The impact of place and legacy framing on climate action: A lifespan approach

Non-significant results Several other psychological variables that could potentially underlie the relationship between the inductions and pro-environmental behaviors were included in our analysis, including nat- ural hazard perceptions, perceived future self-continuity, and death thought accessibility. However, neither the Place nor Legacy inductions had an effect on these variables (S4 File). Discussion Two elements provide a context for this study: population aging and increased scrutiny of the impact of message framing on pro-environmental behaviors and intention to act. The United States is an aging country in an aging world. Currently, there are 65 million Americans 60 and older, estimated to grow to 100 million by mid-century. Worldwide, the figures are 1 billion now; estimated to be 2 billion by mid-century [39]. At the same time, climate communication specialists are increasingly focused on message framing’s impact on climate action. Thus far, however, climate communicators have not assessed whether specific messages targeted to older adults will have a differential impact on climate concern and intention to act. Within this context, this study had several goals. The first was to replicate and expand upon prior work on the positive impact of legacy motives on environmental attitude and behavior by exploring whether the impact of a Legacy induction is moderated by age [26]. The second was to provide initial information on the impact of a Place-based induction on environmental attitude and behavior and to explore whether the impact of a Place-based induction is moder-

ated by age [27]. Using messaging to enhance legacy and place attachment is consistent with the National Academies of Science’s (2011) climate communication suggestions to personalize climate change and sustainability issues [40]. Using the MTurk platform, we assembled a balanced sample across three age groups: young adults, middle-aged adults, and older adults. Within this sample, both Legacy and Place induc- tions were successful at improving pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. Specifically, Zaval and colleague’s (2015) [26] earlier findings on the positive association of a Legacy induc- tion with both pro-environmental behavioral intent and behavior (donations to an environ- mental charity) were replicated with a balanced age distribution sample. In addition, our results show that an induction aimed at improving attachment to place can positively impact pro-environmental attitude and behavior change across the lifespan, with implications for developing new motivational message frames. Counter to our predictions that the inductions would be most effective for older adults, we observed no age by induction interaction effects. That is, the inductions worked equally well for older and younger adults in promoting envi- ronmental action. The inclusion of a biophilia measure adds an innovative dimension to our understanding of changes in environmental attitude, as we found that both experimental inductions were associated with greater biophilia, and that greater biophilia partially mediated the effect of the

Place induction on climate action, across age groups. It may be that increasing love of nature is an underlying mechanism for the effectiveness of place-based framing inductions on behav- ioral intent and environmental behavior. Additionally, there was a significant correlation between age and biophilia, with greater age associated with greater levels of biophilia. This is an area of communication research that warrants further study. Both induction strategies—inductions to drive legacy motives and inductions to encourage place attachment—can be useful in increasing adults’ intention to take action and their subse- quent actions on climate issues. In the absence of age interactions, it appears that these strate- gies are equally effective across the lifespan. The potency of our findings imply their potential Impact of framing on climate action PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228963 February 25, 2020 12 / 17