Granada (Punica granatum)

Rettalack (2006) suggests that portraying global climate change as an inevitable, frightening, apocalyptic scenario makes people - especially children - feel powerless. This is especially important to note given that popular television shows like the “Simpsons,” “South Park,” and the “Daily Show” have been cited by many younger people as the ways that they have heard about global climate change. The popular

Hollywood film The Day After Tomorrow plays out a scenario where the earth is plunged into a deep Ice Age in three days, killing millions of people instantly. This information is, of course, for entertainment’s sake, but can sometimes be the only way that people hear about the issue. One recent “Simpsons” episode briefly brought up the topic. Marge and her daughter Lisa walk into a museum and come to an exhibit on climate change. A tall glass case encloses a miniature model of the New York City skyline. A disembodied voice instructs, “Press button to see what global warming will do in the next three years.” A moment after the button is pushed, water levels rise to the level of the empire state

building roof, and miniature dead bodies float to the top of the water. Lisa’s eyes are gigantic while her mother feebly explains, “Three years is a long ways away…” (Groening, 2007).

Some research has been done on how informal educators can avoid this kind of fear. The FrameWorks Institute, an organization that examines how social problems can most effectively be communicated, looked at the reasons that messages about GCC aren’t leading to changes in behavior. The Institute “conducted a linguistic analysis of elite discourse on climate change in media coverage as well as of environmental groups’ own communications on the issue, followed by one-on-one interviews and focus groups with members of the public and a national poll” (Retallack, 2006, p. 1). It reported that environmental activists were getting the message wrong. Current reporting styles that employ apocalyptic imagery may actually have an immobilizing effect. It found that,

…the more people are bombarded with words or images of devastating, quasi- Biblical effects of global warming, the more likely they are to tune out and switch instead into ‘adaptationist’ mode, focusing on protecting themselves and their families, such as by buying large vehicles to secure their safety. (Retallack, 2006, p. 2)

This “adaptationist mode” is further explored by Meijnders et al. (2001), who found that if people are “insufficiently reassured” by recommendations made by GCC activists, they will attempt to find other means of feeling safe, some of which can be inappropriate (p. 756). This can have enormous influences on whether a GCC mitigation policy will have the support of the public. If people perceive that their actions can be effective in lowering a threat, people are motivated to change. However, if “the perceived efficacy is low, increases in the perceived threat will either have no effect or a boomerang effect, leading to decreases in protection motivation” (Meijnders, 2001, p. 757).

Some people who are alarmed at the problem of GCC go way beyond scientific descriptions of the worst-case scenario. “Extreme responses are often apocalyptic, predicting “the end of the world” or the “death of the planet.” These are overreactions to an otherwise very serious problem and may lead some to a sense of resigned fatalism” (Leiserowitz, 2007, p. 60). One is reminded of the ex-smoker’s declaration that if she knew she had only a month to live she would to buy a pack of cigarettes. Many of the most fearful people believe that they might as well live decadently because change is futile.

Many communicators and educators who are drawn to the field because they are passionate about responsible stewardship of the earth stumble into these pitfalls. Because messages are often ignored when the audience doesn’t share similar views on ecological responsibility, education can become very frustrating. It can be tempting to use fear as a motivator. It is not uncommon that this leads to the “impulsive, frustrated, or at least unskilled use of threat and guilt appeals, which are unpredictable at best and

counterproductive at worst” (Moser, 2007, p. 71).

Often, messengers of the causes of climate change can point fingers at individuals who are living conspicuously unsustainable lifestyles. This kind of blame often

intentionally uses guilt as a motivator for behavior change. Surprisingly, this guilt may lead to the opposite effect. “Research suggests that explicit guilt appeals can indeed evoke such feelings, but do not necessarily persuade or induce behavior change because such individuals just feel resentful and annoyed with overt manipulation (Moser, 2007, p. 71). Guilt triggers defense mechanisms that can obliterate the messages that educators are trying to get across. More information about how fear can be avoided or used to work

with, and not against, education efforts is discussed in Chapter Six. 6. Prior Knowledge and Mental Models

In any learning environment, methods of teaching students about global climate change must be carefully considered. Incomplete or unclear prior knowledge can often cause even the best-planned lessons to fail. In the case of climate change, more research is needed to identify some of the common misperceptions1. Students do not come to a science center as blank slates. Extensive surveys and research can help reveal the proper age at which students are ready to learn about certain concepts. Prior knowledge,

especially incomplete or erroneous prior knowledge, can stall a student’s learning or even make a new concept wholly misunderstood.

Learning proceeds primarily from prior knowledge, and only secondarily from the presented materials. Prior knowledge can be at odds with the presented material, and consequently, learners will distort presented material. Neglect of prior knowledge can result in the audience learning something opposed to the educator's intentions, no matter how well those intentions are executed in an exhibit, book, or lecture. (Roschelle, 1995)

Bostrom and Lashof (2007) found that generally, when students do not understand concepts they fall back on their “mental models” to explain them. This tendency is best illustrated in the classic study “A private universe” (1988) that asked children and adults to listen to a lecture on astronomy, and then explain basic relationship of the earth, moon, and sun. The study found that rather than accepting new information and incorporating it into their mental models, new information that contradicted erroneous prior learning was either rejected or forcibly rearranged into something new that was equally inaccurate (Schneps and Sadler, 1988). Through calling on vicarious experiences and adopted

beliefs that students might have gained from watching television, science education, etcetera, just about anything can be “explained,” including climate change.

This trend has already proven to be problematic. Confusion between the

destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer and anthropocentric climate change is very common. This confusion leads people to believe that CFCs are both the main culprit of stratospheric ozone destruction and of climate change. Failure to look further into the distinction between the two problems can predispose them to act in inappropriate ways to ameliorate what they understand as the cause of the problem. In a study by Leiserowitz (2007), one subject interviewed wanted to solve the problem of global warming by “releasing (man-made) ozone into the torn ozone layer” (p. 58). This response indicates that the real problem had been completely separated from an appropriate solution. Effective education is further complicated by the fact that the two issues are actually linked, but not in the way that most of the population believes. CFCs both cause holes in the ozone layer and are effective greenhouse gases. Communicators are faced with both the challenge of affirming that there is a link between the two phenomena, and explaining their very great differences (Leiserowitz, 2007).

Similar research has found that while learning about climate change, many people confuse the basic concepts of weather and climate (Bostrom and Lashof, 2007). While the two concepts are extremely related, there are basic spatial and temporal differences between them. Because weather is more accessible and tangible, people often force the characteristics of climate change onto their mental model of weather. While scientists are generally careful to explain this distinction, descriptions and explanations can often be too complicated for a layperson. This misconception often leads people to attribute

unusually warm weather to climate change. Unfortunately, a cold snap in the weather can then challenge their acceptance of the entire phenomenon.