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 16 / 20 Second, while our study explored a wide array of message and messenger attributes, none of the LIWC-based mes- sage attribute variables significantly predicted viewers’ motivation to take climate action. However, this does not imply that message content is unimportant. On the contrary, prior research on climate message framing suggests that how a message is structured and conveyed can play a critical role in shaping motivation and engagement [13,94–96]. Future research should continue to examine the impact of message framing and content, identifying which types of messages resonate most strongly with different audience segments. Third, it is important to note that our primary outcome variable was motivation to act, not actual behavior. A substantial body of research highlights the well-documented gap between intention and action [97,98]. While enhancing motivation is a necessary step on the pathway to behavior change, it does not ensure that change will follow. Beyond the variables assessed in the present study, future research could more deeply explore the role of communica- tion style in motivating climate-change mitigation. This includes examining how the delivery of messages—particularly by individuals with varying levels of public-speaking skills—may influence outcomes. It is possible that oratory style and pre- sentation techniques have an even greater impact on motivation than content alone. Our finding that messenger charac-

teristics such as attractiveness, sex, and age influenced viewer motivation underscores the importance of these peripheral cues in climate communication. Finally, examining audience characteristics—such as levels of climate concern and receptiveness to various commu- nication styles and messenger traits—could yield additional insights. Segmenting audiences based on theoretical frame- works of human values, cultural cognition, or environmental worldviews [99–102] may also help tailor communication strategies to improve impact and relevance. Conclusions Effectively communicating climate change requires thoughtful consideration of not just the message itself, but also the characteristics of the messenger and the values of the audience. In this study, we examined how linguistic and messenger attributes influenced viewers’ motivation to act on climate change, and whether these effects varied by political orientation. While linguistic features such as affiliation and achievement framing had modest and politically contingent effects, mes- senger attributes—particularly age, sex, attractiveness, and setting—were far stronger predictors of motivation across the board. These findings offer important insights for designing climate communication strategies. Tailoring message content to align with the values of specific audience segments may enhance motivational impact, as may attending to the periph- eral cues that shape how messages are received. However, our results also raise important ethical considerations. For

instance, although older, attractive male scientists filmed in natural settings were found to be the most motivating messen- gers, reliance on this demographic risks perpetuating narrow representations of scientific authority. Future communication efforts should therefore strive to strike a balance between what is effective and what is equita- ble and inclusive, ensuring that diverse voices are represented in climate discourse. Promoting representational diver- sity not only reflects social justice priorities but may also help to broaden trust and engagement across a wider range of communities. Author contributions Conceptualization: Donald W. Hine, Keri L. Phillips, Michael J. Hine, Aaron B. Driver, Anthony D.G. Marks, Gary Phillips. Data curation: Donald W. Hine, Anthony D.G. Marks. Formal analysis: Donald W. Hine, Michael J. Hine, Wendy J. Phillips, Anthony D.G. Marks. Funding acquisition: Donald W. Hine. Investigation: Donald W. Hine, Michael J. Hine, Wendy J. Phillips.