Role of Emotion in Public Information on Environmental Risks and Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Anneloes Meijnders and Cees Midden, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands; and Henk Wilke, Leiden University, Netherlands
What role does emotion play in the provision of public information about the risks of environmental pollution? This is a question that is asked in the research project on the 'Role of emotion in public information on environmental risks and pro-environmental behaviour'. This article describes the experimental research that has been conducted that forms part of the National Research Programme on Global Air Pollution and Climate Change in the Netherlands. In the project research is being done into the effect of fear appeals in this form of public information and behaviour, based on a dual-process approach of persuasion.
Environmental behaviour can be defined as human behaviour that
has an influence on the quality of the physical environment in
which we live. According to this definition, the widest variety
of actions can be described as environmental behaviour. However,
one should in fact note that the influence on the environment
is often an unintentional side-effect of the behaviour. In order
to understand individual behaviour in regard to the environment
using social dilemma theory, one can assume that such behaviour
is governed by three motives. In the first place, the individual
is driven by the desire to profit as much as possible from the
collective good, such as the energy stocks or a clean and inhabitable
environment. At the same time, individual behaviour is driven
by the equity motive; the wish to profit from the collective good
to the same degree as other people. Finally, one has the efficiency
motive, which means that the individual wants to deal with the
collective good as efficiently as possible. This implies that,
should the individual realise that the continued existence of
the collective good is in danger, then he/she will be more inclined
to cooperate with measures to avert the danger, provided these
are viewed as effective. The idea that danger can be a motive
for challenging attitudes and behaviour is an important point
of departure of the large amount of research that has been conducted
since the 1950s into the effect of fear appeals. A fear appeal
is a persuasive message which appeals to feelings of fear and
concern with respect to a certain threat, in order to convince
people that they will have to change their behaviour. While much
research has been conducted into the attitudinal and behavioural
effects of such messages, at present little is known about the
underlying processes that explain such effects. In the present
project we are researching the effect of fear appeals in public
information about environmental risks and pro-environmental behaviour
using a dual-process approach of persuasion.
According to the dual-process approach, a persuasive message can be processed in two fundamentally different ways by those who receive it. The recipients can process the message systematically, which means that they think extensively about the content of the message. They then base their attitude on the arguments that are presented in the message.
But a persuasive message can also be processed superficially. When message recipients establish their attitude through superficial processing, they rely on aspects of the message that have nothing to do with content, such as the expertise of the source, or the attractiveness of the layout. Attitudes that are established by systematic processing are more stable and more firmly related to actual behaviour than those that are the result of superficial message processing.
An important question is how people can be motivated to take the trouble to process a persuasive message systematically. There are indications that the arousal of feelings of fear and concern in regard to a risk leads to more extensive processing of information about the remedies for the risk. This leads to our first experiment, in which we tested the hypothesis that the appeal to feelings of concern about the enhanced greenhouse effect--more than just an increase of knowledge--leads to more extensive processing of information about energy saving behaviour.
METHOD
This computer driven experiment was participated in by 129 people.
The test subject were nonselectively distributed over four experimental
and two control conditions. In the first part of the experiment,
the test subjects in the experimental conditions were shown a
message about the enhanced greenhouse effect. There were two
versions of this message: a somewhat alarming version and a very
alarming one. The somewhat alarming version explained what the
enhanced greenhouse effect is, what its causes are, and its consequences.
In the very alarming version, the same explanation was given,
but with photographs of possible consequences (such as flooding,
drought). The test subjects in the control conditions were given
no message about the enhanced greenhouse effect.
In the second part of the experiment, all test subjects were exposed
to a persuasive message in which a plea was made for the use of
a new type of energy-efficient lamp. This message, too, came
in two versions: one in which a number of weak arguments were
presented in favour of the lamp, and one with strong arguments.
The strength of the arguments was determined in advance in a
pilot project.
The last part of the experiment consisted of the completion of a questionnaire. This questionnaire consisted, among other things, of manipulation checks and measures of three indicators of systematic information processing: thoughts about the lamp generated while reading the message, recall of the arguments that were presented in the message, and the effect of the strength of argument on attitude in regard to the use of the lamp. It was assumed that the more intensively as persuasive message is processed, the more thoughts are generated during message exposure and the better the arguments in the message are recalled. In addition there is a greater chance that attitudes are influenced by the message arguments.
RESULTS
The manipulation checks revealed that the very alarming message about the enhanced greenhouse effect was indeed found to be more alarming than the somewhat alarming message. The weak arguments in favour of the lamp, as expected, were found to be significantly weaker and less convincing than the strong ones. In the experimental conditions, attitudes about the use of the energy-efficient lamp were found to be more positive than in the control conditions. Dealing with the risks of the enhanced greenhouse effect prior to supplying information about the energy-efficient lamp thus resulted in more positive attitudes towards the use of the lamp than just supplying information about the lamp.
Whether the persuasive message about the energy-efficient lamp consisted of weak or strong arguments only appeared to have an influence on attitudes on the use of the lamp, provided this message was preceded by a somewhat alarming presentation of the risks of the enhanced greenhouse effect. There was no effect of strength of argument under the control conditions. Neither was there a strength of argument effect if the persuasive message about the lamp was preceded by a very alarming presentation of the risks of the enhanced greenhouse effect. This condition, however, did generate the most thoughts derived from the lamp message, which indicates that attention was indeed paid to this message. There was no effect on the third indicator of systematic processing: the recall of arguments.
CONCLUSIONS
The experiment attempted to demonstrate whether people can be stimulated to systematically process information about energy saving behaviour. This was done by appealing to feelings of concern about the enhanced greenhouse effect. The experiment showed that, after a somewhat alarming presentation of the risks of the enhanced greenhouse effect, people were more inclined to more extensively process a persuasive message about energy saving behaviour. Only when this message contained strong arguments this resulted in a more positive attitude to behaviour. The very alarming presentation of the risks appeared to lead directly to more positive attitudes to energy saving behaviour. Even though people appeared to reflect on the arguments presented, it was not the quality of the arguments that was decisive, but rather concern for the risk.
In the remaining two years of the project, there are a number of experiments on the agenda in which the effects of fear appeals will be studied on information processing, attitudes and behaviour. At present we are conducting an experiment which studies the stability over time of the attitudinal change achieved. A field experiment is also being prepared, which will compare the attitudinal and behavioural effects of an emotion-oriented versus strictly informative communication about the enhanced greenhouse effect and energy saving behaviour.
For more information:
Anneloes Meijnders or Cees Midden
EUT (Eindhoven University of Technology)
Faculty of Technology Management
P.O. Box 513
5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel.: +31 40 2474210, Fax: +31 40 2449875
e-mail: A.L.MEIJNDERS@TM.TUE.NL
REFERENCES
Baron, R., Logan, H., Lilly, J., Inman, M., and Brennan, M. (1994).
Negative emotion and message processing. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 30, 181-201.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing
and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 752-766.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes.
Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Midden, C.J.H. (1993). Milieubedreiging als gedragsmotief: Cognitieve
en sociale oorzaken van onderwaardering. Milieu, 1993/1, 8-13.
(Environmental threat as motive for behaviour: Cognitive and social
causes of under evaluation)
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and Persuasion:
Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown
Company Publishers.
Wilke, H.A.M. (1990). Attuning individual and group interests.
Inaugural lecture, University of Leiden.