Scary Warnings Promote Apathy, Not Action
by Matthew Sparkes, London, UK on 05.17.07
Professor Mike Hulme, of the Tyndall Centre at the UEA (my alma mater), has conducted research on attitudes to climate change warnings in the media. "There has been over-claiming or exaggeration, or at the very least casual use of language by scientists, some of whom are quite prominent," he told the BBC. He believes that the sensationalist warnings often given by the media lead to apathy rather than action. People subjected to the "Hollywoodisation" of climate change tended to think that it was inevitable, and beyond their capability to affect. A more sober approach would be more effective, he argues.
Is it better to shock people, or to give them the facts? I think that certain people will be pushed into action by worrying news reports, but sinking the whole world into an environmental-doom-depression is very counter-productive. :: BBC
See also :: Our Year in the Media :: Environmental Media Association's Awards Celebration
Kind of an ironic position, considering their ties with the King of Scary Warnings, George Monbiot. He makes Howard Kuntsler look like a high school cheerleader.
A similar but more actionable point was made by Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson in the excellent Age of Propaganda ( http://tinyurl.com/23fw7y )
Their research suggested that when the message outweighed the audience's ability to react, the message was demotivating. However, when a fear message was coupled with a simple and do-able response that seemed as if it might do some good, then there was a much higher liklihood of getting a response.
After all, if scary warnings didn't promote action, how did GW Bush get re-elected to a second term? It was the scary message of terrorism combined with the simple response (vote) that lead to the Bush 2nd term.
That, and cheating.
But anyone interested in advocacy, advertising, PR or media-jamming should definitely give the Age of Propaganda a read.
Thanks for the excellent pointer, Phil.
Monbiot seems to keep coming back with scary warnings because, as far as I can see, the mainstream messages get watered down to be palatable. This helps the public get onside, but it also takjes you further away from the truth.
If the message is hard to take, we can't blame the problem or the message. It is how we react, it's in our heads.
Personally I would like to see more messages reminding people to be thankful for what they have. If you tell people they have to make a 'sacrifice', they get upset. If you told them that today's level of energy & material use is historically unusual and unprecedented.....they may appreciate what they have even more.
I like one of the things I heard Monbiot say on TV recently. "A lot of people say we are too materialistic - but I don't think we are anywhere near materialistic enough. If we were, perhaps we wouldn't be so quick to throw away and dispose of products we feel bored with"
I think we need both measured conservative warnings as well as over the top panic producing warnings because different kinds of people are activated by different kinds of stimuli.
Previously from BBC...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5236482.stm