Resilience vs. Adaptation: Framing and Action CE Gabrielle ...May 20, 2014  · Resilience vs....

Resilience vs. Adaptation: Framing and Action Gabrielle Wong-Parodi*1, Baruch Fischhoff1,2, Ben Strauss3

*gwongpar@cmu.edu, 1Department of Engineering and Public Policy, 2Department of Social and Decision Sciences, 3Climate Central

CE

Problem Statement and Objectives

Study 1 – Framing in a Word

The terms “resilience” and “adaptation” are alternately used to frame discussion about taking action to meet the current and future risks presented by climate change impacts.1-4 Communicators interested in motivating the public to take action on climate change face numerous choices when designing their messages, one of which is deciding which of these frames to use. How framing affects public response to current and future risks is an empirical question.

Frames are used by a broad range of communicators to orient people’s thinking in a particular way about a topic.5-7

Psychological and political science studies find that frames matter – in that they influence attitudes and behaviors of lay audiences.6 In psychology, “resilience” emphasizes a general ability to master challenges, whereas “adaptation” emphasizes specific coping responses. The former is a trait, associated with active mastery. The latter is a state, associated with accommodating stressors. Resilience includes the “adaptive capacity” to acquire new capabilities, perhaps emerging stronger from the struggle. If lay audiences think of these two terms similarly, then their use as frames may elicit very different responses to the risks of current and future flooding due to sea level rise.

Here we ask people to consider coastal flooding risks in two ways:

1.  Framing with a single word for current risk 2.  Framing in a program for future risk

•  Concern about flooding risk: (a) flood expectations, (b) flood tolerance, and (c) flood insurance.

•  Motivation to prepare for flooding risks: rated agreement with 4 actions as things (d) they could do to prepare against the risk of coastal flooding, (e) they would do, and (f) would help protect their families.

Study 2 – Framing in a Program

Experimental procedures After brief introduction, informed consent, and screening for age

(≥18), participants were randomly assigned to the Resilience or Adaptation condition (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Study 1 stimuli

Measures •  Scenarios: Linguistic and psychological processes, social

concerns, and speech categories.

Experimental procedures After brief introduction, informed consent, and screening for age

(≥18), participants were randomly assigned to Resilience, Adaptation, or No Policy Stated conditions. All told to imagine moving to the fictitious “typical coastal town” of “Seaside” where they “want to settle down, with no plans to move ever again.” They were then told their family is concerned about coastal flooding, and wants them to find out more about it before moving. Participants in the No Policy Stated Condition completed the measures described for Study 1. The Resilience and Adaptation conditions were taken to the City of Seaside “website” where they read:

They then used Surging Seas’ Risk Finder decision aid.

Seaside and its citizens are investing in increasing their [resilience / ability to adapt] in the face of coastal flooding risks. One of our programs helps Seaside [become more resilient / adapt] by helping families make emergency plans. Another program provides no-interest loans for flood-proofing homes. Your family can feel good about [Resilient / Adapt] Seaside.

Results and Discussion

Discussion •  Concern undermines action unless accompanied by plausible

plans.8

•  Either term works for motivating action in general. For specific decisions about future risk, adaptation with plausible plans. For collective action, resilience might be suitable.

Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and

the National Science Foundation’s Center for Climate and Energy Decision-Making [NSF 09-554]

(1)  McEvoy,  D.,   Fünfgeld,  H.,  &  Bosomworth,  K.   (2013).  Resilience  and  Climate  Change  AdaptaIon:  The  Importance  of  Framing.  Planning  PracIce  &  Research,  (ahead-­‐of-­‐print),  1-­‐14.  (2)  Nelson,  D.  R.,  Adger,  W.  N.,   &   Brown,   K.   (2007).   AdaptaIon   to   environmental   change:   contribuIons   of   a   resilience   framework.  Annual   review   of   Environment   and   Resources,   32(1),   395.   (3)   Adger,   W.   N.,   Hughes,   T.   P.,   Folke,   C.,  Carpenter,   S.   R.,   &   Rockström,   J.   (2005).   Social-­‐ecological   resilience   to   coastal   disasters.   Science,  309(5737),  1036-­‐1039.   (4)  Brown,  K.   (2013).  Global  environmental   change   IA  social   turn   for   resilience?.  Progress   in   Human   Geography,   0309132513498837.   (5)   Chong,   D.,   &   Druckman,   J.   N.   (2007).   Framing  theory.  Annu.  Rev.  Polit.  Sci.,  10,  103-­‐126.  (6)  Levin,  I.  P.,  Schneider,  S.  L.,  &  Gaeth,  G.  J.  (1998).  All  frames  are   not   created   equal:   A   typology   and   criIcal   analysis   of   framing   effects.   OrganizaIonal   behavior   and  human  decision  processes,  76(2),  149-­‐188.   (7)  Tversky,  A.,  &  Kahneman,  D.   (1986).  RaIonal  choice  and  the   framing   of   decisions.   Journal   of   business,   S251-­‐S278.   (8)   Hay,   J.   L.,   Buckley,   T.   R.,   &   Ostroff,   J.   S.  (2005).  The  role  of  cancer  worry  in  cancer  screening:  a  theoreIcal  and  empirical  review  of  the  literature.  Psycho-­‐Oncology,  14(7),  517-­‐534.    

Study 1 – Framing in a Word •  Participants: 202 adults with an average age of 34.4

(SD=12.5), with 59.9% being female, 78.8% White or Caucasian, 36.7% with household income ≥$51K.

•  Scenarios: Compared to Adaptation essays more often referenced family and used inclusion words, and less often referenced time and used adverbs (0.1<p<.05).

•  Concern about flooding: No difference. •  Motivation to prepare for flooding: No difference. Study 2 – Framing in a Program •  Participants: 206 adults with an average age of 33.2

(SD=10.8), with 40.5% being female, 73.5% White or Caucasian, 36.8% with household income ≥$51K.

•  Concern about flooding: Resilience more concerned (Figure 2). •  Motivation to prepare for flooding: Resilience less willing to

take action (Figure 3).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Resilience Adaptation No Policy Stated

Resilience Adaptation No Policy Stated

Expe

cted

flo

od h

eigh

t (1-

10 f

eet)

Tolerable flood height Highest expected flood height

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Resili

ence

Adapta

tion

No Poli

cy St

ated

Resili

ence

Adapta

tion

No Poli

cy St

ated

Resili

ence

Adapta

tion

No Poli

cy St

ated

Agr

eem

ent (

1=co

mpl

etel

y di

sagr

ee,

7=co

mpl

etel

y ag

ree)

Action helpful to do Action would do Action could do

Figure 2. Study 2 results for concern about flooding

Figure 3. Study 2 results for motivation to prepare for flooding