More than scientists: How message and messenger attributes influence viewers’ climate change intentions

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331672 September 10, 2025 13 / 20 of any of the supplementary LIWC predictors varied as a function of political orientation failed to produce any significant effects. Discussion We examined the motivational impact of linguistic and messenger attributes of video messages comprising experts talking about climate change. We also examined if these effects varied as a function of political orientation (i.e., right or left leaning) of the message recipient. Using multilevel modelling, we determined that messenger attributes were more important predictors of viewer engagement than linguistic attributes, and that the effects of several message and mes- senger attributes on viewers’ climate change motivation varied as function of political orientation. Each of these findings are discussed in the sections that follow, along with the practical implications for designing more effective climate change messaging. Linguistic Framing We investigated if linguistic framing (i.e., message style and content) affected viewers’ motivation to seek out more infor- mation and/or take action to act on climate change. First, using the LIWC summary variables, we analyzed the extent to which messages contained analytical (formal, logical) language; clout (projecting expertise and confidence of author); authenticity (honest and personal tone); and emotional tone (positive, upbeat style). Second, using the LIWC drive vari- ables, we analyzed the extent to which languages contained affiliation (referencing others); achievement (referencing

success and failure); power (referencing status social hierarchies); reward focus (referencing incentives, positive goals); risk focus (referencing dangers, concerns). Finally, in an exploratory supplementary analysis, we investigated the pre- dictive effects of message length (total word count), average words per sentence, six letter words (a proxy for language sophistication, and temporal perspective (past, present or future focused messages). Of the 15 LIWC-derived message variables examined, only two—word count and future focus—significantly predicted viewers’ motivation to act on climate change. While all messages were short (under three minutes), those with slightly higher word counts may have allowed for more narrative development of persuasive arguments, thereby modestly enhancing engagement. Similarly, future- focused language may have helped viewers imagine the longer-term consequences of climate change and the benefits of proactive behavior, fostering a sense of hope, efficacy, and goal-directed thinking—psychological mechanisms known to support motivation and intention formation. This is consistent with Zhu et al. [84] who found countries with languages that grammatically highlight the future exhibit higher levels of climate concern and greater levels of climate mitigation activity. Despite these findings, it is important to note that these message features accounted for only a small proportion of within- person variance in motivation (approximately 3%), suggesting that while linguistic content may play a modest role, other

factors—particularly messenger attributes—are likely more influential in shaping audience responses. We also investigated if the effect of linguistic attributes of climate messages on climate change motivation is moder- ated by the political orientation of viewers. We correctly predicted that affiliative messages—those that contained greater proportion of collectivism and community-oriented words in its contents—would be more motivating for climate-change mitigation in left-leaning viewers. However, our prediction that messages with a climate-risk focus would increase mitiga- tion motivation in left-leaning viewers was not supported. Our prediction that messages that contain proportionally more power, achievement, and reward-oriented language would be more motivating for right-leaning viewers was partially supported. Messages containing more achievement- related language were more motivating for climate-change mitigation in right-leaning viewers. Whereas the effect of messages containing greater power and reward-oriented language on climate-change mitigation was not moderated by political orientation. These findings lend some support to the view that it may be beneficial to tailor and target climate messages to specific audience segments [85, 86; 87]. That is, it may be beneficial to target affiliation-related messages such as “we care about