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 14 / 20 climate change because it’s a people issue” and “we have the duty to think about our actions” to left leaning audiences. Similarly, achievement-related messages, such as “it’s human nature to be problem solvers” and “food systems…... present many mitigation opportunities”, may be better targeted to right leaning audiences. Another promising approach is to craft climate change messages to target audiences across the political spectrum. For example, a video that con- tained the phrases “we know what to do’ and “we have the technology to make changes” scored high on both affiliation and achievement-related language, which offers potential to motivate both left and right leaning audiences to take climate mitigation action. Our finding that messages employing more analytic/authentic language, clout and positive emotional tone had no impact of climate change motivation in our viewers was surprising given that previous studies have found LIWC sum- mary variables to be predictive of positive viewer responses [48, 49, 52]. For example, previous studies that found that messages characterized by analytic thinking were more educational [48] and persuasive [52]; those with clout were fascinating, informative and persuasive [48]; and those with positive emotional tone and authentic styles were more popular [49]. One possible explanation for the apparent discrepancy between our weak message findings relative to previous LIWC

research is that our research focused on motivation to take climate action, whereas most previous studies assessed various dimensions of viewer positivity towards the message. It is quite possible for messages to be likeable but not motivating. The absence of a significant effect of message attributes on climate motivation may also stem from. Previous studies that looked at the influence of video messages or talks on engagement and persuasion, focused on messengers who have gained some experience or are practiced in public speaking. For example, Ozmen and Yucel [49] and Mackrill et al. [48] analyzed TED talks and found significant effects of the LIWC summary variables on viewer engagement and persuasion. TED talk speakers are generally required to follow the recommended guidelines for giving a talk, which will often include infographics and other media aids. Comparatively, most MTS videos included a frontal shot of the scientist explaining the personal relevance of climate change to them, although a few also included some visuals. Speakers are also recommended to practice their speech multiple times before they go on stage. The formal stage setting of TED talks with the presence of an audience “in-house” possibly also emphasizes the importance of communicating the ideas for the speaker, rather than simply talking about it. Studies comparing online videos and live TED talks have observed that the presence of a live audience in the latter, breaks down speaker/audience barrier [88] and improves engagement in

recorded TED talks compared to other YouTube science videos [89]. Similarly, other studies that found significant effects of the above-mentioned variables, analyzed tweets by Olympians [50] and online advertisements of pet adoptions [51]. Both message sources likely had experts in communication and public relations who created or at least edited these mes- sages. Their expertise might have added other persuasive elements to the messages that were not present in the MTS videos in our sample. Another plausible explanation for the relatively modest message effects observed in this study may relate to the sam- ple’s pre-existing engagement with climate change. Participants were, on average, more highly educated than the general population, and their willingness to watch multiple science-based videos suggests a baseline level of interest or con- cern. Moreover, participants were informed during recruitment that the study involved watching videos related to climate change, potentially attracting individuals already oriented towards the topic. Prior knowledge and existing attitudes may have attenuated the impact of message framing, as individuals who are already well-informed or active on the issue may be less susceptible to further shifts in motivation or behavioral intention [90,91]. It is also possible that the brevity of the video messages limited their motivation potential. While short-form content aligns with contemporary media consumption patterns, particularly among younger audiences, a substantial portion of

our sample was over the age of 46—a demographic that may be more accustomed to and influenced by longer, more detailed messages. Prior research suggests that longer messages can exert greater motivational impact, particularly when addressing complex issues such as climate change [92]. Given that the videos used in this study were under

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331672 September 10, 2025 15 / 20 three minutes in length and designed primarily to personalize scientists rather than deliver in-depth information, it is plausible that message duration may have constrained the depth of engagement required to foster meaningful motiva- tional shifts. Messenger Attributes Along with the message itself, we investigated if some messenger attributes—age, sex, attractiveness, presenting in natu- ral setting or not and presenting with family members or not—influence viewers’ motivation to mitigate climate change. We expected more attractive messengers to be more persuasive and did not have specific directional hypotheses about the other messenger attributes we included in the study. Four out of the five messenger attributes on viewers motivation that we explored influenced viewers’ motivation to act on climate change—age, sex, attractiveness, presenting in natural setting or not. Having family members present in the video did not influence viewers’ motivation to act on climate change. Our prediction that more attractive messengers would be more motivating held true. This adds to the existing corpus of studies that found that attractive messengers are generally more persuasive [57–62,93]. Additionally, older, male messengers and those presenting the video in a natural setting were more motivating. This aligns with findings of Carli [63] and Sugimoto et al. [64] who found some evidence for male presenters to be evaluated

more positively. However, unlike our study, Sugimoto et al. [64] did not find any evidence of age on popularity of videos and Newman et al. [65] found the opposite effect of age, where younger males were evaluated more positively than their female counterparts, but the presenters’ age did not predict their voting intentions. Our findings also contradict that of Gheorghiu et al. [66] who did not find any effect of gender, attractiveness, or age of the speaker on perceived scien- tific quality and entertainment values of TED talks. It is possible that the lack of significant effects of messenger attri- butes in the Gheorghiu et al. [66] study is also a result of practice and application of other communication guidelines in TED talks, which possibly levels the playing field (to some extent) for messenger attributes. It might be an inverse rela- tionship to our study, where messenger attributes might have had a more significant effect because the message was missing the fine-tuning from application of communication principles. Additionally, as in the MTS videos scientists are explaining the ‘personal relevance’ of climate change to them, this might have played a role in personal characteristics (as opposed to scientific facts that may be less personal) being more effective in motivating climate-change mitigation behavior. Our study also provides evidence that the background setting (imagery) of the video has an effect on persuasion. A natural setting was found to be more effective in motivating viewers to take action against climate change. This adds to

the growing body of work on climate imagery that shows that the images themselves can influence motivation to mitigate climate-change [60,67,69]. However, the positive effect of a natural setting in videos might be specific to that pertaining to climate change. Limitations and Future Research This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, although we employed a large and diverse U.S. sample and used a broad selection of videos from the More than Scientists website, caution should be exercised in generalizing these results to the wider American population or to all forms of climate change communi- cation. Additional studies using similar methodologies but incorporating different sets of climate-related messages and messengers, are needed to evaluate the robustness of our findings. In particular, we advise against overgeneralizing our finding that the most motivating messengers were older, attractive males presenting climate messages in natural settings. Even if this pattern is replicated in future studies, it is essential to prioritize inclusivity and diversity in climate communication. The choice of messenger should be guided not only by effec- tiveness but also by broader societal and ethical considerations.

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.

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

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

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

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331672 September 10, 2025 19 / 20 48. MacKrill K, Silvester C, Petrie KJ, Pennebaker JW. What makes an idea worth spreading? Language markers of popularity in TED Talks by aca- demics and other speakers. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2021;72(6):1–11. 49. Özmen MU, Yücel ME. Drivers of popularity of online information: content, context and psychological processes. Business and Economics Research Journal. 2023. 50. Fox AK, Royne Stafford MB. Olympians on Twitter: a linguistic perspective of the role of authenticity, clout, and expertise in social media advertis- ing. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising. 2021;42(3):294–309. 51. Markowitz DM. Putting your best pet forward: Language patterns of persuasion in online pet advertisements. J Applied Social Pyschol. 2019;50(3):160–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12647 52. Ta VP, Boyd RL, Seraj S, Keller A, Griffith C, Loggarakis A, et al. An inclusive, real-world investigation of persuasion in language and verbal behav- ior. J Comput Soc Sci. 2022;5(1):883–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-021-00153-5 PMID: 34869936 53. Claessens DL, Bender M. Expressions of Affiliation, Achievement, Power and Trust in Online User Reviews. 54. Ashokkumar A, Pennebaker JW. Tracking group identity through natural language within groups. PNAS Nexus. 2022;1(2):pgac022. https://doi. org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac022 PMID: 35774418 55. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude

change. New York, NY: Springer New York. 1986. p. 1–24. 56. Collins H, Evans RC. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 2007. 57. Anderson A. Sources, media, and modes of climate change communication: the role of celebrities. WIREs Climate Change. 2011;2(4):535–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.119 58. Anderson AA, Myers TA, Maibach EW, Cullen H, Gandy J, Witte J, et al. If They Like You, They Learn from You: How a Brief Weathercaster- Delivered Climate Education Segment Is Moderated by Viewer Evaluations of the Weathercaster. Weather, Climate, and Society. 2013;5(4):367– 77. https://doi.org/10.1175/wcas-d-12-00051.1 59. Buys L, Aird R, van Megen K, Miller E, Sommerfeld J. Perceptions of climate change and trust in information providers in rural Australia. Public Underst Sci. 2014;23(2):170–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512449948 PMID: 23825246 60. Corner A, Roberts O, Chiari S, Völler S, Mayrhuber ES, Mandl S, et al. How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators. WIREs Climate Change. 2015;6(5):523–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.353 61. Krantz SA, Monroe MC. Message Framing Matters: Communicating Climate Change with Forest Landowners. Journal of Forestry. 2016;114(2):108–15. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-057 62. Moser SC, Dilling L. Communicating climate change: Closing the science-action gap. In: Norgaard R, Schlosberg D, Dryzek J, editors. Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011.

63. Carli LL. Social Influence and Gender. In: Harkins SG, Williams KD, Burger J, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Social Influence. 2017. 64. Sugimoto CR, Thelwall M, Larivière V, Tsou A, Mongeon P, Macaluso B. Scientists popularizing science: characteristics and impact of TED talk presenters. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e62403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062403 PMID: 23638069 65. Newman R, Furnham A, Weis L, Gee M, Cardos R, Lay A, et al. Non-Verbal Presence: How Changing Your Behaviour Can Increase Your Ratings for Persuasion, Leadership and Confidence. PSYCH. 2016;07(04):488–99. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.74050 66. Gheorghiu AI, Callan MJ, Skylark WJ. A Thin Slice of Science Communication: Are People’s Evaluations of TED Talks Predicted by Superficial Impressions of the Speakers?. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2019;11(1):117–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618810896 67. Metag J, Schäfer MS, Füchslin T, Barsuhn T, Kleinen-von Königslöw K. Perceptions of Climate Change Imagery. Science Communication. 2016;38(2):197–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016635181 68. O’Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S. Fear won’t do it: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Sci- ence Communication. 2009;30(3):355–79. 69. O’Neill SJ. Image matters: Climate change imagery in US, UK and Australian newspapers. Geoforum. 2013;49:10–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoforum.2013.04.030 70. O’Neill SJ, Boykoff M, Niemeyer S, Day SA. On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change.

2013;23(2):413–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.006 71. Smith NW, Joffe H. Climate change in the British press: the role of the visual. Journal of Risk Research. 2009;12(5):647–63. https://doi. org/10.1080/13669870802586512 72. Höijer B. Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate change. Public Underst Sci. 2010;19(6):717–31. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963662509348863 PMID: 21560545 73. León B, Erviti MC. Science in pictures: Visual representation of climate change in Spain’s television news. Public Underst Sci. 2015;24(2):183–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513500196 PMID: 24013276 74. Lester L, Cottle S. Visualizing climate change: Television news and ecological citizenship. International Journal of Communication. 2009;3(17). 75. De Lara A, García-Avilés JA, Revuelta G. Online video on climate change: a comparison between television and web formats. JCOM. 2017;16(01):A04. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16010204

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