How to Convince those Dumb Deniers Part Eleventy Fifty-Seven
2 weeks ago Charles Rotter
Much of what passes for Science® these days is the construction of some focus groups given various subjective A/B tests, then followed up by detailed statistical analysis of subjective surveys of the participants. Not just “Climate Communications”. I’ve seen the same thing in other soft subjects, such as “Design Science” for years. The following is a classic of the genre.
Their conclusion seems to be that if you ask people to make sacrifices, they resist more conspicuously than if you tell people in passive voice that things must be done, especially by others.
Lots of math was involved in order to reach this spectacular and profound conclusion.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2023.2296844?src=This study posits the hypothesis that the lack of an individual’s engagement in mitigating climate change might be due to reactance, a motivational psychological state that occurs when one’s perceived freedom to think or act is being threatened. In a 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design (N = 623), we varied how mitigation recommendations for transportation were communicated (individual vs. policy appeal) in an online article. Additionally, we manipulated how directly the need to act was stressed (high- vs. low-controlling language). Outcome measures to capture reactance were perceived threat to freedom, counterarguing, and support for recommended mitigation efforts. Participants in the individual condition reported higher perceived threat to freedom, counterarguing, and showed lower support for the recommendations compared to those in the policy condition. In addition, high-controlling language increased perceptions of freedom threat. Results help clarify public responses to climate change mitigation appeals and offer insights about people’s perspectives on climate change mitigation.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/18/how-to-convince-those-dumb-deniers-part-eleventy-fifty-seven/
