What use is the truth if no one wants to hear it?

Solutions instead of doom and gloom

The researchers examined the societal impact of climate reporting in respect of three dimensions: media climate communication, self-perception, and the recipients’ unconscious psychological reactions. Principal investigator Marie Kogler is an environmental systems scientist at the University of Graz. She conducts research using mathematical methods to study the interactions between the environment, society, and the individual: “It was clear to me that if I were to tackle such complex topics as climate information, opinions, and emotions, I would need collaborators from all the relevant fields.” At first glance, collaborating across such a wide range of different and sometimes very diverse disciplines sounds challenging, but in the end it was “easier than expected and incredibly rewarding,” Kogler notes.

In order to analyze how climate issues are covered, the research team examined articles from the nine Austrian media with the highest circulation from 2002 to 2023 – a total of roughly 100,000 reports. The analysis of the corpus revealed a clear trend: since 2016, climate coverage has become much more intensive and nuanced. “This study has to some degree debunked the simplistic assumption that climate journalism primarily spreads doom and gloom,” explains Kogler. Detailed analyses of media coverage starting in 2018 show that solution-oriented messages appeared at least as frequently as threat-oriented ones.

The question of self-efficacy

And what effect does this have on readers, listeners, and viewers? Using two empirical case studies, the researchers examined the audience’s responses to threat-oriented and solution-oriented reports: are people willing to change their behavior as a result of consuming climate news – by driving less, avoiding air travel, or cutting back on meat, for instance? Are they more likely to do so when reports highlight concrete solutions?

“The interesting thing was that the direct effect could not be measured based on the distinction between solution-oriented and threat-oriented statements,” explains Annina Thaller, a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Environmental Systems Science at the University of Graz and in charge of the “empirical social research” part of the project. More significant were the emotions triggered by these statements. “Doom and gloom” reports – i.e. threatening scenarios – lead many readers to experience emotions such as climate anxiety; for some, this results in hopelessness or apathy, while others are motivated to become politically active. There is a comparable double edge to solution-oriented reports. They can convey a sense of well-being and thereby dampen engagement, or they can motivate by highlighting concrete courses of action.

The researchers conclude that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions when it comes to climate communication. Hence, communication must be tailored to the specific target audience. The common assumption that the media need only offer readers, listeners, or viewers more solutions is too simplistic.

Most readers do not lack information or knowledge about climate change. According to Thaller, the decisive factor is the question of “self-efficacy”: Do people feel that their actions can make a difference? That is where the situation gets complex, because this question goes far beyond climate communication and touches on factors such as income, status, social environment, and existing infrastructure. If a community has no access to public transport, its residents find it harder to give up their cars – regardless of what media they consume.

Overcoming hopelessness

The neuroscience team coordinated by Florian Fischmeister at the Medical University of Vienna delved one level deeper and investigated the psychophysiological reactions to climate-related news. Participants were presented with a total of 57 different statements on the topic of climate, and MRI scans were used to observe the reactions these statements triggered in the brain. “The brain reacted similarly to threatening and solution-oriented climate statements. Overall, however, negative climate news was processed slightly less easily than neutral news,” explains project team member Gabija Aurylaitè. A striking fact: “Solution-oriented messages also showed slightly more activity in areas associated with mobilization. However, this finding is still preliminary and requires further investigation.”

The research project will continue through the end of the year, but Kogler and the project team intend to reach out with their findings. They are sharing the results with journalists, NGOs, and politicians through workshops and webinars. These initiatives are intended to help develop concrete strategies for improving climate communication with the goal of motivating people to adopt more climate-friendly behavior – even if there is no silver bullet solution.

About the researchers

Marie Kogler works as an FWF Senior Researcher at the Department of Environmental Systems Sciences at the University of Graz. She received the “Award of Excellence” from the Ministry of Education for her thesis on the emergence of collective behavior in complex networks.

Annina Thaller is responsible for the empirical social research component of the project and works as a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Environmental Systems Science at the University of Graz. Her research focuses on sustainable mobility, fairness, and behavioral change.

Publication

Bidirectional Topic Matching: Quantifying Thematic Intersections Between Climate Change and Climate Mitigation News Corpora Through Topic Modelling, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing Meets Climate Change 2025