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 17 / 20 Methodology: Donald W. Hine, Michael J. Hine. Project administration: Donald W. Hine, Oindrila Bhattacharya`. Resources: Donald W. Hine, Gary Phillips. Software: Donald W. Hine, Oindrila Bhattacharya`, Gary Phillips. Supervision: Donald W. Hine. Validation: Donald W. Hine, Michael J. Hine, Wendy J. Phillips, Anthony D.G. Marks. Visualization: Donald W. Hine, Oindrila Bhattacharya`. Writing – original draft: Donald W. Hine, Keri L. Phillips, Michael J. Hine, Oindrila Bhattacharya`, Wendy J. Phillips, Aaron B. Driver. Writing – review & editing: Donald W. Hine, Keri L. Phillips, Michael J. Hine, Oindrila Bhattacharya`, Wendy J. Phillips, Aaron B. Driver. References 1. Calvin K, Dasgupta D, Krinner G, Mukherji A, Thorne PW, Trisos C, et al. IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2023. https://doi.org/10.59327/ipcc/ ar6-9789291691647 2. Cook J, Nuccitelli D, Green SA, Richardson M, Winkler B, Painting R, et al. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ Res Lett. 2013;8(2):024024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 3. Lynas M, Houlton BZ, Perry S. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environ

Res Lett. 2021;16(11):114005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 4. Hulme M. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press; 2009 Apr 30. 5. Carmichael JT, Brulle RJ. Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013. Environmental Politics. 2017;26(2):232–52. 6. Aspernäs J, Erlandsson A, Nilsson A. Motivated formal reasoning: Ideological belief bias in syllogistic reasoning across diverse political issues. Thinking & Reasoning. 2022;29(1):43–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2022.2038268 7. Bayes R, Druckman JN, Goods A, Molden DC. When and How Different Motives Can Drive Motivated Political Reasoning. Political Psychology. 2020;41(5):1031–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12663 8. Jost JT, Hennes EP, Lavine H. Hot political cognition: Its self-, group-, and system-serving purposes. 2013. 9. Schäfer MS, O’Neill S. Frame Analysis in Climate Change Communication: Approaches for Assessing Journalists’ Minds, Online Communication and Media Portrayals. In: Nisbet M, Ho S, Markowitz E, O’Neill S, Schäfer MS, Thaker J, editors. Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Commu- nication. New York: Oxford University Press. 2017. 10. Kahan DM. The politically motivated reasoning paradigm. Emerging Trends in Social & Behavioral Sciences. 2015. 11. Entman RM. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication. 1993;43(4):51–8. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

12. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci- ence.7455683 PMID: 7455683 13. Hine DW, Phillips WJ, Cooksey R, Reser JP, Nunn P, Marks ADG, et al. Preaching to different choirs: How to motivate dismissive, uncommitted, and alarmed audiences to adapt to climate change?. Global Environmental Change. 2016;36:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.002 14. Hart PS, Nisbet EC. Boomerang Effects in Science Communication. Commun Res. 2011;39(6):701–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646 15. Myers TA, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz AA. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change. 2012;113(3–4):1105–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6 16. Spence A, Pidgeon N. Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmen- tal Change. 2010;20(4):656–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002 17. Chi OH, Denton G, Gursoy D. Interactive effects of message framing and information content on carbon offsetting behaviors. Tour Manag. 2021;83:104244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104244 PMID: 33100457 18. Chadwick AE. Toward a theory of persuasive hope: effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Commun. 2015;30(6):598–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.916777 PMID: 25297455