Refining relational climate conversations to promote collective action

The climate crisis demands urgent action, and climate communication research emphasizes the need to translate concern into action, particularly in the United States, a major greenhouse gas emitter. While a significant portion of the US population expresses worry about climate change, only a small percentage actively participate in collective climate action, highlighting a significant "attitude-behavior gap." Relational climate conversations—discussions about climate change between individuals—are proposed as a promising method to bridge this gap. However, the lack of open dialogue about climate change within social networks contributes to a "spiral of silence," where individuals underestimate the prevalence of climate concern among their peers. This study investigates the effectiveness of relational climate conversations in fostering collective climate action. It addresses the gap in existing research that primarily relies on retrospective surveys, by employing a mixed-methods approach (discourse analysis and surveys) to examine the content and impact of conversations between US climate activists and their non-activist acquaintances. The study aims to uncover the mechanisms by which these conversations encourage collective action and identify areas for improvement in their application.

The literature highlights psychological distance as a major barrier to climate action. This distance manifests in temporal, spatial, social, and hypothetical dimensions, influencing the perception of climate change as a distant or irrelevant issue. While research on the relationship between psychological proximity and action is mixed, contextual factors likely play a significant role. This study shifts the focus to the psychological distance of *collective* climate action, exploring how perceptions of temporal, spatial, social, and hypothetical distance influence engagement. Social identification with environmental activists is strongly associated with political environmental activism and collective efficacy, which, in turn, predicts collective action. Existing advice on climate conversations often emphasizes finding common ground, shared values, and tailoring conversations. However, the study explores the efficacy of proximizing climate action along temporal, spatial, and hypothetical dimensions, including discussing past actions and highlighting immediate, local opportunities. The relationship between psychological distance, construal level (abstract vs. concrete presentation of information), and efficacy beliefs is also examined. Efficacy encompasses self-efficacy (belief in one's ability to act) and response efficacy (belief that actions will achieve desired results), at both individual and collective levels. While a body of research links efficacy to intentions and policy support related to climate action, further investigation is needed on how climate conversations influence collective efficacy beliefs and translate to actual participation in collective action.

This study employed a mixed-methods design with one treatment group and two control groups (n=41 each). The treatment group involved three conversations between climate activists and their non-activist acquaintances. The first conversation focused on the seriousness of the climate crisis, climate solutions, climate justice, and opportunities for collective climate action, specifically at a local level. Subsequent conversations explored participants' reflections, actions taken, and any facilitating or hindering factors. Conversations were conducted via Zoom or in person and transcribed. Activists received guidance aligned with common best practices for climate conversations (e.g., active listening, finding common ground, sharing personal stories). The survey-only control group took surveys at the same intervals as the treatment group but without participating in conversations. A no-intervention control group was surveyed about their climate-related attitudes and actions over the preceding five months. Surveys assessed climate attitudes (knowledge, concern, personal response efficacy, intention to act), activists' perceptions of their partners' attitudes, and participants' impressions of the conversations. Action was measured by quantifying the number of collective actions and total actions undertaken. Recruitment involved contacting climate action organizations, universities, and utilizing listservs to reach both activists and non-activists. Conversations were analyzed using ATLAS.ti, employing a priori codes based on conversation topics and interactional strategies, combined with inductive grounded theory for emergent themes. Statistical analyses were performed in Python using techniques such as mixed ANOVAs and Spearman's correlation tests.

Mixed ANOVAs revealed that the treatment group experienced significantly greater increases in self-reported knowledge, intention to take action, perceived personal response efficacy, and concern compared to the survey-only control group. However, one-way ANOVAs showed no significant differences in the total amount of actions or collective actions across treatment and control groups. While the treatment group overwhelmingly attributed their actions to study participation, this perception was lower in the survey-only group. Analysis of barriers to collective action identified common obstacles including lack of free time, low perceived personal and collective efficacy, lack of knowledge about climate action, other priorities, isolation from activist communities, psychological distance from climate impacts and action, despair, burnout, and feeling overwhelmed. Partners frequently generalized about collective climate action abstractly rather than discussing specific local opportunities. Thirteen participants viewed collective action as distant and unattainable, prioritizing more tangible lifestyle changes, some of which are known to be ineffective for climate change mitigation. Activists employed several strategies to proximize collective action: explaining types of action, naming specific organizations, sharing experiences, suggesting actions, linking partners' skills to action, and inviting joint action. Importantly, activists' explanations of climate action, but not discussions of systemic solutions, correlated with increased perceived personal response efficacy among partners. This suggests that focusing on specific actions could be a crucial pathway to enhance the effectiveness of relational conversations.

The findings indicate that relational climate conversations effectively increase knowledge, perceived efficacy, and intention to act, aligning with previous research. However, translating these positive attitudes into actual collective action remains challenging. The lack of difference in action between treatment and control groups suggests the need for more structured approaches beyond simple conversations. The study's framework, incorporating psychological distance and construal-level theory, offers valuable insights into why collective action remains low. The tendency of partners to focus on distal, abstract concepts of collective action, while prioritizing less impactful lifestyle changes, highlights the need for concrete, proximal framing of collective climate action within conversations. Activists' use of various proximization strategies suggests the potential for increased efficacy and action through targeted communication, emphasizing concrete actions over abstract solutions. The correlation between activists' action-focused discourse and increased perceived efficacy emphasizes the importance of providing practical guidance and information to facilitate engagement in collective action.

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of relational climate conversations in promoting positive attitudinal changes. However, fostering collective climate action requires more structured approaches than loosely guided conversations. Focusing on concrete examples of collective action and equipping individuals with the knowledge and resources to participate effectively is crucial. Future research should examine diverse demographics, contexts, and conversation formats to enhance the effectiveness of relational climate conversations as a tool for mobilizing collective action.

The study's sample, predominantly politically progressive and relatively unaffected by climate change, limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research with more representative samples is needed to determine whether the results hold across diverse populations and geographical regions. The study's correlational nature prevents establishing causal links between discourse strategies and action. Further research using experimental designs would strengthen the causal inferences. Additionally, the study did not fully examine self-efficacy, and future studies could benefit from a more thorough investigation of both self and collective efficacy beliefs.