Somewhere in Geneva, a researcher named Tobias Brosch and his team read through 71 separate studies involving more than 216,000 people, all to answer one deceptively simple question: what actually gets people to act on climate change? The answer, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, is heartening in a way that might surprise you — because nearly every approach we try seems to work to some degree.
The team, based at the University of Geneva's Consumer Decision and Sustainable Behavior Lab, dug into 15 different communication strategies that governments and nonprofits use every year, spending millions of dollars to encourage climate action. Some strategies loaded people up with facts to close gaps in knowledge. Others pulled at the heartstrings by evoking awe at the beauty of naturehol. Some highlighted the health or financial consequences of climate change, a trick researchers call "bounded rationality" that makes big complicated problems feel more personal and easier to grasp.
Here's the encouraging part: almost all of these approaches nudged people toward greener intentions and behaviors, and even toward supporting climate policies. "Our research shows that almost all of these strategies are likely to have a positive effect," says Brosch, who led the study with postdoctoral researcher Mario Herberz.
But there's a twist that matters for anyone crafting a slogan, poster, or social post. The only strategies that flopped were the ones built on responsibility — messages like "success depends largely on you." Those, the researchers found, barely moved the needle and could even backfire, sparking a defensive reaction known as reactance.
And when it came to the winners, emotion beat information hands down. "Campaigns that evoke a strong emotional response — particularly through storytelling or by inspiring a sense of wonder at the beauty of nature — are significantly more effective than simply presenting facts and scientific evidence," the researchers found. Messages built on moral, ethical, or religious grounds, that tap into our connection to something greater than ourselves, performed especially well. Adding images to a message also gave it a boost.
That's good news for a planet where the science is settled and the real challenge has shifted from knowing what's wrong to actually doing something about it. "Despite these differences, the fact that almost all of these strategies can have a positive effect is encouraging," Brosch notes. He points out that most studies measured how people responded after seeing a message just once — and repetition tends to strengthen impact. So the message for campaigners is clear: don't just hand people a graph. Tell them a story, show them a stunning image of a forest or a mountain, and let the wonder do the persuading. There's plenty of room to make climate communication better, and we're just beginning to figure out how.