Media is one avenue for empowering the public to act on urgent threats like climate change. Solutions journalism focuses on responses to problems. While this form of reporting offers a promising avenue for equipping the public to learn about climate action, message effects are under-researched. This work draws on social cognitive theory, exemplification theory, and theories of risk communication to examine the effects of discrete news story components on collective climate action intentions and behavior through an online experiment (N = 1,202). Findings identify cognitive mechanisms responsible for effects and offer theoretical insights for future research.
AnghelcevG.SarS. (2011). The influence of pre-existing audience mood and message relevance on the effectiveness of health Psas: Differential effects by message type. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(3), 481–501.
3.
BadenD.McIntyreK.HombergF. (2019). The impact of constructive news on affective and behavioural responses. Journalism Studies, 20(13), 1940–1959. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1545599
4.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
5.
BanduraA. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
BigsbyE.AlbarracínD. (2022). Self- and response efficacy information in fear appeals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 72(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab048
8.
BigsbyE.BigmanC. A.Martinez GonzalezA. (2019). Exemplification theory: A review and meta-analysis of exemplar messages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(4), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1681903
9.
BleakleyA.JordanA. B.HennessyM.GlanzK.StrasserA.VaalaS. (2015). Do emotional appeals in public service advertisements influence adolescents’ intention to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages?Journal of Health Communication, 20(8), 938–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1018593
10.
BostromA.HayesA. L.CrosmanK. M. (2019). Efficacy, action, and support for reducing climate change risks. Risk Analysis, 39(4), 805–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13210
11.
BraddockK.DillardJ. P. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555
12.
BullockO. M.ShulmanH. C. (2021). Utilizing framing theory to design more effective health messages about tanning behavior among college women. Communication Studies, 72(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2021.1899007
13.
CacioppoJ. T.von HippelW.ErnstJ. M. (1997). Mapping cognitive structures and processes through verbal content: The thought-listing technique. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 928–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.65.6.928
14.
CarcioppoloN.JensenJ. D.WilsonS. R.CollinsW. B.CarrionM.LinnemeierG. (2013). Examining HPV threat-to-efficacy ratios in the extended parallel process model. Health Communication, 28(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.719478
15.
ChoH.BosterF. J. (2008). First and third person perceptions on anti-drug ads among adolescents. Communication Research, 35(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207313158
16.
CummingsJ. J.ReevesB. (2022). Stimulus sampling and research integrity. In JussimL.KrosnickJ. A.StevensS. T. (Eds.), Research integrity: Best practices for the social and behavioral sciences (p. 203–223). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190938550.003.0008
17.
DasandiN.GrahamH.HudsonD.JankinS.vanHeerde-HudsonJ.WattsN. (2022). Positive, global, and health or environment framing bolsters public support for climate policies. Communications Earth & Environment, 3(1), 239. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00571-x
18.
DasSarmaA.ProustV. (2025). “We Want Entire Freedom:” The New Orleans Tribune and the Formation of Counterpublics Through Affective Discourse. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 0(0), 10776990251332897. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990251332897
19.
DjupegotI. L. (2020). Investigating young adults’ perceived effectiveness of textual information about food-related nudging. British Food Journal, 122(2), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2019-0649
20.
DoranR.HanssD.LarsenS. (2017). Intentions to make sustainable tourism choices: Do value orientations, time perspective, and efficacy beliefs explain individual differences?Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2016.1179129
21.
EvansH.-C.DyllL.Teer-TomaselliR. (2018). Communicating climate change: Theories and perspectives. In Leal FilhoW.ManolasE.AzulA. M.AzeiteiroU. M.McGhieH. (Eds.), Handbook of climate change communication: Vol. 1 (pp. 107–122). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69838-0_7
22.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2016). Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism: The mediating role of emotions. Science Communication, 38(1), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015617941
23.
FeldmanL.HartP. S.MilosevicT. (2017). Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers’ coverage of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 26(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515595348
24.
FritscheI.MassonT. (2021). Collective climate action: When do people turn into collective environmental agents?Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.05.001
25.
GoddardR. D.HoyW. K.HoyA. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003
26.
GodinhoC. A.YardleyL.MarcuA.MowbrayF.BeardE.MichieS. (2016). Increasing the intent to receive a pandemic influenza vaccination: Testing the impact of theory-based messages. Preventive Medicine, 89, 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.05.025
27.
GviliY.LevyS. (2016). Antecedents of attitudes toward eWOM communication: Differences across channels. Internet Research, 26(5), 1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-08-2014-0201
28.
HallM. G.SafferA. J.NoarS. M. (2019). A secondary audience’s reactions to “the real cost” advertisements: Results from a study of U.S. Young Adult Smokers and Susceptible Nonsmokers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(2, Suppl 1), S57–S64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.08.005
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2016). The influence of climate change efficacy messages and efficacy beliefs on intended political participation. PLoS ONE, 11(8), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157658
31.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis a regression-based approach, 2nd edn.Guilford Press.
32.
HeathY.GiffordR. (2006). Free-market ideology and Environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505277998
HornseyM. J.FieldingK. S. (2016). A cautionary note about messages of hope: Focusingon progress in reducing carbon emissions weakens mitigation motivation. Global Environmental Change, 39, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.003
35.
HornseyM. J.FieldingK. S. (2020). Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12058
36.
HornseyM. J.FieldingK. S.McStayR.ReserJ. P.BradleyG. L.GreenawayK. H. (2015). Evidence for motivated control: Understanding the paradoxical link between threat and efficacy beliefs about climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.02.003
37.
IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In PörtnerH. -O.RobertsD. C.TignorM.PoloczanskaE. S.MintenbeckK.AlegríaA.CraigM.LangsdorfS.LöschkeS.MöllerV.OkemA.RamaB. (Eds.), Contribution of working group II to the Sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.og/10.1017/9781009325844.
38.
JacksonS. (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. Guilford Press.
39.
JensenJ. D.LoewenS.BergerJ.UpshawS. J.ChristyK. R.LillieH. M. (2022). Targeted communication and race: Explicating perceived message relevance. Psychology & Health, 39(9), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2022.2132502
40.
JensenJ. D.KingA. J.CarcioppoloN.DavisL. (2012). Why are tailored messages more effective? A multiple mediation analysis of a breast cancer screening intervention. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 851–868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01668.x
41.
JugertP.GreenawayK. H.BarthM.BüchnerR.EisentrautS.FritscheI. (2016). Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.08.003
42.
KaiserJ. (2020). Disentangling the effects of thematic information and emphasis frames and the suppression of issue-specific argument effects through value-resonant framing. Political Communication, 37(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1658662
KimB.-H.PasadeosY.BarbanA. (2001). On the deceptive effectiveness of labeled and unlabeled advertorial formats. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_02
45.
LammA. E.McCannR. G. H.HoweP. D. (2022). I could but I don’t: What does it take to adopt pro-environmental behaviors in the United States?Energy Research & Social Science, 93, 102845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102845
46.
LandmannH.RohmannA. (2020). Being moved by protest: Collective efficacy beliefs and injustice appraisals enhance collective action intentions for forest protection via positive and negative emotions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101491
47.
LawsN.ChojnickaJ. (2020). “A future to believe in”: introducing varieties of advocacy journalism. The examples sustainability and the sanders campaign. Journalism Studies, 21(9), 1261–1283. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1742773
48.
LeeS.LeeN.KirkpatrickC. E. (2021). Effects of Communication Source and Racial Representation in Clinical Trial Recruitment Flyers. Health Communication, 38(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1976361
49.
LoughK.McIntyreK. (2021). A systematic review of constructive and solutions journalism. Journalism, 24(5), 1069–1088. https://doi.org/org/10.1177/14648849211044559
50.
LoyL. S.HamannK. R. S.ReeseG. (2020). Navigating through the jungle of information. Informational self-efficacy predicts climate change-related media exposure, knowledge, and behaviour. Climatic Change, 163(4), 2097–2116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02918-9
Martel-MorinM.LachapelleE. (2022). Code red for humanity or time for broad collective action? Exploring the role of positive and negative messaging in (de)motivating climate action. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 1–13. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2022.968335
53.
McGintyE. E.NiederdeppeJ.HeleyK.BarryC. L. (2017). Public perceptions of arguments supporting and opposing recreational marijuana legalization. Preventive Medicine, 99, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.01.024
McIntyreK. E.LoughK. (2021). Toward a clearer conceptualization and operationalization of solutions journalism. Journalism, 22(6), 1558–1573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918820756
56.
McKeeverB. W.McKeeverR.ChoiM.HuangS. (2023). From advocacy to activism: A multi-dimensional scale of communicative, collective, and combative behaviors. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 100(3), 569–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231161035
57.
MeijersM. H. C.WonnebergerA.AzroutR.TorfadóttirR.“HeatherBrickC. (2023). Introducing and testing the personal-collective-governmental efficacy typology: How personal, collective, and governmental efficacy subtypes are associated with differential environmental actions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 85, 101915.
58.
MidberryJ.BrownD. K.PotterR. F.ComfortR. N. (2024). The influence of visual frame combinations in solutions journalism stories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 101(1), 230–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221109235
59.
NanX.ZhaoX. (2010). The influence of liking for antismoking PSAs on adolescents’ smoking-related behavioral intentions. Health Communication, 25(5), 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.484877
60.
PeerE.RothschildD.GordonA.EverndenZ.DamerE. (2022). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54(4), 1643–1662. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3
61.
PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2011). The Elaboration Likelihood Model. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology ( Vol. 1, pp. 224–245). SAGE.
RimalR. N.RealK. (2003). Perceived Risk and Efficacy beliefs as motivators of change: Use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 370–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00844.x
65.
RobertoA. J.MongeauP. A.LiuY.HashiE. C. (2019). “Fear the flu, not the flu shot”: A test of the extended parallel process model. Journal of Health Communication, 24(11), 829–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2019.1673520
66.
SabherwalA.BallewM. T.van der LindenS.GustafsonA.GoldbergM. H.MaibachE. W.KotcherJ. E.SwimJ. K.RosenthalS. A.LeiserowitzA. (2021). The Greta Thunberg effect: Familiarity with Greta Thunberg predicts intentions to engage in climate activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(4), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12737
67.
ShenF.SheerV. C.LiR. (2015). Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 44(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1018467
68.
SkurkaC.TroyC.CuiZ.ZúñigaH.Gilde. (2022). Efficacy constructs in media use and effects: Organizing and appraising the literature. Annals of the International Communication Association, 47(1), 114–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2022.2142150
69.
SlaterM. D.OliverM. B.AppelM.TchernevJ. M.SilverN. A. (2018). Mediated wisdom of experience revisited: delay discounting, acceptance of death, and closeness to future self. Human Communication Research, 44(1), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqx004
TaoT. J.ChanF. H. F.JinJ.BarryT. J. (2022). The effects of efficacy framing in news information and health anxiety on coronavirus-disease-2019-related cognitive outcomes and interpretation bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(11), 2943–2956. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001223
73.
ThierK.LinT. (2022). How solutions journalism shapes support for collective climate change adaptation. Environmental Communication, 16(8), 1027–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2143842
74.
ThierK.NamkoongK. (2023). Identifying major components of solutions-oriented journalism: A review to guide future research. Journalism Studies, 24(12), 1557–1574. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2230314
75.
ThorsonE.WicksR.LeshnerG. (2012). Experimental methodology in journalism and mass communication research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(1), 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699011430066
76.
TodorovA.ChaikenS.HendersonM. D. (2002). The Heuristic-Systematic Model of Social Information Processing. In DillardJ. P.PfauM. (Eds), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice (pp. 195-212). Sage Publications, Inc.
77.
TurnerM. M.JangY.TurnerS. (2021). Information-processing and cognitive theories. In ThompsonT. L.SchulzP. J. (Eds.), Health communication theory (pp. 133–156). Wiley Blackwell.
78.
TysonA.KikuchiE. (2024, June27). About 3 in 10 Americans would seriously consider buying an electric vehicle. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/?p=179414
79.
van KriekenK.SandersJ. (2021). What is narrative journalism? A systematic review and an empirical agenda. Journalism, 22(6), 1393–1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919862056
80.
van ValkengoedA. M.StegL. (2019). Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nature Climate Change, 9(2), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y
81.
van ZomerenM.SpearsR.LeachC. W. (2010). Experimental evidence for a dual pathway model analysis of coping with the climate crisis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.006
82.
VendemiaM. A.CodutoK. D.Lee-WonR. J. (2019). When are emotional online product reviews persuasive? Exploring the effects of reviewer status and valence in consumer purchase decisions. Communication Research Reports, 36(5), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2019.1683532
83.
WilligI.Blach-ØrstenM.BurkalR. (2022). What is “Good” climate journalism? Public perceptions of climate journalism in Denmark: Journalism practice. Journalism Practice, 16(2/3), 520–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.2016069
84.
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
85.
WitteK.CameronK. A.MckeonJ. K.BerkowitzJ. M. (1996). Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health Communication, 1(4), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/108107396127988
86.
ZhaoX.StrasserA.CappellaJ. N.LermanC.FishbeinM. (2011). A measure of perceived argument strength: Reliability and validity. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2010.547822
