The escalating effects of the climate crisis have spurred global climate movements to advocate for systemic change through various tactics, including protests, strikes, boycotts, and direct action. Many movements employ relational organizing, focusing on building interpersonal relationships to strengthen the social movement fabric. "Climate conversations," a prominent form of relational organizing, encourage supporters to discuss climate change with friends and family. Research indicates that these conversations can positively influence attitudes and behaviors, motivating climate action. However, in the USA, a significant emitter of fossil fuels, such discussions remain rare, creating a self-perpetuating silence around the issue. This study investigates how climate activists, experts in relational organizing, utilize climate conversations for outreach and movement building. Utilizing online surveys and interviews with US climate activists, the research explores their experiences, strategies, and recommendations for effective relational climate conversations, aiming to identify strengths, limitations, and areas for improvement in their effectiveness as an organizing tool. The study acknowledges the existing challenge of bridging the gap between concern and action regarding climate change, particularly in a politically polarized context.

Existing research highlights the potential of relational climate conversations to shift climate attitudes and behaviors. Studies show that structured discussion series can encourage climate action and further conversations, with effects even observed among politically conservative individuals. A reciprocal relationship between climate conversations and awareness of scientific consensus has been found, indicating that the more people discuss climate change, the more they understand the scientific evidence. Studies also show a correlation between frequent climate conversations and increased climate action engagement. Despite this potential, the current reality is a widespread lack of climate conversations, resulting in a self-perpetuating pattern of pluralistic ignorance—people avoid discussion because they believe others are unconcerned, reinforcing the silence. This silence hinders climate action by preventing engagement of non-activists in climate politics.

This study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining online surveys and semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling of climate-focused organizations across the USA, utilizing email, snowball sampling, and social media postings. The study included volunteer activists, staff members of nonprofit climate organizations, and selected climate communication experts. A total of 112 online surveys and 67 semi-structured interviews (lasting approximately an hour) were conducted between 2021 and 2022. Some participants participated in both the survey and the interview. Data analysis involved the use of chi-squared tests to assess independence between demographic variables and survey responses. Qualitative data from interviews and open-ended survey questions were analyzed using ATLAS.ti software. The coding process combined deductive and inductive approaches, starting with pre-defined categories and then developing inductive codes to capture emergent themes. Ethical considerations were addressed by allowing participants to use their real names or pseudonyms.

The study found that most participants reported having climate conversations frequently (daily or several times per week), primarily in person, via email, or social media. Common conversation contexts included homes, workplaces, and climate-related demonstrations. The most frequent conversational partners were fellow activists, friends, family, political representatives, co-workers, and acquaintances. Most conversations involved individuals who were already somewhat or very concerned about climate change. A significant portion of participants (23%) reported having conversations with people who were only slightly concerned. While most activists prioritized conversations with like-minded individuals, this was strategically motivated by factors such as personal response efficacy—the belief that their actions will produce desired results. The primary goal of these conversations was to encourage collective action among those already concerned about climate change, aligning with values of climate justice. Obstacles to collective action, even among concerned individuals, included lack of free time, feelings of burden, and burnout. The study highlighted that relational climate conversations play a crucial role in supporting and sustaining current activists.

The findings challenge the notion that climate activists are solely engaging in echo chamber conversations. The strategic targeting of like-minded individuals reflects an understanding of personal response efficacy and the desire to facilitate collective action. The high frequency of climate conversations among activists contrasts sharply with the low frequency among the general population, suggesting the potential for broader adoption of this relational organizing strategy. The identification of obstacles to collective action, such as time constraints and feelings of burden, provides valuable insights for developing strategies to enhance engagement and overcome barriers to action. The study's focus on conversations with already concerned individuals suggests a focus on mobilizing existing support rather than directly engaging skeptics. This approach acknowledges the existing political polarization surrounding climate change and suggests a pragmatic pathway to broader engagement.

This study reveals the significant role of relational climate conversations in fostering climate action among already concerned individuals. The strategic use of these conversations by climate activists demonstrates a nuanced approach to relational organizing, emphasizing personal response efficacy and collective action. Further research could explore the effectiveness of different conversational strategies in engaging individuals with varying levels of climate concern and political perspectives, as well as developing support mechanisms to mitigate burnout and address time constraints. The potential of relational climate conversations as a tool for closing the concern-action gap should be further investigated.

The study's reliance on self-reported data may introduce bias. The sample, predominantly comprised of politically progressive and female activists, might limit the generalizability of the findings to other demographics. The focus on activists' experiences might not fully capture the perspectives of those less involved in climate activism. Future research should strive for broader representational sampling and consider employing alternative data collection methods.