The effects of fear appeals on reactance in climate change communication

Addressing the existential threat posed by climate change requires urgent actions, both on an individual level and on a policy level. In the present research, we applied an emotion-based persuasion appeal model to climate change mitigation to test the effect of climate mitigation appeals formulated with different levels of threat (high vs. low) and appealing to different types of climate change solutions (individual vs. policy) in eliciting psychological reactance, motivating support for climate change mitigation, and influencing willingness to discuss the issue with others. Through an online between-subjects experiment, we found that appealing to individuals (as opposed to policy) increased individuals' perceived threat to freedom, and psychological reactance. Our threat manipulation increased levels of fear, but the interaction between level of threat and type of appeal was not statistically significant on any of our dependent variables. Results are discussed in light of the active debate regarding the effectiveness of fear appeals in the climate change communication context. • Individual (vs. policy) climate appeals increased freedom threat and reactance. • High climate threat (vs. low climate threat) increased self-reported fear. • Efficacy of threat appeals was not moderated by type of appeal (individual/policy). • Interest in climate change increased willingness to discuss the issue. • Results suggest caution when considering the appropriateness of fear appeals.