The case for climate communication field experiments

The field experiments may test different communication strategies and their effectiveness in promoting climate-relevant behaviors among a target audience. NGOs, citizens, athletes, entertainers, businesses, or politicians can be the messenger or target group of a communication field experiment, for example. Researchers can either address their target groups directly or via influential messengers. For instance, researchers could partner with environmental organizations that have established platforms and engaged audiences. Informed by behavioral science, they could design real-world field experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of various messaging approaches in encouraging individuals to take effective climate actions. Given that climate advocacy aims to influence behavior, the field experiments need to adhere to ethical standards. To maintain trust and credibility, such field experiments should be transparent in that they aim to get the audience to take high-impact climate actions.

One possible experiment is to contact influencers on social media. They could be invited to share pre-prepared climate content on their channels. Before contacting them, influencers would be randomly divided into different groups, with each group receiving a different message. The messages could be developed based on existing climate communication research (e.g., laboratory or field experiments in other contexts) and adapted to the respective context. The success of the intervention would be measured by influencers’ willingness to share the provided content and followers’ engagement with that content through likes and comments. Ideally, such field experiments would also measure actions taken in the real world.

Benefits of combining advocacy with field research

Combining advocacy with field research has four main potential benefits, namely fostering more evidence-based climate advocacy, accelerating climate action, being relatively easy to implement, and enhancing researchers’ well-being. First, conducting field research fosters more evidence-based climate advocacy. By designing field experiments with behavioral metrics that are linked to the communication measure, researchers can gather valuable data on what advocacy strategies work to inspire impactful climate action across different roles and contexts. To date, behavioral science for climate action has strongly focused on individual consumer behavior, yet behavioral interventions alone are often not sufficient to drive significant change, which requires complementary changes in incentives, infrastructure, and culture [12]. We advocate for a stronger emphasis on empowering individuals to drive political, economic, and cultural changes beyond their role as consumers, and to focus consumer actions on the highest-emitting behaviors such as flying, driving, and eating meat [2]. Sharing the findings of such field experiments with a broad research community informs more effective future campaigns and promising research avenues.

Second, combining advocacy with field experiments may accelerate climate action. Publishing scientific studies can take years and may only reach small, mainly academic audiences. Field experiments with the top 10% could lead to meaningful climate action among a powerful and influential group long before the final study results are published. If a communication intervention motivates influencers to amplify climate messaging on social media, it has the potential to catalyze immediate, wide-reaching awareness and action. The selection of experimental interventions should be based on theoretical and/or empirical studies that analyze climate communication interventions [13]. While prior studies may not explicitly test backlash or backfire effects, their insights can help refine messaging strategies to enhance effectiveness and reduce potential unintended negative consequences.

Third, climate advocacy experiments in the field are relatively easy to implement. Researchers interested in conducting field experiments can draw on recommendations for successful implementation from behavioral sciences [14]. Climate communication field experiments can be conducted with minimal funding. Many of the necessary resources (such as email databases or social media platforms) are publicly available or accessible through partnerships with organizations. Compared to some types of activism such as civil disobedience, the psychological hurdle to engage in climate advocacy may be lower and could be particularly interesting for researchers with limited experience in public outreach on climate issues, particularly when drawing on evidence-based sources of recommended actions. Thus, there is potential for a major expansion of this type of climate advocacy.

Lastly, engaging in more climate advocacy might be beneficial for researchers to increase their sense of self-efficacy and authenticity and to cope with their emotions constructively. Many researchers are very concerned about the current state of the climate [15]. If researchers are unable to express the urgency of acting on climate science, they might experience distress or distance themselves from the problem as a self-protective mechanism. Taking care of researchers’ emotions in relation to climate change can promote innovative research [5]. Thus, climate advocacy by researchers may not only encourage climate action by the target group but also positively influence future research and researchers’ well-being.