Emotional mechanisms are frequently used to inspire good environmental behaviour. But how effective are they at inspiring actual, sustainable change?

Perhaps not as much as previously believed, according to a new study from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) which challenged participants to put their money where their mouths are.

The research examined how three climate-related emotions – anger, compassion and hope – can directly increase pro-environmental behaviour. Participants were then invited to donate their participation fees to charity. The results surprised the researchers.

“We knew already that when people are angry, they are more motivated and have stronger intentions,” explains Christian Klöckner, a professor at NTNU’s Department of Psychology, who researches why people make environmentally friendly–or unfriendly–choices.

“When people have a bad conscience, they are more willing to accept climate policies. And we know that people need to hope that something can be done. Otherwise they don’t do anything,” he continues.
“In this recent study, we wanted to put people’s intentions to the test.”

Anger, compassion and hope

The power of these motivating factors has been tried and tested in previous studies. If people are angry they are more likely to want to hold climate criminals to account. If they are compassionate then they are inclined to support victims. And if they have hope they have intention.

The new research surveyed over 2,000 individuals in Norway and Poland. All participants were given 200 kroner or 20 złoty and exposed to a series of short stories, designed to trigger different types of emotions relating to the climate.

“We used these stories to find out whether the participants intended to do something and then gave them the possibility to actually donate the money,” says Klöckner.

"We also gave them another option, to work through a number of pretty boring sheets, where they had to find patterns. In return we, the organisers, donated on their behalf. The more they did, the more we donated.”
This ‘real impact task’ makes the study stand out from other research in the field. The unexpected result was that the number of participants who changed their expected behaviour based on the emotional content they read, was negligible at best.

“Very few, hardly any gave any more money because of the emotions they had been exposed to, as compred to people who did not read the stories. We were surprised,” admits Klöckner.

Hope for the future

That is not to say the results should be exclusively considered in a negative light. The meaning of the research is much more nuanced than ‘people don’t do what they say they’re going to do’.

Klöckner and his research team at NTNU’s Department of Psychology have previously developed an instrument to measure complex emotions triggered by climate change. The emotional picture appears to be more complicated than simple ‘climate anxiety’.

“We looked at psychological mindsets in another project for relating to energy saving,” explains Klöckner. “In one large study to reduce households’ energy consumption, we found our interventions actually reduced energy consumption, but they didn't change people's psychological mindsets.”

Some people change their intentions because of emotional information, while those who make actual positive change (e.g. reducing electricity consumption) are not necessarily doing so for the same reasons.

“The eventual energy saving had very little do with the individuals’ intention to do it.”

A charitable perspective

Non-profit organisations could benefit greatly by this research. Their work is often reliant on financial contribitions from supporters, so understanding what inspires them to start, stop or continue donating is influential.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was the recipient of donations in this study. Denise Kohn, Senior Corporate Advisor for Partnerships at WWF Norway, explains that the organisation knowingly uses anger, compassion and hope in their fundraising, often followed by a call to action.

“We know that our monthly donors support for an average of 5 to 6 years,” says Kohn. “All new research that can help us understand donor motivation better, is of interest.”

The emotional factors involved in climate change are particularly challenging to comprehend, such is the enormity of the issue.

“We have never been particularly successful in fundraising on climate alone; nature is a much stronger entry point, and current political and geopolitical circumstances mean that other issues often take priority in public attention,” explains Kohn.

Ongoing concerns

The research demonstrates that anger, compassion and hope play vital roles in helping shape people’s understanding of climate change. But, alone, they are not sufficient to produce actual measurable change.

Together with their Polish counterparts from the University of Warsaw, the research team from NTNU demonstrates that the motivation behind actual change is more complex than one single overpowering emotion. The research team now intends to fund an even larger survey across ten countries.

“We will continue to research this subject, to find out more about the differences between people in the complex patterns of emotional responses to climate change and how they relate to real behaviour,” says Klöckner.