For immediate release: April 13th, 2021
Art and environmental activism collide in an inspiring
new short by New York Filmmaker at the Fifth Floor Film Festival.
new short by New York Filmmaker at the Fifth Floor Film Festival.
New York, NY. - Nicole Pavia will premiere the independent short documentary film “Act for Impact” virtually on May 22nd at the Fifth Floor Film Festival in NYC.
ACT FOR IMPACT tackles the pressing issue of environmental injustice for Black and Brown communities in New York State. Victoria Whalen is a biracial youth environmental activist living in Upstate NY, whose experiences with racism become her motivation to commit her life to fighting for just climate policies for people who look like her. Victoria has fellowships with Our Climate and the environmental policy organization, NYRenews where she lobbies for the first time in her life to pass the Climate and Community Investment Act, a bill that would tax the rich and make corporate polluters pay for the environmental harm they cause for at-risk communities in New York State. As an activist, Victoria participates in motivational speaking at a climate rally at the NY State Capitol and uses poetry as a form of “artivism” to engage citizens to support the CCIA bill. The impending climate crisis affects everyone but marginalized communities, especially BIPOC communities, are affected first & worst from climate change. Stronger legislation would protect these communities from further environmental harm. Through protests and poetic prose, ACT FOR IMPACT sheds light on how environmental issues are human rights issues.
Media Contact:
For more information, contact Nicole Pavia at 864-908-9528 or npavia@me.com.
For more information, contact Nicole Pavia at 864-908-9528 or npavia@me.com.
_________________________________________________________________
Research Thesis
PROMOTING PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS: INFLUENCE OF MESSAGE FRAMING IN ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGNS
By Nicole Pavia
Research Seminar
Department of Communication, Marymount Manhattan College
Abstract
Changing people’s behavior in engaging in pro-environmental actions is key to mitigating climate change. Persuasive messages are used to motivate people to engage in a specific behavior. The framework for this study describes the self-regulatory levels at which a message can be framed and discusses when framing at each level will be most effective. This paper analyzes two pro-environmental campaigns that promote voting in favor of politicians who support the Green New Deal. Of the campaigns analyzed, one is a gain-framed message and the other campaign is a loss-framed message. A critical study focusing on the effects of gain- and loss-framed messages on the organizations’ websites and social media is implemented to determine how message framing influences how audiences respond to the campaigns’ promotion of an intended behavior. Since both campaigns are promotion-focused, it is expected that gain-framed messages will be more persuasive than loss-framed messages & will generate more positive responses among campaign audiences.
Introduction
The topic of this paper explores how effective message framing in pro-environmental campaigns influences how people respond to the campaigns. This study particularly analyzes two youth-led environmental social media campaigns that use gain-frame and loss-framed messages to promote voting in favor of politicians who support the Green New Deal. According to the article, “The Use of Message Framing in the Promotion of Environmentally Sustainable Behaviors” by Tania Cheng, Danielle Kathryn Woon, and Jennifer K Lynes, Message framing is a technique “that shapes perceptions of the outcomes of the promoted behavior, in combination with a specific target audience can substantially enhance the success of social marketing campaigns (Cheng, Woon, & Lynes, 2011).” Youth-led environmental activist groups are on the frontlines of the environmental movement and their social media campaigns are of particular interest in analyzing the impacts of message framing and how audiences respond to them.
The 2020 Washington Post article, “The climate crisis spawned a generation of young activists. Now they’re voters” by Sarah Kaplan discusses the impact of youth environmental activists on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The article discusses how climate change is a “top priority” among young voters as youth activists have come “of age in an era of unprecedented natural disasters, orchestrated the largest global climate protests in half a century, and take credit for pushing environmental issues to the forefront of 2020 campaign” (Kaplan 2020). The article further discusses how youth activists seem to be “reversing a long history of low turnout among young voters” as “Young people understand that if we want to save our lives and our future we have to do it ourselves (Kaplan 2020).” The concern for climate change has grown and “An array of new youth protest groups cropped up in response to the escalating threat: Swedish activist Greta Thunberg’s organization Fridays for Future; the environmental justice group Zero Hour; the Sunrise Movement, which boosted the Green New Deal (Kaplan 2020).”
The article discusses how The Sunrise Movement is credited with “helping Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) — co-author of the Green New Deal — beat back a Democratic primary challenge in Massachusetts from Rep. Joe Kennedy (Mass.) in September (Kaplan 2020).” Volunteers at Sunrise made 200,000 phone calls in support of his campaign and a “University of Massachusetts poll the week before the primary found that voters younger than 44 favored Markey by a 27-point margin (Kaplan 2020).” The article quotes Sen. Ed Markey who claims that young people contributed to his win “because of the policy, because of the message, largely on the climate crisis (Kaplan 2020).” Sociologist Dana Fisher, states “the youth climate movement has really helped create the resonating message that they have a role to play in politics (Kaplan 2020)." Message framing in pro-environmental campaigns that support the Green New Deal have had a significant impact on youth in 2020 as “young people have doubled their share of the total early vote. Their turnout in these states has already exceeded the margin of victory from 2016 (Kaplan 2020).”
The 2019 New York Times article, “What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained” by Lisa Friedman discusses what the Green New Deal is and what it proposes to do. The article states, “The Green New Deal is a congressional resolution that lays out a grand plan for tackling climate change (Friedman 2019).” The Green New Deal was introduced by democrats, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts. In 2018, the Sunrise Movement “popularized the name by laying out a strategy and holding a sit-in outside the office of Nancy Pelosi, the soon-to-be-speaker of the House of Representatives, to demand action on climate change (Friedman 2019).” The Green New Deal “calls on the federal government to wean the United States from fossil fuels and curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. It also aims to guarantee new high-paying jobs in clean energy industries (Friedman 2019).” The goal of the Green New Deal “is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice (Friedman 2019).” Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez joined the Sunrise Movement in support of the Green New Deal and set “the groundwork for what ultimately became the joint resolution (Friedman 2019).”
The 2018 New Yorker article, “The Optimistic Activists For a Green New Deal: Inside The Youth Led Singing Sunrise Movement” by Emily Witt discusses why youth activist groups and young people are advocating for the Green New Deal, as the youth “will have to live with the flooding, storms, droughts, diseases, and food shortages of a warmer world. The young people of Sunrise are telling lawmakers that the future is here: they are the children in question, and the consequences of climate change are affecting them now (Witt 2018).” The article further mentions why young people support the Green New Deal as supporters claim that “no one should have to live in fear of losing the people that they love or the places that they call home due to crises that are preventable (Witt 2018).” The youth understand that they risk losing their future to climate change and are hopeful for a change in legislation that would allow their generation and generations after to have a livable, sustainable planet and to diminish corporate greed of “fossil-fuel billionaires who plunder our earth for profit (Witt 2018).”
The research questions that guide this study are “How does message framing influence environmental action among audiences of pro-environmental campaigns?” and “Are gain-framed messages or loss-framed messages more effective in persuading audiences of pro-environmental campaigns?” These questions address the uncertainty and inconsistencies in past research as to whether emphasizing positive or negative outcomes in a persuasive message will be most effective.
This study critically analyzes The Sunrise Movement’s “Elect Green New Deal Champions” campaign and Zero Hour’s “#Vote4OurFuture” campaign by specifically looking at the organizations’ campaign messages on their websites and social media. Sunrise’s campaign is framed as a loss-framed message whereas Zero Hour’s campaign is framed as a gain-framed message. The captions, graphics, and comments are critically analyzed to measure effectiveness of the campaigns’ gain- or loss-framed messages. The posts analyzed were chosen based on their relevance to the organizations’ campaign and whether they promote a specific pro-environmental behavior. Effectiveness of persuasion was determined from user comments based on indication of voting or donating in support of the officials the organizations endorsed and whether responses were positive or negative toward the campaign or organization. This paper will review past literature of message framing and its application to environmental behaviors in recent studies. Then the paper will further discuss the method, research design, sample, variables for measuring effectiveness, and limitations of the study. The findings and patterns discovered in the critical analysis will be discussed in the evidence section and the results will be indicated in the conclusion.
Literature Review
Message framing has been studied for several decades yet there are still inconsistencies in whether emphasizing positive or negative outcomes in a persuasive message will be most effective in how audiences of pro-environmental campaigns respond in environmentally ethical ways. Early research has focused on message framing in the realm of healthcare where the type of behavior that is recommended was the determining factor, however more recent research has focused more on individual differences. The chapter, “The Reciprocal Relation between Principles and Practice Social Psychology and Health Behavior” by Alexander J Rothman and Peter Salovey in the book, Social psychology: Handbook of basic principle discusses message framing in promoting health behavior. Rothman and Salovey (2007) state that messages promoting a “behavior can be constructed to focus on the benefits of performing the behavior (a gain-framed appeal) or the costs of failing to perform the behavior (a loss-framed appeal).” People are more sensitive to loss-frames than gain-frames as “people act to avoid risks when considering the potential gains afforded by a decision (they are risk averse in their preferences) but are more willing to take risks when considering the potential losses afforded by a decision (they are risk seeking in their preferences) (Rothman & Salovey, p. 837, 2007).” When a behavior involves more risk, loss-framed messages should be more persuasive but when a behavior leads to a certain outcome, gain-framed appeals should be more persuasive (Rothman & Salovey, p. 837, 2007). A detection behavior serves to detect the presence of a problem which can inform people that there is a problem but initiating the behavior “may be considered a risky decision” (Rothman & Salovey, p. 837, 2007). A prevention behavior is risky “only to the extent that one chooses not to take action” (Rothman & Salovey, p. 837, 2007). This suggests that “loss-framed appeals would be more effective in promoting the use of detection behaviors but gain-framed appeals would be more effective in promoting the use of prevention behaviors” (Rothman & Salovey, p. 837 2007). Although loss-framed messages have been more effective in the realm of healthcare, little research has examined message framing with respect to environmental issues in the decision phase.
The journal article, “Persuasive Communication and Proenvironmental Behaviours: How Message Tailoring and Message Framing Can Improve the Integration of Behaviours Through Self-Determined Motivation'' by Luc G. Pelletier and Elizabeth Sharp discusses the influence of persuasive messages on promoting environmentally conscious behavior in terms of message tailoring and message framing and focuses on how intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic goals “could make messages more effective by progressively increasing the level of self-determined motivation of the targeted population (Pelletier & Sharp, p. 210, 2008).” The researchers used self-determination theory as well as message tailoring and message framing to predict that “self-determined motivation should be enhanced by tailoring messages to the proposed processes underlying behaviour change and by framing these messages as a function of the intrinsic versus the extrinsic costs or benefits of a behaviour. In this way, the information communicated in messages should facilitate behaviour change and the integration of a new behaviour in one’s lifestyle (Pelletier & Sharp, p. 210, 2008).” In accordance with detection behaviors in the Rothman & Salovey chapter, this article discusses how the “most commonly used strategy to make people aware of a problem and more specifically, the risks associated with a problem, is fear-arousing communications (Pelletier & Sharp, p. 210, 2008).” In the detection phase, people need to be aware that a problem exists before taking action to solve it. For this reason, “messages that aim to draw people’s attention to a specific problem, and, then help them determine its personal relevance, are more likely to have a positive impact on behaviour (Pelletier & Sharp, p. 210, 2008).” Loss-framed messages are often communicated in a way that arouses fear. Pelletier & Sharp (2008) state how “exposure to threatening information motivates individuals to search for responses that reduce the fear resulting from the threat. However, in the absence of any continued pressure to think through the issue, people develop a defensive avoidance response to deal with the fear created by the message that causes a decrease in persuasion. People end up having little motivation to gather more information and thus take advantage of available opportunities to minimise the danger afforded by this issue. In sum, once someone is aware of an issue, additional risk information has limited impact on behaviour, and it may create more fear (Rothman & Salovey, p. 838, 2007).” The Pelletier and Sharp (2008) article further states how fear alone is not effective enough to facilitate behavior change. “Appeals that elevate feelings of concern are effective as long as they provide people with effective means to reduce it (Pelletier & Sharp, p. 218, 2008).” Offering potential solutions to an issue is more likely to influence persuasion as people are likely to be motivated & biased in evaluating potential solutions to the problem when they believe that there is something that can be done to prevent the negative impact. Therefore fear appeals should “lead people to be positively biased in their consideration of potential solutions” (Pelletier & Sharp, p. 213, 2008) to en environmental problem in order to be effective.
In looking at loss-framed messages in the Sunrise Movement “Elect Green New Deal Champions'' campaign, it will be important to consider how the organization presents solutions to voting out corrupt politicians who only support the fossil fuel industry. The campaigns’ slogan is “We’re building political power by voting out corrupt politicians and voting in real leaders who will stand up for their communities and a Green New Deal.” The campaigns’ message is framed as a loss-framed message that by not voting for officials who support the GND, there may not be a break with the status quo until it is too late. It suggests that by not voting for officials who support the GND, the politicians in office will support fossil fuel industries and not the communities most at risk from climate impacts. The intended behavior that the campaign is advocating for and the solution to the issue is to vote in favor of officials who support the Green New Deal so that at risk communities can be represented and change in policies could help aid them in response to climate disasters. The organization offers resources such as phonebanks where people can either host their own or join other phone banks, as well as Electoral Organizing Trainings where they provide the skills, resources, and support needed to elect a down-ballot champion of an individuals’ choice in order to increase compliance with their request. These phonebanks and trainings offer people resources that can effectively reduce the negative consequences of not voting in favor of the GND.
In terms of gain-framed messages, it has been shown in the realm of healthcare that people exposed to gain-framed messages may be more likely to develop goals regarding their actions that are reflected in their intentions to act (Rothman & Salovey, p. 838, 2007) when they are in the decision phase. When people are in the decision phase and shift away from the consequences to considering the potential solutions, “messages and information that aim to help people make a decision about the feasibility of a behaviour, and then its desirability to achieve the goal of reducing risks are more likely to be effective (Pelletier & Sharp, p. 213, 2008).” The article further states that, “People may become more sensitive to messages that emphasise a desired outcome and the benefits of adopting a specific behaviour (i.e., gain-framed messages; public transportation reduces GGE) because these messages are now more congruent with the actions that could eliminate risk or the fear associated with a specific issue (Pelletier & Sharp, p. 213, 2008).” Gain-framed messages are more likely to influence persuasion and behavioral change when it is clear that the outcome of the intended behavior can lead to a certain outcome. If a behavior has a more uncertain outcome, loss-framed messages are effective since people are more sensitive to minor losses than minor gains (Rothman & Salovey, 2007). However, offering potential solutions does not always lead to sustainable actions as “information on potential solutions to a problem has limited impact on behaviour if it does not provide a framework that helps people integrate the information on the behaviour with the implementation of potential solutions, or inform them about how to implement a specific action (Pelletier and Sharp 2008).” In sum, it is important to offer resources and a course of action to implement a specific behavior when framing messages as either gains or losses.
The Zero Hour “#Vote4OurFuture'' Campaign is framed as a gain-framed message in an attempt to increase voter turnout and encourage voting in favor of the Green New Deal. The campaign focuses on empowering adults and parents of youth to vote in the best interest of young people. It suggests that voting for politicians in favor of the Green New Deal will help the youth build a better future for themselves and for generations after and mobilizes young, black, brown, indigenous, low-income, LGBTQ+, and disabled people to combat environmental racism and environmental injustice. The “#Vote4OurFuture” website offers links to register to vote, to request absentee ballots, to check voter registration status, to find a polling place, and to contact your local election office. They also have a petition where you can sign to help fund and protect the USPS when voting by mail during the pandemic. This organization offers a clear course of action as well as relevant and easily accessible resources that help motivate their audience to perform the campaigns’ intended behavior.
The article, “The Strategic Use of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can Inform Practice” by Alexander J Rothman, Roger D Bartels, Jhon Wlaschin, and Peter Salovey explores message framing on health behaviors and found patterns across multiple studies. The researchers observed that “some people primarily focus on hopes and aspirations and pursue goals that afford them the opportunity to seek out favorable outcomes (i.e., a promotion-oriented perspective), whereas other people primarily focus on duties and obligations and pursue goals that afford them the opportunity to avoid unfavorable outcomes (i.e., a prevention-oriented perspective; Higgins, 1998, 1999).4 Across several studies, gain-framed appeals were more effective for people who tend to be promotion oriented, whereas loss-framed appeals were more effective for people who tend to be prevention oriented (Rothman, Bartels, Wlaschin, Salovey, p. S212, 2006).” The campaigns analyzed in this study are both promotion oriented toward a specific pro-environmental behavior which supports the hypothesis of this study as it is consistent with previous findings that gain-framed appeals are more effective for promotion oriented messages. The Sunrise Movement “Elect Green New Deal Champions” Campaign is framed as a loss-framed message that by not electing leaders who support the GND will result in a lack of representation and change for marginalized communities as a consequence of climate impacts. This is consistent with invoking feelings of despair and helplessness for those most at risk to the consequences of climate change which can contribute to perceptions that an individual does not have the potential to influence sustainable outcomes. The “#Vote4OurFuture” campaign is framed more positively as it aims to empower the youth and adults who care for the youth to take action and vote in favor of the Green New Deal. The campaign message attempts to evoke a sense of hope for the future as it suggests that voting in favor of the GND will allow younger generations to live better futures in order to produce greater persuasion.
The chapter, “Framing Climate Change” from the book, Communicating climate change: A guide for educators by Anne K. Armstrong, Marianne E. Krasny, and Jonathan P. Schuldt discusses how framing is used to communicate about climate change. The text states that many adults learn about climate change and other environmental issues from the media and examining this media can help with understanding how people choose “to act to address climate change (Armstrong, Krasney, & Schuldt, p. 60, 2018).” The chapter discusses how the “media (and many environmental groups) use predominantly negative, doomsday scenarios when framing climate change (table 8.1). They also provide few practical and effective actions for the audience to take, which may lead audiences to tune out the message—a problematic outcome for communicators and educators (Armstrong, Krasney, & Schuldt p. 61, 2018).” The authors further state that “Doomsday scenarios might help to gain the public’s attention, but without clear solutions that audiences can implement, appeals to fear often fail to inspire action (Armstrong, Krasney, & Schuldt, p. 61, 2018).” Doomsday scenarios are loss-framed messages which support the initial hypothesis that gain-framed messages will elicit more positive attitudes and greater persuasion in response to the campaign’s message compared to loss-framed messages. It is expected that loss-framed messages will generate more negative attitudes in regards to the message of the campaigns and will be less persuasive. The Sunrise Movement campaign focuses on the losses that will occur as a consequence of not voting for officials who support the Green New Deal and the campaign message suggests that if we don’t, we will be stuck with corrupt politicians who favor fossil fuel industries and neglect communities who are most at risk from climate impacts. Although the organization offers resources to reduce this fear, they may appear less accessible and appealing to its audience given the limitations of hosting and joining phonebanks and limited acceptance into the organization's Trainings.
Method
Research Design
Two pro-environmental campaigns were chosen from two youth-led environmental organizations. The Sunrise Movement’s “Elect Green New Deal Champions” campaign was selected as the loss-framed appeal and Zero Hour’s “#Vote4OurFuture” campaign was selected as the gain-framed appeal. Youth-led environmental organizations and their campaigns focusing on electing officials who support the Green New Deal were specifically selected as a means to make concrete distinctions when comparing the campaigns as they both focus on promoting the same behavior and have similar target audiences.
The organizations’ websites were first analyzed for message framing to determine if their mission statement aligned with their campaign statements. The organizations’ social media including Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook were then analyzed and particularly focused on graphics, captions, and comments from the users of the platform to measure effectiveness of the campaigns’ gain- or loss-framed messages within both organizations' audiences. The comments were particularly analyzed to determine if the audiences responded positively or negatively to the campaigns’ messages and if they supported the organizations.
Sample.
Posts that were uploaded to Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook were selected for analysis based on their relevance to the “Elect Green New Deal Champions” or “#Vote4OurFuture” Campaigns. Posts advocating for a particular pro-environmental behavior relevant to each campaign that included a substantial amount of comments were selected for analysis to determine effectiveness of message framing.
Variables and Measures.
The independent variables of the study include the type of message frame analyzed which include gain-frame and loss-framed messages. Zero Hour’s “Vote4OurFuture” campaign is framed as a gain-framed message whereas the Sunrise Movement’s “Elect Green New Deal Champions” campaign is framed as a loss-framed message. The dependent variables of the study include the amount of positive or negative responses from the campaigns’ audiences and whether they indicated voting or donating to the organizations in support of electing officials who support the Green New Deal. This was measured by the amount of comments that claimed to either support or not support the campaigns’ intended behavior which were indicated by consistent claims of voting or donating.
Limitations.
There are limitations to this study. The measures of effectiveness could be strengthened to determine how many votes and donations were actually generated in total to have a more precise measure of effectiveness. A wider sample size of the posts, comments, as well as user engagement and interactions could be included in future research to determine consistency of patterns found in this study.
Evidence
According to their website, The Sunrise Movement is a youth-led environmental organization and progressive “movement to stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process.” The organization claims, “We’re building an army of young people to make climate change an urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the health and wellbeing of all people.” In regards to the Green New Deal, the website states, “We need a Green New Deal to fight the climate crisis at the scale that scientists say is necessary. It’s a plan that would transform our economy and society at the scale needed to stop the climate crisis. It’s our fighting chance to actually stop this crisis – for some of us, the first we’ve seen in our whole lives. We don’t have illusions of passing this with Donald Trump in the White House. He’s made it clear he’d rather do favors for his fellow billionaires than stopping climate change and fighting for working people. In 2019, we’ll build support for the Green New Deal in every corner of the country and cement it as a litmus test for every politician seeking the Presidency. Then, in 2020, we will unite by the millions to defeat corrupt politicians and the fossil fuel billionaires who aid them, and we’ll elect a President and Congress who will make the Green New Deal law in 2021. It’s the best chance we have to fight climate change. Today is the day more than ever before.” This message is framed as a loss-framed message as it suggests that the current policies in place favor Donald Trump’s “fellow billionaires” who support the fossil fuel industry and consume the most carbon. The words “rather than” asserts that stopping the climate crisis and fighting for the rights of the working class are at stake if there is not a change in legislation. By stating, “It’s the best chance we have to fight climate change” heightens the stakes of the loss-framed message. As mentioned in the Literature Review, the “loss” described suggests that by not voting for officials who support the Green New Deal, the politicians in office will support fossil fuel industries and not the communities most at risk from climate impacts. The intended behavior that the campaign is advocating for and the solution to the issue is to vote in favor of officials who support the Green New Deal so that at risk communities can be represented and change in policies could help aid them in response to climate disasters. The organization offers resources such as phonebanks where people can either host their own or join other phone banks, as well as Electoral Organizing Trainings where they provide the skills, resources, and support needed to elect a down-ballot champion of an individuals’ choice in order to increase compliance with their request. These phonebanks and trainings offer people resources that can effectively reduce the negative consequences of not voting in favor of the GND. This message is carried throughout the “Elect Green New Deal Champions'' campaign on all of Sunrises’ social media platforms.
On the official Sunrise Movement Instagram profile @sunrisemvmt, the captions and pictures created as part of the campaign emphasize the negative consequences that could occur if people do not elect leaders who support the Green New Deal. For example, one of the organizations’ posts advocates for electing Senator Ed Markey, the “co-author of the Green New Deal” instead of his opponent, Joe Kennedy, who Sunrise claims is “running on his daddy’s money and his family name.” The graphics included in the post states, “Anonymous, big-money donors supporting Joe Kennedy launched a massive super PAC that’s spent $2.4 million attacking Ed Markey” and cites Boston Globe. The second graphic included in the post states, “There are reports that Joe Kennedy’s father could be pouring in millions from his old campaign funds.” The third graphic states, “Kennedy may have a political dynasty and support from a shadowy super PAC. But we have THOUSANDS of young people fighting to elect a Green New Deal Champion.” The last graphic in this post states, “Help us prove people-power can beat dark money. Sign up to call and text for Ed Markey today: smvmt.org/markey.” This post particularly endorses Senator Ed Markey as it portrays him in a positive light over his opponent. The message of this post remains true to Sunrise’s slogan as it emphasizes Joe Kennedy as a corrupt politician who runs on “daddy’s money” and “family name.” This emphasizes the loss that could occur if people do not vote for Senator Ed Markey as it suggests that people will be stuck with a corrupt politician who won with “dark money.” The loss-framed message generated support for Ed Markey as a few of the comments on the post state, “Cast my vote for him today” and “Just dropped $10 for Markey.”
Another post on Sunrises’ instagram depicts a screenshot of a tweet about the money raised for Joe Kennedy’s campaign versus the money Ed Markey raised for his campaign. The graphic states, “MONEY UPDATE The Kennedy campaign said it raised more than $100,000 in response to Pelosi’s endorsement. #TeamMarkey raised more than $300,000 via 9,000 individual contributions since Pelosi endorsed Joe Kennedy III. To be clear: we outraised him by triple.” This post in particular generated 99 comments with the majority supporting Ed Markey. Many comments state, “I just donated to Markey and Morse as well let’s go,” “Donated,” “Proud to be apart of that 9,000 yesterday!” “Yes I immediately rage-donated to Markey,” “As soon as I saw she did that I signed up for recurring donation…” “I donated $5 Let’s do this!!!!” and “Pretty sure I donated immediately to Markey as soon as I heard Pelosi endorses his opponent…”
The loss-framed message seemed to be effective as Senator Markey was officially elected over Joe Kennedy. The loss-framed message generated many negative attitudes toward Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement of Joe Kennedy which contributed to the Senator Markey’s win as many people claimed that they “rage-donated to Markey” as soon as they discovered Pelosi endorsed his opponent. However, on the Sunrise Movement’s post announcing Markey’s win, the post generated more responses from climate deniers as well as Kennedy and Trump supporters. Many comments stated, “socialist practically supporting the stupid green new deal and medicare for all. What a joke.” as well as “No you won’t. You’re Socialists. Green on the outside, red in the middle. You’re not what America is about at all,” “Wat is wrong with you,” “Good old Mr. Frosty...so sorry to the people in Massachusetts who are already overwhelmed with taxes, and now this baboon wants to increase them on a national level. What an absolute joke…” “I highly doubt you’re going to force Joe Biden to sign anything. Lmao,” “There are already numerous free market solutions already available that address our environmental calamities. Stop expanding government!,” “Y’all are crazy. Hard working Americans of all races don’t agree with you. Get a job. Get a life and contribute to society. Y’all got too much time on your hands that’s why you're out acting a fool.” Other negative comments stated, “I guess the days of what you can do for your country are gone because these millennial socialists are the laziest people on the planet,” “Kennedy backs the green deal though...you just blocked a progressive who could be president in 8 years for someone who may die before the end of his Senate term. They overlap on every issue. This proves the smartest state in country ins dumb too,” “GND is against everything American. Congratulations on your dinosaur for socialist become another cog in the machine,” and “Are you FN crazy wanting to defund the Police? Have you watched the crime and attacks on innocent people and businesses? Have some common sense please Sir!” Although the initial loss-framed message was effective in getting people to vote for leaders who support the Green New Deal, many people seemed to donate out of negative attitudes and rage toward the opposing team as Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement of Kennedy contributed to the strength of the campaign’s loss-framed message. The loss-framed message also seemed to generate more negative comments from supporters of the opposing team and from those who do not support the organization.
On November 2nd, 2020 in the midst of the presidential election, Sunrise posted on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook stating that Trump would “declare ‘victory’ on Nov. 3rd and falsely claim millions of mail-in ballots as fraudulent.” On Twitter, the organization created a thread stating “Young people know what’s at stake. We have the power to defeat Trump and bring society to a grinding halt if he won’t accept the results of the election.” The organization provided links to their Trainings as resources and stated, “Join our trainings TONIGHT @ 5:30pm & 8:30PM ET to ensure that every vote is counted and take to the streets the minute Trump does anything to stop a fair election.” This post is framed as a loss-framed message as it suggests that signing up for their Trainings will “ensure that every vote is counted” or else Trump might stop us from having a fair election. The tweet generated 8 retweets and 43 likes and one quote tweet which stated “What ever these criminals are promising you, they’re using you! You will NOT succeed!” This is a consistent finding from Sunrise’s other social media as loss-framed messages seem to generate more negative responses from those who do not support the organization.
On their Twitter account @sunrisemvmt, Sunrise posted a video on election day November 3rd, 2020 advocating for why people should vote for politicians who support the Green New Deal. The person in the video argues that “I’m here at the polls today and I’m asking you to get your friends together and go vote. Because we can either have a president who disregards the risks of the Coronavirus, and has allowed over 200,000 people to die by failing to act or we can have a president with a plan to protect the American people. So come out and vote. Join me in saying ‘enough.’” This message is a loss-framed message as it clearly communicates the losses at stake and suggests that we can either have a president who disregards the risks of Covid or we can have a president who has a plan to protect its citizens. Although the tweet generated a lot of engagement with 8 retweets and 63 likes, one of the only comments stated, “what a waste of energy helping elect a fraud democrat who will only make things harder for us...you kids are right on science but when it comes to politics you are fuckin clueless.” Similar to the comments on Sunrises’ Instagram, the posts that communicate loss-framed messages seem to generate more negative comments from those against the organization.
Sunrises’ Facebook account seemed to generate the most user engagement compared to Instagram and Twitter. The Sunrise Movement posted “We are at a tipping point. In 18 days, the outcome of this election will define the rest of our lives. Either we rise against facism and climate crisis now, or we prepare for the most difficult decade we’ve lived yet. But we have a plan. First we organize. Then we vote. Then (if Trump tries to seize power after losing the election) we strike and shut down the country. This is our time. Join our movement-wide mass call on Weds Oct 21st.” Through a loss-framed message, the organization advocates for rising up “against facism and climate crisis now” and as a consequence of not voting for officials who support the GND then people will experience “the most difficult decade we’ve lived yet” and promotes signing up to attend their movement-wide mass call. Sunrise endorsed Biden to defeat Trump and the majority of the comments on the post supported Trump or commented against the organization. Many of the commenters claimed, “to vote Green Party. The real Green New Deal.” Another person stated that they, “Voted for Hawkins. Biden is a lier.” Others stated, “ Biden will not help you or the planet. He is a monster and it's truly sad you don't see that.” Unlike their audience on Instagram, not one person on this post commented that they supported the organization’s request to attend their mass call. The one person in the comments who supported Biden criticized the organization and stated “and Bush stole the 2000 election. What's the point? Are we just supposed to stop organizing and fighting to keep a fucking idiot facist from winning a second term? We can't always get what we want in this system, but we can't ignore the differences between these two candidates either. Either you want SOME progress or you can vote for Trump. Those are the TWO choices on November 3rd. Everything else is unmitigated privilege at the expense of black and brown communities. Get it right.” This is consistent with the finding of loss-framed messages generating more negative responses from those who do not support the organization rather than responses claiming to have supported the initial message.
According to their website, the non-profit, Zero Hour, “is an international youth climate justice movement that organizes mobilizations, educational campaigns, lobby days, summits, strikes, marches and media and social media campaigns to demand urgent action on climate change. Zero Hour fights for intersectional solutions to the climate crisis, and focuses on addressing the root systems of oppression, like colonialism, that caused the climate crisis in the first place.” The Vote4OurFuture website states that the #Vote4OurFuture Campaign is a “joint campaign from Zero Hour and the National Children's Campaign aimed at galvanizing the American people to fight for our nation's 74 million children.” The goal of the campaign is to “make climate the most important issue for the American people'' and “is explicitly aimed at increasing voter turnout among first-time voters and young, black, brown, indigenous, low-income, LGBTQ+, and disabled people and mobilizing those communities to combat environmental racism and environmental injustice. The campaign is focused on training young people to educate their communities about the Green New Deal and empower the adults in their lives to vote for the interests of young people.” As mentioned in the Literature Review, this campaign is communicated as a gain-framed message in an attempt to increase voter turnout and encourage voting in favor of the Green New Deal. The campaign focuses on empowering adults and parents of youth to vote in the best interest of young people. In terms of gain-framing, the message of the campaign suggests that voting for politicians in favor of the Green New Deal will help the youth build a better future for themselves and for generations after. The words “galvanizing” and “mobilize” are used to empower youth and those who support the youth into taking action against environmental issues. The campaign’s message claims that voting in favor of politicians who support the Green New Deal will allow the youth to gain a livable future.
On Zero Hour’s instagram @thisiszerohour, the non-profit created a post as part of their #Vote4OurFuture Campaign that encourages people to RSVP to their roundtables in Pittsburgh where they discuss issues that impact community organizers most. The post states, “We’re 100 days away from Election Day, and we need everyone to mobilize to #Vote4OurFuture! RSVP for these roundtables at vote4ourfuture.org/events we’ll see you there!” The message is framed as a gain-framed message through the word “mobilize” which suggests that attending these roundtables will create movement in the right direction for certain communities. In the comment section of the post, one person asked “How do I vote for green new deal? What do you mean by that? I’m not old enough to vote yet.” A person commented and said, “tell your parents to vote for your future!!!” The original person responded, “I did.” The gain-framed message of the campaign seemed to be effective as the comments on this particular post generated discussion about the Green New Deal and even indicated compliance with the youth educating and advocating for their parents to vote in favor of the Green New Deal.
In another post, Zero Hour discusses how people can get involved in the #Vote4OurFuture movement and states, “1) make a video with you reading a letter to someone you know asking them to vote for climate 2) be sure to push your viewers and anyone watching to register to vote using http://bit.ly/StrikeThenVote 3) post it on your social media and nominate 3 friends to make their own call to action!” The comments on the post suggest that people took part in this request. Someone stated, “I received this from my fourteen year old granddaughter...We would do anything for you and our other grandchildren. Our family is so precious to us. The children will save us and The world from the DENIES.” This comment suggests that the gain-frame message of the campaign was effective as people responded positively to the request and took part in the call-to-action. The message of the campaign was also clearly communicated as the user commented in support of doing “anything” for her family.
On Zero Hour’s Facebook page, The non-profit posted a live stream of the #Vote4OurFuture Rally and asked viewers to tell them what their plan to vote is. The people that commented stated, “Dropped off ballot in October for Democrats” as well as “Already Voted and checked that it was received!” The viewers also stated, “Climate justice is important thanks for voicing this issue,” “Generation Green New Deal,” and “The environment and climate change should be ours and the world’s number one issue. They affect everything. We know what needs to be done. We just have to do it!” In contrast with Sunrise’s social media engagement, Zero Hour’s responses were consistently more positive and indicative of voting or donating in support of the organization. Although Sunrises’ supporters responded well to their campaigns’ intended behavior, the organization seemed to generate more negative responses from climate deniers and from those who support the political candidates that opposed the leaders they endorsed.
Conclusion
This paper critically analyzes the effects of message framing in terms of gain- and loss-framed messages in two pro-environmental campaigns from youth-led environmental organizations. The research questions of this study ask “How does message framing influence environmental action among audiences of pro-environmental campaigns?” and “Are gain-framed messages or loss-framed messages more effective in persuading audiences of pro-environmental campaigns?” The findings of the study generally support the initial hypothesis that gain-framed messages will be more persuasive compared to loss-framed messages as Zero Hour’s social media engagement was consistently more positive and comments were more indicative of supporting the campaign's intended behavior. However, it was found that loss-framed messages also generated a successful outcome to the Sunrise Movement’s campaign's intention as Sen. Markey won his election and received significantly more donations compared to his opponent, Joe Kennedy. It is not entirely clear as to whether the loss-framed message was solely indicative of persuasion as there was indication from user comments that people were affected by Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement of the opposing team which could have greatly contributed to the loss-framed message of the campaign. Loss-framed messages also seemed to generate more negative responses from people who did not support the organization. This research contributes to how social media can shape how people respond and behave by framing events and issues in strategic ways.
References
Armstrong, A. K., Krasny, M. E., & Schuldt, J. P. (n.d.). Framing Climate Change. In Communicating climate change: A guide for educators (pp. 59-69). Cornell University Press; Comstock Publishing Associates.
Friedman, L. (2019, February 21). What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained. Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html
Kaplan, S. (2020, November 01). The climate crisis spawned a generation of young activists. Now they're voters. Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/10/30/young-voters-climate-change/
Pelletier, L. G., & Sharp, E. (2008). Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviours: How message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of behaviours through self-determined motivation. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 210-217. doi:10.1037/a0012755
Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (2008). The Reciprocal Relation between Principles and Practice Social Psychology and Health Behavior. In Social psychology: Handbook of basic principle (pp. 826-849). International Society of Political Psychology.
Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The Strategic Use of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can Inform Practice. Journal of Communication, 56(Suppl_1). doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x
Witt, E., Zerofsky, E., & Kormann, C. (2018, December 23). The Optimistic Activists for a Green New Deal: Inside the Youth-Led Singing Sunrise Movement. Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-optimistic-activists-for-a-green-new-deal-inside-the-youth-led-singing-sunrise-movement