Using scare tactics: does it work?

Using Scare Tactics: Does It Work? Download PDF

There is no get­ting around the fact that cli­mate change is scary. For people who live in coun­tries where the envir­on­mental con­di­tions are already chal­len­ging, and are get­ting worse, fear of the effects of cli­mate change is a very imme­diate concern.

But for cit­izens of most developed coun­tries, cli­mate change still rep­res­ents a future threat. Many early cli­mate change com­mu­nic­a­tion strategies by NGOs and gov­ern­ment agen­cies drew the reas­on­able con­clu­sion that because the threat of cli­mate change was per­ceived as some­thing to worry about in the future, increasing the ‘fear factor’ might be a good way of get­ting people to be more concerned.

This approach was not com­pletely mis­guided – studies have found that if the ‘psy­cho­lo­gical dis­tance’ between an indi­vidual and the impacts of cli­mate change is reduced (for example, because they exper­i­ence a flooding event that is rep­res­ent­ative of the sort of impacts cli­mate change will bring), they are more likely to express con­cern over cli­mate change and show a greater will­ing­ness to save energy (Spence, Poortinga, Butler & Pidgeon, 2011). So linking indi­vidual exper­i­ences with cli­mate change is one way of increasing the chance that people will want to do some­thing about it.

There is also no merit in ‘dumbing down’ the sci­entific evid­ence that the impacts of cli­mate change are likely to be severe, and that some of these impacts are now almost cer­tainly unavoid­able. Accepting that cli­mate change is hap­pening, and will cause sig­ni­ficant prob­lems for human and nat­ural sys­tems is a scary pro­spect. But research has shown that delib­erate attempts to instil fear or guilt in people carry a con­sid­er­able risk of backfiring.

Studies on ‘fear appeals’ show the poten­tial for fear to change atti­tudes or verbal expres­sions of con­cern, but often not actions or beha­viour. The impact of fear appeals is con­text – and audi­ence – spe­cific. For those who do not yet realise the poten­tially ‘scary’ aspects of cli­mate change, people need to first exper­i­ence them­selves as vul­ner­able to the risks in some way in order to feel moved or affected (Das et al, 2003; Hoog et al, 2005; Spence et al, 2011). While fear of a neg­ative out­come (e.g. lung cancer) can be an effective way of pro­moting beha­vi­oural changes (e.g. giving up smoking), the link between the threat and the beha­viour must be per­sonal and direct (Hoog et al, 2005). Typically, cli­mate change is per­ceived as neither a direct nor a per­sonal threat – and so shocking people into doing their recyc­ling is not neces­sarily the right idea.

As people move towards con­tem­plating action, fear appeals can help form a beha­vi­oural intent, providing an impetus or spark; how­ever such appeals must be coupled with con­structive inform­a­tion and sup­port to reduce the sense of danger (Moser & Dilling, 2007). The danger is that fear can also be dis­em­powering – pro­du­cing feel­ings of help­less­ness, remote­ness and lack of con­trol (O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole, 2009). The right kind of fear-based mes­sage is “We know this is scary and over­whelming, but many of us feel this way and we are doing some­thing about it”.

Unless care­fully used in a mes­sage that con­tains con­structive advice and a per­sonal and direct link with the indi­vidual, fear is likely to trigger bar­riers to engage­ment with cli­mate change, such as denial (Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2001; Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole & Whitmarsh,2007). Similarly, studies have shown that guilt can play a role in motiv­ating people to take action but can also func­tion to stim­u­late defensive mech­an­isms against the per­ceived threat or chal­lenge to one’s sense of iden­tity (as a good, moral person). In the latter case, beha­viours may be left untouched (whether driving a SUV or taking a flight) as people defend them­selves against any feel­ings of guilt or com­pli­city through deploy­ment of a range of jus­ti­fic­a­tions for the beha­viour (Ferguson & Branscombe, 2010).

A recent study by psy­cho­lo­gists at Berkeley, California (Feinberg & Willer, 2010), found that ‘apo­ca­lyptic’ mes­sages about cli­mate change impacted on dif­ferent people in dif­ferent ways. For those who believe in a ‘just world’ – that bad things don’t, by and large, happen to good people – mes­sages that ended in dire con­sequences actu­ally increased their scep­ti­cism about cli­mate change. The researchers sug­gested that the con­flict between the neg­ative impacts of cli­mate change and their belief in a just world led to the mes­sage being ignored – and even used as evid­ence that cli­mate change was not occur­ring. The lesson for cli­mate change com­mu­nic­ators is that scare tac­tics must be used with cau­tion: there is the pos­sib­ility they will backfire.


Das, de Wit, Stroebe (2003). Fear Appeals Motivate Acceptance of Action Recommendations: Evidence for a Positive Bias in the Processing of Persuasive Messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 650–664.

Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. (2010). Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs. Psychological Science, 22 (1), 34–38.

Ferguson & Branscombe (2010). Collective guilt medi­ates the effect of beliefs about global warming on will­ing­ness to engage in mit­ig­a­tion beha­viour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2) 135–142.

Hoog, N., Stroebe, W., & de Wit, J. B. F. (2005). The impact of Fear Appeals on pro­cessing and accept­ance of action recom­mend­a­tions. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 31, 24–33.

Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers per­ceived to enga­ging with cli­mate change among the UK public and their policy implic­a­tions. Global Environmental Change, 17 (3−4), 445–459.

Moser, S. C., & Dilling, L. (Eds.). (2007). Creating a cli­mate for change: Communicating cli­mate change and facil­it­ating social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Neill, S. & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear Won’t Do It”: Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations. Science Communication 30, 355–379.

Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Butler, C. & Pidgeon, N. (2011). Perceptions of cli­mate change and will­ing­ness to save energy related to flood exper­i­ence. Nature Climate Change, 1(1) 46–49.

Stoll-Kleemann, S., O’Riordan, T., & Jaeger, C. C. (2001). The psy­cho­logy of denial con­cerning cli­mate mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures: Evidence from Swiss focus groups. Global Environmental Change, 11(2), 107–117.

Make a comment

Creative Commons 2011 - 2015, Talking Climate
A project by COIN & PIRC.
This website is a project of Climate Outreach

This website, a project of Climate Outreach (COIN), has been integrated into the new Climate Outreach website. Any updates since 21 October 2015 have been made to the new website only, not here, and this website will soon be deleted. Please bookmark our new website – we look forward to continuing to share the latest in climate communication research with you. We are now tweeting from @climateoutreach so please follow us there.