IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v176y2023i3d10.1007_s10584-023-03489-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Increasing intention to reduce fossil fuel use: a protection motivation theory-based experimental study

Author

Listed:
  • Emily J. Kothe

    (Deakin University)

  • Mathew Ling

    (Deakin University)

  • Barbara A. Mullan

    (Curtin University)

  • Joshua J. Rhee

    (Deakin University)

  • Anna Klas

    (Deakin University)

Abstract

Reducing individual fossil fuel use is an important component of climate change mitigation, but motivating behaviour change to achieve this is difficult. Protection motivation theory (PMT) is a psychological framework that outlines the conditions under which people are more likely to be persuaded to take a specific response or action. This experimental study investigated the impact six different protection motivation theory-based messages had on intention to reduce fossil fuel use in a sample 3803 US adults recruited via Amazon Mechanical (MTurk). Only messages targeting self-efficacy and response efficacy increased intention to reduce fossil fuel use relative to the control message. However, only the self-efficacy message had an impact on its target construct (i.e. self-efficacy). As such, the mechanism for action for the response efficacy message is unclear. Furthermore, while the current study demonstrates that many of the PMT-related messages did not achieve changes in intention, this it is still possible that messages targeting these constructs could still lead to changes in intention in other modalities and when other message content is used. Given the urgency of responding to climate change, the potential for additive benefits of combining effective PMT-based messages should be considered irrespective of their mechanism as should research focused on how to effectively target other key PMT constructs.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily J. Kothe & Mathew Ling & Barbara A. Mullan & Joshua J. Rhee & Anna Klas, 2023. "Increasing intention to reduce fossil fuel use: a protection motivation theory-based experimental study," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:176:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03489-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-023-03489-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-023-03489-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-023-03489-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philip Bubeck & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Jonas Laudan & Jeroen C.J.H. Aerts & Annegret H. Thieken, 2018. "Insights into Flood‐Coping Appraisals of Protection Motivation Theory: Empirical Evidence from Germany and France," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(6), pages 1239-1257, June.
    2. Höök, Mikael & Tang, Xu, 2013. "Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change—A review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 797-809.
    3. Kathryn L. Doherty & Thomas N. Webler, 2016. "Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the Alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(9), pages 879-884, September.
    4. Connie Roser-Renouf & Edward Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz & Xiaoquan Zhao, 2014. "The genesis of climate change activism: from key beliefs to political action," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 163-178, July.
    5. Paul C. Stern, 2012. "Fear and hope in climate messages," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 572-573, August.
    6. San-Pui Lam, 2015. "Predicting support of climate policies by using a protection motivation model," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 321-338, May.
    7. Anneloes L. Meijnders & Cees J. H. Midden & Henk A. M. Wilke, 2001. "Role of Negative Emotion in Communication about CO2 Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 955-955, October.
    8. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.
    9. Joshua Ettinger & Peter Walton & James Painter & Thomas DiBlasi, 2021. "Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-19, January.
    10. Huth, William L. & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2018. "Controlling an Invasive Species through Consumption: The Case of Lionfish as an Impure Public Good," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 74-79.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katherine M. Crosman & Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes, 2019. "Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2329-2347, October.
    2. Radha Yadav & Dharmendra Kumar & Anil Kumar & Sunil Luthra, 2023. "How does anticipatory trauma reaction and climate‐friendly behaviour make an affect at the individual level? The role of social norms and self‐efficacy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4028-4045, November.
    3. Heidi Toivonen, 2022. "Themes of climate change agency: a qualitative study on how people construct agency in relation to climate change," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Lauren Feldman & P. Sol Hart, 2021. "Upping the ante? The effects of “emergency” and “crisis” framing in climate change news," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-20, November.
    5. Niall McLoughlin, 2021. "Communicating efficacy: How the IPCC, scientists, and other communicators can facilitate adaptive responses to climate change without compromising on policy neutrality," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Maddison Smith & Wiebke Finkler & Robert Aitken, 2023. "Connecting People with Science: A Proof-of-Concept Study to Evaluate Action-Based Storytelling for Science Communication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-20, July.
    7. Burton, N.A. & Padilla, R.V. & Rose, A. & Habibullah, H., 2021. "Increasing the efficiency of hydrogen production from solar powered water electrolysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Ritter, Hendrik & Zimmermann, Karl, 2019. "Cap-and-Trade Policy vs. Carbon Taxation: Of Leakage and Linkage," EconStor Preprints 197796, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    9. Brahma, Antara & Saikia, Kangkana & Hiloidhari, Moonmoon & Baruah, D.C., 2016. "GIS based planning of a biomethanation power plant in Assam, India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 596-608.
    10. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    11. Julie Davydova & Adam R. Pearson & Matthew T. Ballew & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2018. "Illuminating the link between perceived threat and control over climate change: the role of attributions for causation and mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 45-59, May.
    12. Ahmed, Saeed & Mahmood, Anzar & Hasan, Ahmad & Sidhu, Guftaar Ahmad Sardar & Butt, Muhammad Fasih Uddin, 2016. "A comparative review of China, India and Pakistan renewable energy sectors and sharing opportunities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 216-225.
    13. Marijn H. C. Meijers & Christin Scholz & Ragnheiður “Heather” Torfadóttir & Anke Wonneberger & Marko Markov, 2022. "Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic to combat climate change: comparing drivers of individual action in global crises," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 272-282, June.
    14. Jae Young Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2020. "Perceived Environmental Threats and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Investigating the Role of Political Participation Using a South Korean Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-16, May.
    15. Anna Borawska & Mariusz Borawski & Małgorzata Łatuszyńska, 2022. "Effectiveness of Electricity-Saving Communication Campaigns: Neurophysiological Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    16. Jing Han Siow & Muhammad Roil Bilad & Wahyu Caesarendra & Jia Jia Leam & Mohammad Azmi Bustam & Nonni Soraya Sambudi & Yusuf Wibisono & Teuku Meurah Indra Mahlia, 2021. "Progress in Development of Nanostructured Manganese Oxide as Catalyst for Oxygen Reduction and Evolution Reaction," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, October.
    17. Sardarabadi, Mohammad & Hosseinzadeh, Mohammad & Kazemian, Arash & Passandideh-Fard, Mohammad, 2017. "Experimental investigation of the effects of using metal-oxides/water nanofluids on a photovoltaic thermal system (PVT) from energy and exergy viewpoints," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 682-695.
    18. Castro-Santa, Juana & Drews, Stefan & Bergh, Jeroen van den, 2023. "Nudging low-carbon consumption through advertising and social norms," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    19. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    20. Fanta Barry & Marie Sawadogo & Maïmouna Bologo (Traoré) & Igor W. K. Ouédraogo & Thomas Dogot, 2021. "Key Barriers to the Adoption of Biomass Gasification in Burkina Faso," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-14, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:176:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03489-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.