Values & frames

Values & Frames Download PDF

One of the defining debates within the envir­on­mental move­ment over the past decade has been between those who believe that applying the tech­niques and strategies of mar­keting phys­ical products is the best way of pro­moting sus­tain­able beha­viour (social mar­keting), and those who have argued that this approach – trying to ‘sell’ cli­mate change – is ulti­mately coun­ter­pro­ductive unless the right under­lying values are tar­geted by cam­paigns, and unless the mes­sages are ‘framed’ in a way that encour­ages sus­tain­able beha­viours across the board.

So what are ‘values’ and ‘frames’, and why are they so important?

A value is usu­ally defined by psy­cho­lo­gists as a ‘guiding prin­ciple in the life of a person’ (Schwartz, 1992). Over sev­eral dec­ades, and through research con­ducted in over 60 coun­tries, there is now a huge body of evid­ence that shows the cer­tain values and beliefs tend to go together – while others tend to be opposed to each other. People who identify strongly with ‘self-enhancing’ values (e.g. mater­i­alism, per­sonal ambi­tion) tend not to identify strongly with ‘self-transcending’ values (e.g. bene­vol­ence, respect for the environment).

There are some important prac­tical implic­a­tions to this research: people who hold ‘self-transcendent’ values (espe­cially pro-environmental values, and high levels of altruism) are more likely to engage in sus­tain­able beha­viour (Stern, 2000), show higher con­cern about envir­on­mental risks like cli­mate change (Slimak and Dietz, 2006), are more likely to per­form spe­cific actions such as recyc­ling (Dunlap et al., 1983) and are more likely to sup­port cli­mate mit­ig­a­tion policies (Nilsson et al., 2004).

These mean that unless cam­paigns to pro­mote sus­tain­able beha­viour make an attempt to target ‘self-transcendent’ values, they may inad­vert­ently be pro­moting pre­cisely the types of per­sonal and cul­tural values that will make sus­tain­able beha­viour less likely. And this is why the way that mes­sages and cam­paigns are ‘framed’ is so important.

Intentionally or unin­ten­tion­ally, all inform­a­tion is ‘framed’ by the con­text in which it appears. This could mean the indi­vidual words and phrases that are used (some­times called ‘con­cep­tual framing’), and is more akin to the ‘spin’ that is put on a mes­sage (like describing a product as con­taining 50% less fat, when in fact it still con­tains more fat than any of its competitors).

But framing can also mean some­thing more sub­stan­tial, and this is called ‘deep framing’. ‘Deep framing’ refers to the con­nec­tions that are forged between a par­tic­ular com­mu­nic­a­tion strategy or public policy and a set of deeper values or prin­ciples (Lakoff, 2004), and offers one method of linking cli­mate change engage­ment strategies with self-transcendent values (Crompton, 2010). For example, put­ting a fin­an­cial value on an endangered spe­cies, and building an eco­nomic case for their con­ser­va­tion ‘com­mod­i­fies’ them, and makes them equi­valent (at the level of deep frames) to other assets of the same value (like a hotel chain). This is a very dif­ferent frame to one that attempts to achieve the same con­ser­va­tion goals through emphas­ising the intrinsic value of rare animal spe­cies – as some­thing that should be pro­tected in their own right.

There is now a growing body of work – much of it led by Dr Tom Crompton, Change Strategist for WWF – that has used these research find­ings about how values and frames impact on people’s beha­viours and beliefs, and applied them to the chal­lenges of cam­paigning on cli­mate change. In the resources list, some of these studies are briefly described. But here is a more detailed account of what Tom Crompton and his col­leagues have dis­covered about how to use frames and values to most effect­ively pro­mote sus­tain­able behaviour.

Crompton’s first piece of work was called ‘Weathercocks & Signposts’, and chal­lenged many of the assump­tions about how NGOs cam­paigned on cli­mate change. It was one of the first pub­lic­a­tions to ques­tion whether social mar­keting approaches were neces­sarily the best way of achieving the aims of envir­on­mental NGOs, given that social mar­keting often advoc­ates using financial/material incent­ives, which in the long term encourage values that are coun­ter­pro­ductive to pro­moting sus­tain­able behaviour.

His next report (with John Thogersen), ‘Simple & pain­less? The lim­it­a­tions of Spillover in Environmental Campaigning’, expanded on these argu­ments and examined another assump­tion that many envir­on­mental cam­paigns were based on: that starting with ‘simple and pain­less’ steps like unplug­ging phone char­gers or turning down the washing machine is an effective way of enga­ging people in the more sub­stan­tial sus­tain­able beha­viours like chan­ging their travel routines, or eating dif­ferent types of food. Crompton showed that the psy­cho­lo­gical evid­ence for a ‘vir­tuous escal­ator’ of beha­vi­oural change is lim­ited, at best.

In a short, down­load­able e-book with Tim Kasser, Crompton set out in more detail the social psy­cho­lo­gical evid­ence on how people’s sense of identify and their life goals affect their envir­on­mental beha­viours. It looks in detail at three of the main psy­cho­lo­gical drivers for envir­on­ment­ally destructive beha­viour (including mater­i­al­istic values and life goals, pre­ju­dice against the ‘out-group’ who are per­ceived to be telling them what to do, and coping strategies people use against the ‘threat’ of having to change their beha­viour). It pro­poses spe­cific strategies for dealing with each problem, and includes case studies from envir­on­mental campaigns.

Crompton’s work cul­min­ated in a recent, well-publicised report pro­duced for a coali­tion of third-sector organ­isa­tions called ‘Common Cause’. As well as the main report, a hand­book for cam­paign and com­munity groups was pro­duced, sum­mar­ising the central argu­ments in the report and trans­lating them into prac­tical tasks and recom­mend­a­tions. There is also a web­site that includes new com­mentary and fea­tures showing how the Common Cause thinking is being used in practice.

The central argu­ment of the Common Cause report is that for ‘bigger-than-self’ prob­lems like cli­mate change (i.e. prob­lems that may not be in an individual’s imme­diate self-interest to invest energy and resources in helping to solve), cam­paigns that propagate or endorse self-enhancing values may actu­ally under­mine the ‘common cause’ that links them. This means that there is a common cause that links not just dif­ferent envir­on­mental cam­paigns, but ‘bigger than self’ prob­lems across dif­ferent sec­tors (e.g., dealing with poverty).

Crompton and his col­leagues’ work on values and frames has started to alter the land­scape of cam­paigning on envir­on­mental and other social issues – it is well worth taking the time to read the work he has been involved in, and thinking about how its find­ings can be applied.


Crompton, T. (2010). Common Cause: The case for working with our cul­tural values. Surrey: WWF UK.

Dunlap, R. E., Grieneeks, J. K., & Rokeach, M. (1983). Human values and pro-environmental beha­viour. InW.D. Conn (Ed.), Energy and material resources: Attitudes, values, and public policy. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an ele­phant! Know your values and frame the debate. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Nilsson, A., von Borgstede, C. & Biel, A. (2004). Willingness to accept cli­mate change strategies: The effect of values and norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24, 267–277.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the con­tent and struc­ture of values: Theoretical advances and empir­ical tests in 20 coun­tries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Slimak, M.W., & Dietz, T., (2006). Personal values, beliefs, and eco­lo­gical risk per­cep­tion.  Risk Analysis 26 (6) 1689–1705.

Stern, P. C. (2000). Towards a coherent theory of envir­on­ment­ally sig­ni­ficant beha­vior. Journal of Social Issues 56(3), 407–424.

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.