DOI: 10.5061/dryad.7h44j107q
title: Overcoming pluralistic ignorance: Brief exposure to positive thoughts and actions of others can enhance social norms related to climate action and support for climate policy

description: Delivering effective messages is critical to creating a more sustainable
 and resilient culture. The explosion of social media has enhanced
 information access but has often reinforced and polarized pre-existing
 viewpoints and norms. In contrast, digital signs are an “in your face in
 your space” technology that has the potential to deliver common content to
 a diverse local audience. Environmental Dashboard (ED) is a communications
 platform and set of content applications that combines information on
 current environmental conditions, real-time resource consumption, positive
 actions being taken by community members, and a community calendar. We
 conducted a longitudinal study to assess whether ED content delivered via
 digital signs in public locations would result in desirable psychological
 changes within a community. Participants completed surveys in six
 designated signage locations prior to installation (N = 174) and following
 two years of continuous exposure (N = 133). We observed: increases in
 pro-environmental social norms among people of color (a demographic
 emphasized); enhanced awareness of and sense of connection with the local
 community and ecology; increased self-reported electricity conservation;
 and increased perception of youth engagement (another demographic
 emphasized). Changes were mediated by exposure to digital signage. These
 findings support the hypothesis that content delivered through digital
 signs can strengthen pro-environmental and pro-social culture within
 communities.
description: An online study was designed to assess how a sample of people
 from the NE Ohio region and a national sample responded to a brief
 exposure to pro-social CV content and to climate action-focused CV
 content. Pro-social Community Voices (CV) content for this research was
 acquired from an existing repository that our team continues to develop
 for use on Dashboard digital signs deployed in NE Ohio. Climate
 action-focused content was developed through a recent initiative focused
 specifically on enhancing norms related to local climate action in Oberlin
 and in the metro-Cleveland region. Participants were
 recruited via Prolific, a company that provides online samples (www.prolific.com)
 and were paid $2.25 for a survey that we designed to be completed in 8.5
 min (equivalent to ~$16 per hour). Participants were recruited from both a
 national pool (N = 445) and a NE Ohio pool (N = 524).
 The experimental design was a 2 (sample: regional vs. national) ×
 3 (condition: no exposure vs. pro-social CV exposure vs. climate
 action-focused CV exposure) between-subjects design. Survey questions
 designed to assess response to these conditions were asked after
 exposure. The survey instructed all participants: “In
 this study, you will answer a series of questions about climate change and
 your community…” Participants were then randomly assigned to one of the
 three conditions. Participants who were exposed to a CV sideshow (about
 two-thirds of participants) were told: “This is a slide show containing 12
 images paired with quotes, which will last 2 min and 30 s. We ask that you
 watch the entire slideshow for the purposes of this study. We also suggest
 that you watch it in full screen to be more able to view the pictures on
 the slides. After the slide show is finished, you may proceed to the next
 part of the study.” The slideshow, which was shown immediately after the
 instructions above were provided, contained real Community Voices content
 that is currently being displayed on digital dashboards throughout NE
 Ohio.  After watching the slideshow, participants were asked to complete
 the measures described below.
 <strong>Manipulation check/norm awareness.</strong>
 Participants responded to the item “I am aware of what others think about
 climate change” on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 =
 Strongly Agree). This item was designed to be a manipulation check, to
 ensure that participants exposed to climate content were aware that they
 had been exposed to it. <strong>Descriptive and
 Prescriptive Climate Norms.</strong> Participants responded to six
 questions based on items from the YPCCC’s “Climate Opinion Maps” survey
 [2]. Four items measured descriptive norms (e.g., “People in my community
 are taking action to address climate change”) and two items measured
 prescriptive norms (e.g., “People have a responsibility to protect the
 environment for future generations”) on a five-point Likert scale (1 =
 Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Exploratory factor analysis on all
 six items with oblimin rotation confirmed that these two factors explained
 70% of the variance. Both subscales were reliable: descriptive norm alpha
 = 0.724, prescriptive norm alpha = 0.749.
 <strong>Psychological Distance of Climate
 Change.</strong> On a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly
 Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree), survey participants rated agreement with
 statements designed to measure spatial, social, and temporal psychological
 distance (e.g., “Serious effects of climate change will mostly occur in
 communities far away from here”, “I don’t see myself as someone who will
 experience the effects of climate change”). The scale was reliable;
 Cronbach’s alpha = 0.805. <strong>Envisioning a
 Positive Environmental Future.</strong> Participants completed a
 subset of the Environmental Cognitive Alternatives Scale (ECAS), a 10-item
 scale designed to measure “the ability to imagine what a sustainable
 relationship between humans and the rest of nature might look like” [25].
 Participants responded on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly
 Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) to items such as, “It is easy to imagine a
 world where we no longer use fossil fuels”. The scale was reliable;
 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.834. <strong>Positive and
 negative emotions.</strong> Using a four-point scale (1 = Not at
 all, 2 = Slightly, 3 = Moderately, 4 = Strongly), survey participants
 reported their levels of 9 different emotions in response to the prompt
 “How strongly do you feel each of the following emotions when you think
 about the issue of climate change?”. The four positive emotions (hopeful,
 brave, resilient, and optimistic) and five negative emotions (guilty,
 angry, betrayed, sad, and afraid) were presented in random order. Both
 scales were reliable, negation emotions Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.87, positive
 emotions Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.84.
 <strong>Efficacy.</strong> We used two items to
 measure participants’ sense of collective efficacy, at the community
 level, to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Participants read the
 statement, “consider two different ways that people cope with climate
 change. <em>Mitigation</em> is when people work to reduce the
 causes of climate change. This means reducing greenhouse gas emissions
 and/or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
 <em>Adaptation</em> involves anticipating the impacts of a
 changing climate and taking action to prevent or minimize the damage
 caused. For example, this might mean installing air-conditioning to deal
 with extreme heat or installing sea walls to prevent flooding.”
 Then participants were asked: “Think about humans’ ability to
 mitigate (or reduce) climate change. Which of the following statements
 comes closest to your view?” Participants chose one of four statements
 ranging from “My community can’t reduce climate change” to “My community
 can reduce climate change, and we are going to do so
 successfully”. Next, participants were asked: “Now
 think about whether humans can adapt to climate change. Can we take
 actions that make the impacts of climate change less disruptive? Which of
 the following statements comes closest to your view?” Participants chose
 one of four statements ranging from “My community can’t adapt to climate
 change” to “My community can adapt to climate change, and we are going to
 do so successfully”. <strong>Policy
 Support.</strong> On a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly
 Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree), survey participants rated how much they
 supported using “significant tax dollars” to mitigate climate emissions,
 adapt to a changing climate, invest in public transit, and invest in
 renewable energy. The scale was highly reliable; Cronbach’s Alpha =
 0.921. <strong>Demographics.</strong> At
 the end of the study, participants were asked to report on their age,
 gender, education level, income, ethnicity, political orientation
 (measured on a seven-point scale between conservative and liberal), and
 rural, suburban, or urban locality.
description: # Overcoming pluralistic ignorance: Brief exposure to positive thoughts
 and actions of others can enhance social norms related to climate action
 and support for climate policy Dataset DOI:
 [10.5061/dryad.7h44j107q](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.7h44j107q) ##
 Description of the data and file structure We assessed whether brief
 exposure to positive thoughts and actions of others might make climate
 action more normative and increase support for climate policy.
 Specifically, we exposed people to “Community Voices” (CV), a form of
 social media designed to promote pro-environmental and pro-social norms.
 Online recruits (N = 969) from national and regional (Northeast Ohio)
 samples were exposed to either no CV content (control), pro-social CV
 content (unrelated to climate) or CV content depicting climate action in
 NE Ohio. They completed measures of perceptions of climate norms,
 psychological distance of climate change, and policy support (among other
 things).  ### Files and variables #### File:
 MetadataForOvercomingPluralisticIgnorance.csv **Description:** This csv
 file lists each variable in the dataset and provides labels for all
 values.  #### File: DataForOvercomingPluralisticIgnorance.csv
 **Description:** This csv file contains the raw de-identified data. Each
 row corresponds to a single participant.  ## Code/software The csv files
 can be opened in a variety of software packages, including Excel and SPSS.
 All analyses in the corresponding paper were conducted using SPSS 31. ##
 Human subjects data Participants gave written consent for their data to be
 included in a publicly available dataset. IP addresses, Prolific IDs, and
 most demographic demographic information have been removed from the file.
 Only gender and political orientation, which are used as control
 variables, remain.