Closing the concern-action gap through relational climate conversations: insights from US climate activists

Climate movements worldwide are pushing for systemic change as the impacts of the climate crisis become increasingly apparent. Many have adopted relational organizing—intentionally fostering interpersonal relationships—to build power. Within this approach, “climate conversations” with family and friends are promoted as a key tactic. Prior research indicates such conversations can shift attitudes and motivate behavior change, yet in the USA climate change is rarely discussed among friends and family, contributing to a self-reinforcing climate of silence. This study examines how US climate activists—experienced in relational organizing—use climate conversations for outreach and movement building, and identifies strengths, limitations, and areas for improving their effectiveness.

Relational organizing emphasizes relationships as a driver of social movement participation, supporting sustained engagement (“ladder of engagement”) and buffering activist well-being through trust and mutual respect. Interpersonal conversations are a central tactic, occurring among activists, between activists and new members, and between activists and preexisting non-activist contacts. Evidence suggests relational climate conversations can foster pro-climate attitudes and behaviors: monthly discussion series increased action and further conversations (Beery et al., 2019); an intergenerational program in North Carolina increased concern among both children and parents, especially conservative parents (Lawson et al., 2019); nationally, more frequent conversations correlate with greater recognition of scientific consensus and vice versa (Goldberg et al., 2019); in Canada’s Provincial North, more talking is associated with greater climate engagement (Galway et al., 2021). Despite potential, climate talk is rare in the USA (only 6% often discuss; 8% hear others weekly), reinforcing pluralistic ignorance (Leiserowitz et al., 2019; Geiger & Swim, 2016). Target audiences can be conceptualized via the Six Americas model (alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful, dismissive) with finer segmentation of the “alarmed” into active, willing, and inactive (Goldberg et al., 2021). The prevalence of the willing and inactive alarmed, plus “doomism” (12% believe it’s too late), indicates a concern–action gap potentially addressable through relational organizing. Audience selection in relational contexts also depends on relationship closeness and efficacy beliefs, including self-efficacy and personal response efficacy (outcome expectancy).

Design: Mixed-methods study using online surveys and semi-structured conversational interviews focused on activists’ experiences with, audiences for, goals of, and outcomes from climate conversations. Sampling and recruitment: Purposive sampling of climate-focused organizations across the USA (at least one per state). Primary recruitment via organizational emails; supplemented by snowball sampling and posts to listservs, forums, and social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit). Definition of “climate organizations” favored groups explicitly framing climate action (often progressive), potentially under-representing conservative groups that use different framings. Participants and context: Open to US-based climate activists aged 13+. Sample largely volunteer activists and nonprofit staff; select climate communication experts included. Predominantly female and politically progressive; mean annual income range US $25,000–$49,000; ethnoracial composition similar to US population; 88% involved in climate organizing ≥1 year; many engaged with related social justice issues (racial justice, Indigenous rights, gender equality). Organizations with multiple participants included Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth (9), Climate Reality Project (8), 350.org (8), Sierra Club (6), Citizens’ Climate Lobby (6), Sunrise Movement (6), and others; total 101 participating organizations. Data collection: 112 online surveys and 67 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2021–2022; 49 interviewees also completed the survey (results not aggregated to avoid double counting). Interviews allowed depth beyond survey items; participants could use real names or chosen pseudonyms. Measures and instruments: Survey and interview covered frequency, contexts, target audiences, goals, barriers, and outcomes of climate conversations (see Appendices for instruments). Demographic data collected via linked identifiers or separate forms. Analysis: Chi-squared tests assessed independence between demographics and multiple-choice responses. Qualitative analysis of interviews and open-ended survey responses conducted in ATLAS.ti. Coding combined deductive (a priori categories such as “audiences”) and inductive approaches (emergent subcodes like “moveable middle”), then refined by merging overlaps. The interviewer was a white woman with 3 years of climate organizing experience (Sunrise Movement, Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Extinction Rebellion). Research questions: (1) Frequency of activists’ climate conversations; (2) Interactional contexts; (3) Barriers; (4) Audiences engaged; (5) Situations of confidence; (6) Outcomes for audiences and activists; and priorities regarding (7) target audiences and (8) conversational goals.

- Communication modalities (survey, N=111): In person 90%; Email 71%; Social media 61%; Video chat 56%; Phone 40%; Text chat 33%. - Interactional contexts: Home 41%; Work 40%; Climate-related demonstrations (marches/vigils/rallies) 10%; Religious organizations 17%; Schools 2%. - Conversation sizes: One-on-one (2 people) 64%; Small groups (3–5) 72%; Medium groups (6–9) 53%; Large groups (≥10) 55%. - Frequency: In contrast to the general US population where climate talk is rare, most activists reported having climate conversations daily or several times per week. - Audiences engaged: Most often fellow activists, friends, family members, political representatives, co-workers, and acquaintances; less frequently strangers and neighbors. Most conversations were with people somewhat or very concerned about climate change; 23% reported conversations with slightly concerned people. - Effectiveness: 81% reported their past climate conversations were at least somewhat effective (graphical abstract). - Barriers: Hostile audiences, lack of free time, feelings of burden and some burnout (graphical abstract). - Strategic audience selection: Despite engaging many like-minded or already concerned individuals, activists cited strategic reasons (e.g., personal response efficacy) and prioritized moving concerned individuals toward collective action aligned with climate justice values. - Movement implications: Relational climate conversations can help close the concern–action gap among the already concerned and can sustain current activists (graphical abstract).

Findings show that US climate activists frequently conduct climate conversations, primarily through in-person and digital channels, and often within close relational contexts (home, work, demonstrations). While their audiences are typically already somewhat to very concerned and politically progressive, activists purposefully target these groups to maximize personal response efficacy—believing they can more readily motivate collective action among receptive contacts. This strategy directly addresses the concern–action gap by focusing on converting concern into participation in climate justice–oriented collective efforts. Reported barriers—time constraints, hostile interactions, and feelings of burden/burnout—help explain why even motivated activists may limit outreach to less receptive audiences. Nevertheless, the perceived effectiveness (81% at least somewhat effective) and the role of conversations in sustaining activist engagement underscore the value of relational conversations as an organizing tool to normalize climate talk, build trust, and ladder people into action.

This study contributes empirical insight into how US climate activists practice relational climate conversations: they converse frequently, leverage close relationships, and strategically focus on already concerned contacts to catalyze collective, justice-oriented action. The results suggest that refining relational strategies to overcome barriers (e.g., time, hostile responses, burnout) and to better support transitions from concern to action can strengthen movement building and help erode the climate of silence. Future research could experimentally test conversation designs that maximize personal response efficacy, evaluate long-term behavior change and organizational uptake resulting from relational conversations, and explore approaches for engaging less receptive or politically diverse audiences without inducing polarization or burnout.

Purposive recruitment of organizations that explicitly frame climate action likely favored progressive groups and may under-represent conservative or differently framed climate efforts, limiting generalizability. The sample was predominantly politically progressive and female. Data are self-reported, which may introduce recall or social desirability biases. The study focuses on US-based activists and a 2021–2022 timeframe. Some quantitative details (e.g., certain frequencies) are constrained by available survey items and reporting.