive effects on personal intention to install solar PV. Due to lack of space, we interpret results only for one of these measures. For example, for respondents who watched the blue marble awe, solar PV technology, and solar ambassador video (T6) the odds of agreeing 100 percent versus agreeing 90 percent or less with the “plan to install solar PV” statement are 1.83 times greater (p < .001) than for respondents who watched the control video. However, results from Fig. 6 show that none of the interactions between the treatments and political orientation are significant.

Results from Figs. 5 and 6 suggest that watching a video about climate change facts (T1) does not have a significant positive effect on both solar energy attitudes, but that watching a video about solar technology facts (T2) has a significant positive effect on both solar energy attitudes. Similarly, watching a video that combines blue marble awe and solar technology facts (T5, T6) had a significant positive effect on both solar energy attitudes. Watching the blue marble awe (T3) video has a stronger effect for conservatives than for liberals on respondents’ support for solar energy, but not on their plan to install solar PV. Finally, we note that the sixth treatment (the blue marble awe, solar PV technology, and solar ambassador video) had a stronger effect than all other treatments on both solar energy attitudes.

The effects of treatments and interaction effects on willingness to pay for renewable energy

Finally, we investigated the efficacy of different communication approaches for the willingness to pay for renewable energy. Figure 7 shows the effects of treatments and interaction effects on the variable “pay more for renewable energy”. The interpretation of this figure is similar to the interpretation of previous figures.

Results from Fig. 7 show that the fourth and sixth treatments (T4, T6) have significant positive effects on willingness to pay more for renewable energy. Due to lack of space, we interpret results only for one of these measures. For example, for respondents who watched the blue marble awe, solar PV technology, and solar ambassador video (T6) the odds of willing to pay more than 45 dollars versus willing to pay less than 45 dollars are 1.53 times greater (p < .001) than for respondents who watched the control video. Additionally, results from Fig. 7 show that the interaction between the fourth treatment and political orientation (T4XPO) is significant (p < .05) and negative, indicating that those with a conservative political orientation are more likely to be willing to pay more for renewable energy after watching the blue marble awe and climate change science video (T4) than those with a liberal political orientation.

Results from Fig. 5 suggest that watching a video about climate change facts (T1) does not have a significant positive effect on willingness to pay more for renewable energy, but that watching a video that combines blue marble awe and climate change facts (T4) has a significant positive effect. Watching a video that combines blue marble awe and climate change facts has a stronger effect on conservatives’ willingness to pay more for renewable energy than on liberals’ willingness to pay. Additionally, watching a video that combines blue marble awe, climate change facts, and a message from a solar ambassador (T6) has the strongest effect on willingness to pay more for renewable energy.

This paper has examined how different communication approaches affect individuals’ attitudes related to energy and the environment. Although climate change scientists have called for urgent action to address anthropogenic climate change, public opinion in the United States remains divided about the causes and consequences of climate change, and relatively few people have significantly reduced their emissions of greenhouse gases. The question “is it possible to increase public awareness about climate change and support for decarbonization efforts through video communication of science and technology?” is salient for policymakers and scientists interested in climate change mitigation. Our results are somewhat encouraging.

We highlight four findings. First, watching a short video that communicates climate change science facts can positively influence climate change attitudes, and watching a short video that communicates solar photovoltaic (PV) technology facts can positively influence attitudes toward solar energy. This finding contributes to research on climate change communication^8–37 by showing that short online videos can have a moderate effect on pro-environmental attitudes. Second, this study shows that, while brief videos about blue marble awe have few significant effects on pro-environmental attitudes, videos that combine blue marble awe with facts about either climate change science or solar photovoltaic (PV) technology can have more substantial effects on those attitudes. This finding contributes to the literature on awe^47–49 by showing that combining blue marble awe and either science or technology information can enhance pro-environmental attitudes. Third, our research contributes to research on the “overview effect”^{50, 51} by revealing that including a message from an astronaut who has direct experience with this effect and acts as an “ambassador” for solar PV technology can enhance the efficacy of communication approaches. Last but not least, our study offers hope that a solution to the growing problem of ideological polarization of climate change attitudes^3–5 is possible, albeit not simple. More specifically, our study suggests that a targeted communication approach that use blue marble awe can nudge conservatives’ environmental attitudes more than a “one size fits all” approach that focuses only on climate change science.

This paper adds to the growing interdisciplinary body of literature aimed at understanding how to use effective communication, public outreach, and education to increase support for policy, attitudes, and behavior change related to addressing anthropogenic climate change. Given the growing number of scholars who have called for increasing the efficiency of climate change science communication^8–10 and for magnifying the representation of the climate crisis in visual media⁴², our findings offer a cautiously optimistic perspective on how videos that provide information about climate change science and renewable energy technology can be made more effective by also discussing the feeling of awe for the Earth.

This article provides new insights for both social scientists and practitioners during a time of increased urgency to mitigate climate change, but it has important limitations. Although we provided an explanation for how video communication can affect climate change and renewable energy attitudes and renewable energy planned behaviors, it remains to be determined whether these attitudes and planned behaviors have consequences for actual behaviors. Given the well documented attitude-behavior gap from research on green consumption,⁵⁵ future studies should examine if videos that communicate information about blue marble awe and renewable energy technology can affect behaviors such as purchasing hybrid or electric cars, installing heat pumps, and supporting non-profit organizations that work to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. Social scientists have an opportunity to expand on our study and create a body of research on effective video communication that has practical applications for educators, non-profits, governmental agencies, and businesses involved in decarbonization efforts.

Future studies should also compare the effects of videos that have different lengths and use technologies that are more or less immersive on the gap between what climate scientists say and what individuals think and do about climate change. Our study suggests that relatively short videos can affect planned behaviors related to renewable energy. While short videos can hold the viewers’ attention better, they also contain less information that can affect energy and environmental attitudes; conversely, long videos such as regular documentaries contain more information but may not retain the viewers’ attention. Hence, additional research is needed to identify the optimal length of video communication. Further research should also compare the effect of regular video with immersive video that use virtual reality technology. Scientists and filmmakers have collaborated to develop virtual reality experiences such as Blue Marble Trilogy: Space Explorers, which aims to create storytelling that “deeply immerses and moves the viewer” and aims to foster a “collective reverence for our home”.⁵⁶ Social scientists have an opportunity to design innovative experiments that use immersive storytelling to communicate information not only about the blue marble awe but also the climate change crisis and renewable energy opportunities.

Our analysis also opens a plethora of opportunities for future research on the potential of video communication to address other environmental challenges and tragedies of the commons.⁵⁷ The approaches we investigated can also be applied to improve the efficacy of communication efforts that aim to mitigate other global environmental problems such as plastic pollution, loss of biodiversity, and water scarcity. Extending and adapting the approaches developed here to new contexts will allow future studies to determine how effective the combination of blue marble awe, information related to science and technology, and messages from trusted ambassadors is for promoting various sustainable behaviors. We hope this study will encourage further research on the promise of disseminating information about science and technology while also instilling blue marble awe to empower individuals and organizations to address not only the climate crisis but also other environmental challenges facing humanity.

The study was approved by University of Iowa’s IRB committee. The IRB committee consisted of Lance Hanson and Michael Lovaglia. The DHHS Registration number is IRB00000100, and the Federal-wide Assurance number is FWA00003007. Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants. Our survey sample was recruited by Qualtrics and fielded using the online Qualtrics platform. Qualtrics provided a nationally representative sample of US adult population, balanced on age, gender, race, and education. Random assignment was used for all treatments and all results presented in the body of the paper are estimated using the following Ordered Logistic Regression:

Y_i = β₀ + τTreated_i + X_iϕ + ε_i (1)

Where Y_i is an ordinal response variable recording respondents attitudes toward energy and environment, such that lower numbers reflect less agreement with a statement (e.g. “Human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, contributes to global climate change.”). β₀ is an intercept term, Treated_i is binary variable that denotes whether the respondent watched a video that communicated (1) climate change science, (2) solar PV technology, (3) blue marble awe, (4) blue marble awe and climate change science, (5) blue marble awe and solar PV technology, (6) blue marble awe, solar PV technology, and solar ambassador. X_i is a vector of controls and ϕ is the associated coefficient vector, including the respondents’ age, gender, level of education, race, and political orientation.

In addition to our comprehension check described in the paper, Qualtrics ensured the quality of the survey data by checking for bots, duplicates, speeders, and fraudulent responses. To further reduce social desirability bias and reduce the possibility that respondents would deduce the real purpose of the experiment (namely that we were interesting in studying how different communication approaches shape pro-environmental attitudes, rather than how various issues related to science and technology can be communicated more clearly), we asked respondents to answer these questions: “How easy or difficult was it to understand the information presented in the video?” (on a five point scale from extremely difficult to not at all difficult) and “How informative was the information presented in the video?” (on a five point scale from extremely informative to not at all informative). We also asked the questions: “What are your thoughts after watching this video? Please write between 1 and 3 sentences describing what you think.”; “What are your feelings after watching this video? Please write between 1 and 3 sentences describing how you feel.”; “Would you say that you have learned anything from this video? If so, please write between 1 and 3 sentences describing what you have learned.”

To further reduce the possibility that respondents would deduce the real purpose of the study, we asked several questions that were not related to environment or energy. We asked: “On a scale from ‘Agree 100% to "Agree 0%’, please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statement: ‘We are spending too much on science education in this country’”; “On a scale from ‘Agree 0% to "Agree 100%’, please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statement: ‘We are spending too much on advancing space exploration in this country’.”

We also asked respondents questions about various civic organizations, not just environmental organizations. We deliberately designed the statements about generic environmental, women’s rights, and voting rights organizations to be as close as possible to the language used by actual organizations on their websites, thus creating realistic civic organizations. We included the following statements and questions:

“This environmental organization is an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all. This organization recognizes that the climate crisis is immense and that we must be daring and courageous in response. It embraces experiments and new solutions, recognizing that the crisis requires innovative ways of solving problems. On a scale from “Likely 100%” to “Likely 0%”, how likely are you to recommend this environmental organization to a friend or colleague?”
“This women's rights organization is dedicated to its multi-issue and multi-strategy approach to women’s rights and is the largest organization of feminist grassroots activists in the United States. Its purpose is to take action through intersectional grassroots activism to promote feminist ideals, lead societal change, eliminate discrimination, and achieve and protect the equal rights of all women and girls in all aspects of social, political, and economic life. On a scale from “Likely 100%” to “Likely 0%”, how likely are you to recommend this organization to a friend or colleague?”
“This voting rights organization works to ensure that every vote counts, that every eligible voter has an equal say, that our elections represent the will of the people, and that our government is of, by, and for the people through a network of experts working at the state and local level across the country. On a scale from “Likely 100%” to “Likely 0%”, how likely are you to recommend this organization to a friend or colleague?”

Finally, we asked questions not only about renewable energy but also about other types of energy. We asked: “Please indicate the extent that you support expanding the following energy sources. On a scale from "Support 100% to "Support 0%", please indicate to what degree you support expanding solar panel farms.”; “On a scale from "Support 0% to "Support 100%", please indicate to what degree you support expanding wind turbine farms.”; “On a scale from "Support 100% to "Support 0%", please indicate to what degree you support expanding offshore drilling.”; “On a scale from "Support 0% to "Support 100%", please indicate to what degree you support expanding nuclear power plants.”; “On a scale from "Support 100% to "Support 0%", please indicate to what degree you support expanding natural gas.” “On a scale from "Support 0% to "Support 100%", please indicate to what degree you support expanding coal mining.”

Author Contribution

I.V. has designed this study, analyzed the results, and wrote the manuscript. M.P-A. has designed the study and reviewed the manuscript.

Acknowledgement

This research was made possible by a Jumpstarting Tomorrow Research Grant from the University of Iowa.

Data Availability

Data is provided within the supplementary information files.

IPCC. Climate Change 2021. The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf (2021).
Kemp, L. et al. Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119, 1–9 (2022).
McCright, A.M., & Dunlap, R. E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol. Q. 52,155–94 (2011).
Ding, D., Maibach, E.W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature. Clim Change 1, 462–466 (2011)
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E.W., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N., & Dawson, E. Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. Am Behav Sci 57, 818–837 (2012).
Gallup. Global Warming Attitudes Frozen Since 2016, https://news.gallup.com/poll/343025/global-warming-attitudes-frozen-2016.aspx (2021).
PV Magazine. Nearly 4% of U.S. homes have solar panels installed, https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/10/28/nearly-4-of-u-s-homes-have-solar-panels-installed/ (2022).
Moser, S. C., & Dilling, L. Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Moser, S. C. Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say? WIREs Clim. Change 7, 345–369 (2016).
Boykoff, M. Creative (Climate) Communications: Productive Pathways for Science, Policy and Society (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C. Y., & Leiserowitz, A. A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1014–1020 (2015).
Persson, J., Sahlin, N., & Wallin, A. Climate change, values, and the cultural cognition thesis. Environ. Sci. Policy 52, 1–5 (2015).
Crompton, T. Values matter. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 276–277 (2011).
Howell, R. A. It’s not (just) “the environment, stupid!” Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Global Environmental Change 23, 281–290 (2013).
Price, J.C., Walker, I. A., & Boschetti, F. Measuring cultural values and beliefs about environment to identify their role in climate change responses. J. Environ. Psychol. 37, 8–20 (2014).
Corner, A., Markowitz, E., & Pidgeon, N. Public engagement with climate change: The role of human values. WIREs Clim. Change 5, 411–422 (2014).
Schoenefeld, J., & McCauley, M. Local is not always better: the impact of climate information on values, behavior and policy support. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 5, 612–623 (2015).
Kahan, D. M. et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 732–735 (2012).
Feldman, L., & Hart, P.S. Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Anal. 38, 585–602 (2018).
Norgaard, K. M. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life (MIT Press, 2011).
Leviston, Z., Price, J. Bishop, B. Imagining climate change: The role of implicit associations and affective psychological distancing in climate change responses. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44, 441–454 (2014).
Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 32, 957–972 (2012).
McDonald, R. I., Chai, H. Y., & Newell, B. R. Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: an integrative review. J. Environ. Psychol. 44, 109–118 (2016).
Brooks, J., Oxley, D., Vedlitz, A., Zahran, S., & Lindsey, C. Abnormal daily temperature and concern about climate change across the United States. Rev. Policy Res. 31, 199–217 (2014).
Hamilton, L. C., & Keim, B. D. Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. Int. J. Climatol. 29, 2348–2352 (2009).
Bergquist, P., & Warshaw, C. Does global warming increase public concern about climate change? J. Theor. Politics 31, 686–691 (2019).
Demski, C., Capstick, S., Pidgeon, N., Sposato, R. G., & Spence, A. Experience of extreme weather affects climate change mitigation and adaptation responses. Climatic Change 140, 149–164 (2017).
Deryugina, T. How do people update? The effects of local weather fluctuations on beliefs about global warming. Climatic Change 118, 397–416 (2013).
Whitmarsh, L. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J. Risk Res. 11, 351–374 (2008).
Carmichael, J. T., & Brulle, R. J. Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013. Environ. Polit. 26, 232–252 (2017).
Hart, P.S. & Nisbet, E. C. Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun. Res. 39, 701–723 (2012).
Hart, P. S., & Feldman, L. Would it be better to not talk about climate change? The impact of climate change and air pollution frames on support for regulating power plant emissions. J. Environ. Psychol. 60, 1–8 (2018).
Zhou, J. Boomerangs versus javelins: How polarization constrains communication on climate change. Environ. Polit. 25, 788–811 (2016).
Hai, Z. & Perlman, R. L. Extreme weather events and the politics of climate change attribution. Sci. Adv. 8, eabo2190 (2022).
Bolin, J. L., & Hamilton, L. C. The news you choose: News media preferences amplify views on climate change. Environ. Polit. 27, 455–476 (2018).
Davidson, D. J., Fisher, A. & Blue, G. Missed opportunities: The absence of climate change in media coverage of forest fire events in Alberta. Climatic Change 153, 165–179 (2019).
Lahsen, M., de Azevedo Couto, G., Lorenzoni, I. When climate change is not blamed: The politics of disaster attribution in international perspective. Climatic Change 158, 213–233 (2020).
Nolan, J. M. “An inconvenient truth” increases knowledge, concern, and willingness to reduce greenhouse gases. Environ. Behav. 42, 643–658 (2010).
Leiserowitz, A. A. The Day After Tomorrow: A Study of Climate Change Risk Perception. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 46, 22–39 (2004).
Howell, R. A. Lights, camera … action? Altered attitudes and behaviour in response to the climate change film The Age of Stupid. Global Environmental Change 21, 177–187 (2011).
Beattie, G., & McGuire, L. The Modifiability of Implicit Attitudes to Carbon Footprint and Its Implications for Carbon Choice. Environ. Behav. 52, 467–494 (2020).
Climate Advocacy Lab. A Glaring Absence: The Climate Crisis is Virtually Nonexistent in Scripted Entertainment, https://climateadvocacylab.org/system/files/2023-03/GlaringAbsenceNormanLearCenter.pdf (2022).
Vasi, I. B., Walker, E., Johnson, J., & Tan S. No Fracking Way! Media Activism, Discursive Opportunities and Local Opposition against Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States, 2010–2013. American Sociological Review 80, 934–959 (2015).
Vasi. I. B. “This (Gas) Land is Your (Truth) Land? Documentary Films and Cultural Fracturing in Marcellus, Barnett, and Woodford Shale Communities.” In Fractured Communities. Risk, Impacts, and Protest against Hydraulic Fracturing in U.S. Shale Regions. (Rutgers University Press, 2018).
Kohler, S., & Dietrich, T. C. Potentials and Limitations of Educational Videos on YouTube for Science Communication. Front. Commun. 6, 1–10 (2021).
Allgaier. J. Science and Environmental Communication on YouTube: Strategically Distorted Communications in Online Videos on Climate Change and Climate Engineering. Front. Commun. 4, 2–15 (2019).
Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D. Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108, 883–889 (2015).
Perlin, J., & Li, L.Why Does Awe Have Prosocial Effects? New Perspectives on Awe and the Small Self. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 291–308 (2020).
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., Mossman, A. The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self-concept. Cognition & Emotion. 21, 944–963 (2007).
White, F. The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, ed. 3, VA, 2014).
Voski, A. The ecological significance of the overview effect: Environmental attitudes and behaviours in astronauts. J. Environ. Psychol. 70, 101–454 (2020).
Petsko, G. A. The blue marble. Genome Biol. 12, 112 (2011).
CNN. The 'Blue Marble': One of Earth's most iconic images, 50 years on, https://www.cnn.com/style/article/blue-marble-photo-50th-anniversary-snap-scn/index.html. (2022).
NREL. U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf. (2012).
Peattie, K. Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 195–228 (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-032609-094328). (2010)
Croll, B. “Felix & Paul Studios Take VR Users to Space With Full ‘Blue Marble’ Trilogy.” Variety, Accessed May 2024 (https://variety.com/2023/digital/global/felix-paul-vr-space-blue-marble-1235713457/) (2023).
Hardin, Garrett. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162, 1243–1248. (1968).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
29 Sep, 2024
Reviews received at journal
28 Sep, 2024
Reviews received at journal
25 Sep, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
02 Sep, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
01 Sep, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
30 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
30 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
28 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
23 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Video Communication, Blue Marble Awe, and Attitudes Toward Climate Change and Renewable Energy

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Results

Study overview

The effects of treatments on respondents’ emotions

The effects of treatments and interaction effects on attitudes toward climate change

The effects of treatments and interaction effects on attitudes toward solar energy

The effects of treatments and interaction effects on willingness to pay for renewable energy

Discussion

Methods

Declarations

Author Contribution

Acknowledgement

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1