The Five Canadas of Climate Change: Using audience segmentation to inform communication on climate policy

Building on this work, future analyses might go further and examine patterns of informa- tion behaviours and media use across audiences. Our study also calls for more research on cli- mate change audiences using different types of research designs, including longitudinal analyses. Future research might also examine whether and how the source of the message influences messaging effects among different audiences and explore how the latter respond to frames as they compete with each other. These kinds of extensions will help to further our col- lective understanding of how messages interact with different audience characteristics, provid- ing more insight into what to consider when attempting to communicate about controversial policies with a heterogeneous public. Supporting information S1 File. (DOCX) Author Contributions Conceptualization: Marjolaine Martel-Morin, Erick Lachapelle. Formal analysis: Marjolaine Martel-Morin. Funding acquisition: Erick Lachapelle. Investigation: Erick Lachapelle. Methodology: Marjolaine Martel-Morin, Erick Lachapelle. Visualization: Marjolaine Martel-Morin. Writing – original draft: Marjolaine Martel-Morin, Erick Lachapelle. Writing – review & editing: Marjolaine Martel-Morin, Erick Lachapelle. References 1. Kunh D, Lao J. Effects of evidence on attitudes: is polarization the norm? Psych Sci 1996; 7:115–120. 2. Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR. Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theo- ries on Subsequently Considered Evidence. J of Pers and Soc Psych 1979; 11:2098–2109.

3. Druckman JN, McGrath MC. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference forma- tion. Nat Clim Change 2019; 9:111–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1. 4. Drews S, van den Bergh JCJM. What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim Policy 2016; 16:855–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015. 1058240. 5. Bernauer T, McGrath LF. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat Clim Change 2016; 6:680–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2948. 6. Kahan DM. Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. Judg and Dec Making 2013; 8:207–424. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2182588. 7. Whitmarsh L. Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob Environ Change 2011; 21:690–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016. 8. Corner A, Markowitz E, Pidgeon N. Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values: Public engagement with climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 2014; 5:411–22. https:// doi.org/10.1002/wcc.269. 9. Markowitz EM, Guckian ML. Climate change communication: Challenges, insights, and opportunities. In Clayton SC, Manning C, editors. Psychology and Climate Change: Human Perceptions, Impacts, and Responses. London: Academic Press; 2018. 10. Maxwell B. Creative (Climate) Communications: Productive Pathways for Science, Policy and Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2019. PLOS ONE The Five Canadas of Climate Change

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273977 November 23, 2022 18 / 21