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 18 / 20 19. Nabi RL, Gustafson A, Jensen R. Framing Climate Change: Exploring the Role of Emotion in Generating Advocacy Behavior. Science Communica- tion. 2018;40(4):442–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018776019 20. Morton TA, Rabinovich A, Marshall D, Bretschneider P. The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change. 2011;21(1):103–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013 21. Jensen T. Ecologies of guilt in environmental rhetorics. Switzerland: Springer Nature. 2019. 22. Kolandai‐Matchett K, Armoudian M. Message framing strategies for effective marine conservation communication. Aquatic Conservation. 2020;30(12):2441–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3349 23. Stoll-Kleemann S. Feasible Options for Behavior Change Toward More Effective Ocean Literacy: A Systematic Review. Front Mar Sci. 2019;6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00273 24. Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG, Fielding KS. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Clim Change. 2016;6(6):622–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943 25. Feldman L, Hart PS. Broadening Exposure to Climate Change News? How Framing and Political Orientation Interact to Influence Selective Expo- sure. Journal of Communication. 2018;68(3):503–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy011

26. Baldwin M, Lammers J. Past-focused environmental comparisons promote proenvironmental outcomes for conservatives. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(52):14953–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610834113 PMID: 27956619 27. Feinberg M, Willer R. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(1):56–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612449177 PMID: 23228937 28. Wolsko C, Ariceaga H, Seiden J. Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2016;65:7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.005 29. Dahl T. Contested Science in the Media. Written Communication. 2014;32(1):39–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314557623 30. Makwanya P. An analysis of the language used in communication on climate change. Nawa: Journal of Language and Communication. 2010;4(2):128. 31. Porter KE, Hulme M. The emergence of the geoengineering debate in theUKprint media: a frame analysis. Geographical Journal. 2013;179(4):342–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12003 32. Pennebaker JW, Boyd RL, Jordan K, Blackburn K. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. 2015. 33. Veltri GA, Atanasova D. Climate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour. Public Underst Sci. 2017;26(6):721–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515613702 PMID: 26612869 34. Shapiro MA, Park HW. More than entertainment: YouTube and public responses to the science of global warming and climate change. Social Sci-

ence Information. 2014;54(1):115–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018414554730 35. Medimorec S, Pennycook G. The language of denial: text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics. Climatic Change. 2015;133(4):597–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1475-2 36. IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al. (eds), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. 2013. p. 1535. 37. Idso CD, Carter RM, Singer SF. Climate change reconsidered II: physical science. Chicago: The Heartland Institute. 2013. 38. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. In Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. 2014. p. 151. 39. Bailey A, Giangola L, Boykoff MT. How Grammatical Choice Shapes Media Representations of Climate (Un)certainty. Environmental Communica- tion. 2014;8(2):197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.906481 40. Benites-Lazaro LL, Mello-Théry NA, Lahsen M. Business storytelling about energy and climate change: The case of Brazil’s ethanol industry. Energy Research & Social Science. 2017;31:77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.008

41. Kapranov O. The framing of climate change discourse by Statoil. Topics in Linguistics. 2018;19(1):54–68. https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2018-0004 42. Landrum AR, Lull RB, Akin H, Jamieson KH. Making it about morals: Pope Francis shifts the climate change debate. In: 2016. 43. Whitmarsh L. What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming”. Public Underst Sci. 2008;18(4):401–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506073088 44. Villar A, Krosnick JA. Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: Does word choice matter?. Climatic Change. 2010;105(1–2):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9882-x 45. Schuldt JP, Konrath SH, Schwarz N. “Global warming” or “climate change”?: Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2011;75(1):115–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq073 46. Schuldt JP, Roh S. Of Accessibility and Applicability: How Heat-Related Cues Affect Belief in “Global Warming” Versus “Climate Change”. Social Cognition. 2014;32(3):217–38. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.3.217 47. Findlater KM, Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Donner SD. Six languages for a risky climate: how farmers react to weather and climate change. Climatic Change. 2018;148(4):451–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2217-z