What spurs people to save the planet? Stories or facts?



What must people hear in order to modify their behavior and cease endangering the ecosystem as climate change approaches? According to a recent study from Johns Hopkins University, at least for certain people, stories are substantially more motivating than scientific facts.

The typical consumer paid more for eco-friendly goods after hearing a heartbreaking tale about a guy who died due to pollution than after hearing scientific information on water pollution. But Democrats made up the majority of the study's participants. Republicans made lower payments after hearing the tale rather than the straightforward facts.

The results, which were released this week in the journal One Earth, reveal that message framing has a significant impact on how individuals behave toward the environment. It also implies that there isn't a single, effective technique to inspire people and that policymakers need to put more effort into crafting messages that are relevant to particular target populations.

According to co-author Paul J. Ferraro, an authority in evidence-based environmental policy and the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Human Behavior and Public Policy at Johns Hopkins, "our findings imply the effectiveness of narrative may be more like preaching to the choir."

"Stories might even worsen things for individuals who are not already inclined toward environmental action."

There is a lack of scientific data that can help scientists decide how to most effectively inform the public about environmental threats. Scientists are being pushed to deliver more stories that appeal to people's emotions and personal experiences rather than sticking to the facts. However, scientists are hesitant to share these tales because, for instance, it is impossible to definitively link climate change to a fatal flood or forest fire.

With this study, researchers sought to determine whether storytelling has any real effect on altering people's behavior. If so, who benefits from it the most?

We suggested running a race between a narrative and a more conventional science-based message to see what is most important for influencing consumer behavior, Ferraro added.

Over 1,200 participants participated in a field experiment conducted by researchers at a farming convention in Delaware. Every person polled owned a lawn or garden and resided in a watershed with a history of pollution.

Researchers used a random-price auction to gauge how much people were ready to spend on products that lessen nutrient contamination. People had to see a video with either scientific information or a narrative on nutrient pollution before they could purchase the products.

Participants in the story group watched a factual account of a local man who died after consuming tainted shellfish, which contained flimsy but convincing ties to nutrient contamination. Participants in the scientific facts group watched a description of the effects of nutrient pollution on ecosystems and neighboring communities that was supported by scientific data.

On average, listeners who heard the story were more willing to pay than those who listened to the straightforward science. But when the findings were divided by political party, they were very skewed. While conservatives wanted to spend 14 percent less after reading the story, liberals were 17 percent more likely to do so.

Ferraro, who normally observes little variation in behavior between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to issues like energy conservation, was astonished by the stark behavioral disparity along party lines.

Hilary Byerly, the study's primary author and a postdoctoral associate at the University of Colorado, stated, "We hope this study encourages future work concerning how to communicate the seriousness of climate change and other global environmental concerns. "Should scientists deliver the messages? What is it about these stories that inspires Democrats to take environmental action while alienating Republicans?"

The National Science Foundation, the US Department of Agriculture, The Nature Conservancy, and the Penn Foundation all provided funding for this study.

Johns Hopkins University

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Do You Sleep on Your Back or Side? Here's The Research on 'Optimal' Sleep Positions

Image
William Dement, a renowned sleep researcher at Stanford University, is quoted as saying that after 50 years of study, the only reason he can think of for why we sleep is "because we become sleepy." Sleep certainly matters for our health and wellbeing even though it may be, as one researcher put it, "the sole major habit in quest of a function." Do we, however, have it right? What do studies on sleeping positions say? Is there a proper sleeping position? The majority of people favor sleeping on their side. This is encouraging news because people who sleep on their backs are more likely to have trouble falling asleep or breathing during the night. Most of the time, we have a tendency to shift around quite a bit at night. According to a study involving 664 sleepers, on average, participants slept on their side 54% of the time, their back 37% of the time, and their front 7% of the time. Males are more likely to change positions throughout the night and move their arms, ...
Read more

The Science of Beards

Image
Here are a few facts that scientists have learned about beards as the world prepares to celebrate amazing facial hair on World Beard Day (September 3). Strong Manly Beard Men who have beards appear to be more dominant, aggressive, and strong, according to numerous studies[1][2][3] that have been conducted. In fact, men claim that growing facial hair makes them feel[4] more manly. Men who choose to grow beards tend to have higher testosterone levels than men who choose to keep their faces clean-shaven, according to research. They are also more likely to be hostile sexists, or to support the patriarchy and male dominance, as well as to believe that women belong in the kitchen, according to research on this topic. The beards (and muscles) on these males might be used to enforce gender roles. Professor R. D. Guthrie proposed in his book "Evolution of human threat display organs" from the 1970s that beards could be utilized to scare male rivals by improving aggressive and threaten...
Read more

Scientists Uncover a Surprising Connection Between Appetite and Sun Exposure

Image
Recent studies from Tel Aviv University show that women are not affected by sun exposure on their hunger levels, but males are. The study shows how the metabolic pathway is engaged differently in men and women. It was carried out utilizing lab models. Males of both animal and human species, as well as those exposed to the sun, are reportedly triggered to produce a protein called p53 that repairs any DNA damage that may have been done to the skin as a result of the exposure. The body produces the hunger-inducing hormone ghrelin in response to p53 activation. In females, the hormone estrogen stops p53 from interacting with ghrelin, preventing the desire to eat after being in the sun. The ground-breaking investigation was directed by professor Carmit Levy and Ph.D. candidate Shivang Parikh of the Department of Human Genetics and Biochemistry at TAU's Sackler Faculty of Medicine. In addition to the Tel Aviv Sourasky (Ichilov), Assuta, Meir, and Sheba Medical Centers, Drs. Yiftach Gepne...
Read more