Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new research article, “How Hope and Doubt Affect Climate Change Mobilization” in the journal Frontiers in Communication.

The severe threats posed by anthropogenic climate change make hope and a sense of efficacy key ingredients in effective climate communication. Yet little is known about what makes individuals hopeful–or in contrast, doubtful– that humanity can reduce the problem, or how hope relates to activism. This study uses mixed methods with two national surveys to (1) identify what makes people hopeful or doubtful that humanity will address the problem (Study 1, N = 674), and (2) whether hopeful and doubtful appraisals are related to activism or policy support (Study 2, N = 1,310).

In Study 1, responses to open-ended questions reveal a lack of hope among the public. For those with hope, the most common reason relates to social phenomena–seeing others act or believing that collective awareness is rising (“constructive hope”). Hope for some, however, stems from the belief that God or nature will solve the problem without the need for human intervention (which we call “false hope”). The most prevalent doubts are low prioritization, greed, and intergroup conflict (i.e., the need for cooperation at various scales to successfully address the issue). We identified both “constructive” and “fatalistic” doubts. Constructive doubts are concerns that humanity won’t address the problem effectively, while fatalistic doubts are beliefs that we can’t address the problem even if we wanted to because it is in the hands of God or Mother Nature.

In Study 2, we used these emergent hope and doubt appraisals to develop survey measures. Regression analyses suggest that constructive hope and doubt predict increased policy support and political engagement, whereas false hope and fatalistic doubt predict the opposite. An interaction exists between constructive hope and doubt in predicting political behavioral intentions, which suggests that having hope that humans will reduce climate change, along with recognition that humans are not doing enough may also be constructive and motivate political action. Climate change communicators might consider focusing on constructive hope (e.g., human progress, the rise of clean energy), coupled with elements of constructive doubt (e.g., the reality of the threat, the need for more action), to mobilize action on climate change.

Key findings

• Many Americans who accept that global warming is happening cannot express specific reasons to be hopeful that we can address the problem and find it easier to identify doubts.
• The most commonly stated reasons for feeling hopeful are personal actions and perceived changes in social awareness and norms; less common reasons include human nature, government, scientists, and God.
• Among those who accept that global warming is happening, the primary reasons for doubt that we can limit global warming are the belief that it’s a low priority for most people, and greed. Other common doubts relate to politics, the need for international cooperation, the belief that it’s already too late, and concern that the public is ignorant and/or being misled.
• Hope and doubt are both significant predictors of political behaviors (e.g., donating to an organization) and support for greenhouse gas mitigation policies (e.g., regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant). Specifically, “constructive” forms of hope and doubt positively predict engagement, yet, “false” hope (e.g., wishful thinking) and “fatalistic” doubt (e.g., beliefs that there is nothing humans can do) appear to have negative effects on engagement.

Key lessons

• A lack of hope may undermine an individual’s response and collective efficacy, which are essential for motivating actions to solve the problem.
• Communicating that awareness is increasing, and highlighting efforts being made to address the problem (rather than progress already made, which can weaken motivation for some) may reinforce existing sources of hope among the public and support motivation to engage in climate issues. Hope, however, is not enough—action is essential.
• Hope is not always good and doubt is not always bad; the combination of constructive hope and doubt may actually be motivating, whereas false hope and fatalistic doubt may lead to avoidance, distancing, and inaction.

The full article is available here to download for free from Frontiers in Communication. Questions can be directed to climatechange@yale.edu with the subject line: Hope and Doubt Paper.

This project was supported by the Heising-Simons Foundation, the Schmidt Family Foundation, the U.S. Energy Foundation, the Grantham Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation.