Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: ABSTRACT The terminology used to describe climate change has become increasingly contested in sustainability and organizational communication. However, existing research provides mixed evidence regarding the effectiveness of different climate‐related terms. This research shows that different climate‐related terms evoke distinct emotional and physiological reactions, which shape communication effectiveness. A key contribution of this research lies in disentangling conscious from automatic responses. Specifically, the article analyzes how more alarming climate terms ( climate crisis and climate catastrophe relative to the baseline term climate change ) elicit conscious responses in terms of verbalized emotions and reactance, as well as physiological responses in terms of arousal and visual attention. Two experiments were conducted. Using data from Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, Study 1 found that “climate catastrophe” provoked stronger negative emotions and higher reactance. Both positive and negative emotions boosted social media engagement, whereas reactance diminished it. Study 2 integrated electrodermal activity and eye‐tracking measures to capture automatic responses. Results showed that “climate catastrophe” intensified arousal and visual attention, but these responses did not translate into higher engagement. In sum, this research highlights that more alarming climate terminology can be a trigger for raising awareness. However, such terminology can also backfire, creating trade‐offs that organizations must consider when designing climate communication strategies.
DOI: 10.1002/bse.71399
Authors: Petra Dickel, Robert Mai
Language: English
Subfield: Sociology and Political Science
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
SDG: Climate action
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $4,480
OpenAlex ID: W7204495099