The threats posed by climate change are enormous: extreme weather events, rising sea levels, accelerating species extinction and more dominate media coverage — and understandably cause fear. However, it is both important and very much possible to not become paralyzed by these fears, and instead learn to deal with such negative feelings and worries constructively.
In this issue of “Study of the Month”, we discuss the publication “Coping with climate change: Three insights for research, intervention, and communication to promote adaptive coping to climate change” (Mah et al., 2020).
Mah, A. Y. J., Chapman, D. A., Markowitz, E. M., & Lickel, B. (2020). Coping with climate change: Three insights for research, intervention, and communication to promote adaptive coping to climate change. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 75, 102282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102282
What question does the study address?
The study provides an overview of psychological research findings that may help people to develop positive ways of dealing with climate-related anxiety.
One key concept in this area of study is “resilience” — the ability to cope with change and the stresses that may come with it. Another is the idea of “coping strategies” — the behaviours and mental models people use to manage fear and anxiety, which can be categorised as either adaptive (functional) or maladaptive (dysfunctional).
Adaptive strategies are those that help people manage emotional and psychological stress, reduce the risks underlying their fears, develop practical options for dealing with actual negative events (such as floods or wildfires), and adjust to changing conditions.
Maladaptive strategies — such as denying climate change or downplaying its consequences — may reduce feelings of stress in the short term but do little to address the underlying risks (i.e. mitigate climate change) and do not help with preparing for future climate-induced challenges.
Which methodology was used, and why is it reliable?
The study is a review article written without a systematic approach to literature search. Its reliability stems from the fact that it was authored by several recognized experts on the topic and subsequently went through an academic peer-review process. Peer review is the standard practice in scholarly journals, where manuscripts are evaluated by other specialists in the field who were not involved in the study.
However, non-systematic review articles always carry the risk of conscious or unconscious “cherry picking,” meaning that only studies aligning with the authors’ preexisting views are cited. This makes it especially important to critically assess such studies. We did so and consulted Dr. Anne Reif from the University of Hamburg, whose research also concerns this topic. In her view, the findings presented in the study are largely consistent with the current state of research in communication science.
Review articles also face the challenge that many of their recommendations remain fairly abstract and generic. As Hendrik Meyer, doctoral researcher in climate communication, points out, the article should be complemented by more nuanced, case-specific findings when it comes to designing communication campaigns and similar initiatives.
What are the key findings, and why are they relevant for climate communication?
The authors emphasize at the outset that there is no single best or “right” way to promote adaptive (that is, functional) coping strategies. However, scientific insights do provide some useful guidance for practice.
One overarching lesson is that simply informing people about risks is not enough to motivate them to develop adaptive coping strategies. Caution is also needed when using fear-based messages, as these can create additional stress, which may in turn lead to maladaptive responses.
According to the study, effective communication does raise awareness of risks, but it does so while also informing people about different strategies for handling the resulting emotional reactions. Psychological research distinguishes between several approaches:
- Problem-focused approaches emphasize strategies for tackling the problem itself — in the case of the climate crisis, for example, how individuals can contribute to reducing emissions.
- Emotion-focused approaches concentrate on managing emotional responses, for instance through meditation and mindfulness practices.
- Meaning-focused approaches highlight the individual’s interpretation of events — the meaning they assign to them. For example, it may help not to see oneself as a passive victim of external developments, but as an active shaper of change.
- Social approaches stress the role of one’s immediate and wider environment in coping with fear and stress. Support from others can be both practical-material and emotional.
The authors also note that effective communication is highly context-dependent: different groups and communities respond differently to the same events, have access to different social and material resources, and prefer different coping strategies.
Finally, the authors stress that while individual coping strategies and resilience are important, they only reveal their full potential when employed in combination with ecological and social resilience — in other words, the resilience of ecosystems and social structures on which people depend.
What are the practical takeaways?
First of all, it is clear that good climate communication also has the task of helping people develop adaptive coping strategies (see above) for climate-related fears and worries. Simply raising awareness of risks is not enough — strategies for stress management and problem-solving should always be included.
Developing a diversity of strategies
The authors emphasize that there are many different strategies for dealing with emotional and psychological stress. Good communication therefore does not promote just one approach but instead offers a variety of options. This has three advantages.First, different coping strategies may be suitable for different stressors. For example, when a problem cannot (or can no longer) be changed — such as the fact that a certain degree of climate change has already occurred — problem-focused approaches may be less effective than strategies that focus on managing the resulting emotions.
Second, psychological research shows that having some personal flexibility in choosing coping strategies leads to better outcomes — individuals can select the strategy that best matches the specific challenge they are facing.
Third, people have individual preferences. For some, social strategies such as joining support groups or engaging in environmental organizations may work better than individually oriented ones such as meditation or mindfulness.
Strengthening resilience at all levels
The authors point out that resilience exists on several levels: psychological or individual resilience refers to the personal level, social resilience to the community level, and ecological resilience to the environmental level.
Good communication therefore supports strategies and behaviors that build resilience across multiple levels, or at the very least do not create negative effects at other levels. For example, participating in environmental initiatives can be an strategy for coping with the climate crisis on an individual level, while also contributing to ecological resilience at the environmental level.
As with most recommendations for effective communication, it is also important to recognize that different target groups bring different challenges, resources, needs, and preferences — and ideally, efforts to communicate about climate change should take these into account.