Jun 13, 2021 09:00:00

Whether or not a 'story' is effective in raising environmental issues may depend on political ideas.

In recent years, climate change

has threatened the lives of many people, and we are looking for ways to raise awareness of the need for environmental measures. An American research team experimented with the use of 'story' to emphasize the importance of addressing environmental issues and found that its effectiveness could depend on the subject's political ideas. ..

A story induces greater environmental contributions than scientific information among liberals but not conservatives: One Earth
https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322 (21) 00178-0

What spurs people to save the planet—stories or facts? | Hub
https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/04/27/climate-change-communications-are-far-from-one-size-fits-all/

Many scientists are trying to appeal to people that climate change is an imminent problem, but there is little scientific evidence to guide 'the best way to communicate environmental problems.' Some people think that 'environmental problems should be told not only through facts but also through emotional stories,' while others want to tell only facts that can be determined to be scientifically accurate.

So, a research team led by Professor Paul Ferraro, who studies behavioral economics and public policy at Johns Hopkins University , wonders if appealing through stories really helps change people's behavior, and if so, for whom. I conducted an experiment to find out. “We tried to compete with stories and more typical science-based messages to see what really matters in consumer sentiment,” Ferraro said.

The research team attended an agricultural event in Delaware, USA, and conducted a field experiment with 1,200 participants. All of the surveyed people owned lawns and gardens at home, and lived in areas where the environment was polluted by substances spilled from the land.

In this experiment, participants assigned to the 'story team' watched a video about 'a man who died after eating contaminated crustaceans.' Although the link between the man's death and environmental pollution is plausible, scientific evidence was scarce. Meanwhile, participants assigned to the 'Scientific Facts Team' watched a video based on scientific evidence about the impact of pollutants spilled from the land on ecosystems and surrounding communities.

After watching the video, all participants were given the opportunity to purchase products under $ 10 that could reduce pollutant spills, such as

safe fertilizers, soil test kits, and biochar. .. At this product sales event, the research team investigated how much participants are willing to pay to reduce environmental pollution.

As a result of analyzing the amount of money the participants paid to purchase the product, those who saw the video complaining about environmental problems in the story showed their intention to pay more than those who heard the scientific facts. However, the results differed depending on political opinion, with liberals increasing their willingness to pay for environmental products by 17% by listening to the story, while conservatives listen to the story. It seems that the willingness to pay money has decreased by 14%.

This study suggests that the way messages are conveyed may not only change people's behavior towards environmental issues, but may also require the message to be coordinated by the audience. 'For conservatives who aren't yet committed to environmental issues, the story may make things worse,' Ferraro said.