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

behavior, and are contrary to hypothesis 3, that older adults exposed to the inductions would experience greater positive associations with pro-environmental intentions and behaviors than younger adults. A significant main effect emerged for induction F (2, 979) = 4.30, p = .014, η2 = .009, such that Place (p = .006) and Legacy (p = .027) inductions were associated with more donations compared to the control condition, while the Place and Legacy inductions did not differ significantly from each other. A significant main effect also emerged for age on dona- tions, F (2, 979) = 5.15, p = .006, η2 = .010, such that young adults donated significantly less than middle-aged adults or older adults, while middle-aged and older adults did not differ sig- nificantly. However, no significant interaction effect between age and induction on donation emerged (p = .478). Fig 1. Impact of legacy and place inductions on legacy motives and biophilia scores. (a) Impact of Legacy and Place inductions on legacy motives. (b) Impact of Legacy and Place inductions on biophilia scores. Error bars denote ±1 SEM. Control n = 394, Legacy n = 295, Place n = 299. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228963.g001 Table 1. Mean pro-environmental behavioral intentions by age group and induction type. Induction Age Group Mean 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Place Young 3.55 3.34 3.76 Middle 3.35 3.14 3.56 Older 3.85 3.65 4.04 Legacy Young 3.69 3.48 3.90 Middle 3.64 3.44 3.83 Older 3.89 3.67 4.10 Control Young 3.31 3.14 3.48 Middle 3.27 3.08 3.46

Older 3.35 3.17 3.52 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228963.t001 Impact of framing on climate action PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228963 February 25, 2020 7 / 17