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 20 / 20 76. Sylwester K, Purver M. Twitter Language Use Reflects Psychological Differences between Democrats and Republicans. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0137422. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137422 PMID: 26375581 77. Mehrabian A. Relations among political attitudes, personality, and psychopathology assessed with new measures of libertarianism and conserva- tism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 1996;18(4):469–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1804_7 78. Cooksey R. Judgment analysis: theory, methods, and applications. New York, NY: Academic Press. 1996. 79. Hine DW, Gifford R, Heath Y, Cooksey R, Quain P. A Cue Utilization Approach for Investigating Harvest Decisions in Commons Dilemmas. J Applied Social Pyschol. 2009;39(3):564–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00451.x 80. Rotundo M. The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy- capturing approach. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(1):66–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66 PMID: 11916217 81. Dahling JJ, Thompson MN. Contextual supports and barriers to academic choices: A policy-capturing analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2010;77(3):374–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.07.007 82. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Congdon R. HLM 6 for Windows. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. 2004.

83. Maas CJM, Hox JJ. Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling. Methodology. 2005;1(3):85–91. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.85 84. Zhu YP, Jiang H, Duan Y. Cross-cultural communication challenges in global environmental issues: Multilingual topic modeling of the Fukushima contaminated water discharge. Environmental Communication. 2025;:1–8. 85. Hine DW, Reser JP, Morrison M, Phillips WJ, Nunn P, Cooksey R. Audience segmentation and climate change communication: conceptual and methodological considerations. WIREs Climate Change. 2014;5(4):441–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.279 86. Hine DW, Phillips WJ, Driver AB, Morrison M. Audience segmentation and climate change communication. Oxford Encyclopaedia of Climate Change Communication. 2018. 87. Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Mertz CK. Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: an audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PLoS One. 2011;6(3):e17571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017571 PMID: 21423743 88. Scotto di Carlo G. The role of proximity in online popularizations: The case of TED talks. Discourse Studies. 2014;16(5):591–606. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461445614538565 89. Bernad-Mechó E, Valeiras-Jurado J. Multimodal engagement strategies in science dissemination: A case study of TED talks and YouTube science videos. Discourse Studies. 2023;25(6):733–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231161755

90. Fransen ML, Smit EG, Verlegh PWJ. Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: an integrative framework. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01201 PMID: 26322006 91. Zaller J. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press. 1992. 92. Tabbakh T, Durkin SJ. The effect of anti-tobacco ad length and skippability on perceived message effectiveness and emotional responsiveness. Health Commun. 2024:1–9. 93. Chaiken S. Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1979;37(8):1387–97. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1387 94. Campbell E, Uppalapati SS, Kotcher J, Maibach E. Communication research to improve engagement with climate change and human health: A review. Front Public Health. 2023;10:1086858. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1086858 PMID: 36777765 95. Guenther L, Jörges S, Mahl D, Brüggemann M. Framing as a bridging concept for climate change communication: a systematic review based on 25 years of literature. Commun Res. 2023;51(4):367–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221137165 96. Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Marlon J, Maibach E. Global Warming’s Six Americas: a review and recommendations for climate change com- munication. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2021;42:97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.007 97. Bamberg S, Möser G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-

environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2007;27(1):14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002 98. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environ- mental Education Research. 2002;8(3):239–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401 99. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;53(3):550–62. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550 100. Kahan D. Why we are poles apart on climate change. Nature. 2012;488(7411):255. https://doi.org/10.1038/488255a PMID: 22895298 101. Dunlap RE. The evolution of environmental sociology: a brief history and assessment of the American experience. The international handbook of environmental sociology. London: Edward Elgar. 2000. p. 21–39. 102. Leviston Z, Price J, Bishop B. Imagining climate change: The role of implicit associations and affective psychological distancing in climate change responses. Euro J Social Psych. 2014;44(5):441–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2050