How Competing Climate Frames Shape Public Support for Climate Action

Broad public support is essential for the implementation of ambitious climate policies in democratic systems. A large body of research demonstrates that public opinion and policy preferences can be shaped by the way issues are framed, that is, by emphasizing certain aspects of a topic while downplaying or omitting others (e.g. Ballew et al., 2024; Chong & Druckman, 2007). In public debate, citizens encounter frames that encourage climate action as well as frames that question or resist such action. Yet, despite extensive research on climate framing, we still know relatively little about the persuasive effectiveness of the climate frames that citizens are actually exposed to in contemporary political discourse (Walgrave & Van Aelst, forthcoming). Moreover, in real-world public debates, people are typically exposed to framing competition in which opposing frames are presented simultaneously. Therefore more knowledge is needed about how framing effects change when individuals are exposed to competing frames (McCright et al., 2016). Finally, although prior research shows that framing effects are conditional on individuals’ ideological orientations and climate predispositions (e.g. Dasandi et al., 2022; Hart & Feldman, 2018), this work is largely confined to the highly polarized U.S. context and rarely considers framing competition at the same time (e.g. Badullovich et al., 2020; Smith & Mayer, 2019). This study addresses these gaps by examining the effect of both encouraging and discouraging climate frames on climate policy support, their interaction in competitive settings, and the moderating role of individual predispositions. Drawing on a prior content analysis of party manifestos across multiple European countries, we focus on six frames commonly used in real-world climate debates (Walgrave & Van Aelst, forthcoming): three encouraging frames (Moral, Public health, and Catastrophe frame) and three discouraging frames (Economic disaster, Injustice and sacrifice, and Change is impossible). Using a survey experiment conducted among a representative sample of Belgian adults (N = 2,000), respondents were randomly exposed to either single-frame messages or combinations of encouraging and discouraging frames presented in a competitive context. Preliminary show that single frames tend to shift policy support in the direction advocated by the frame. However, when respondents are exposed to competing frames, these persuasive effects are generally weakened, indicating that framing competition reduces, but does not necessarily neutralize, framing effects. Importantly, the impact of both single and competing frames varies systematically across individuals. Encouraging and discouraging frames resonate differently depending on respondents’ ideological orientations and pre-existing climate predispositions, with evidence suggesting that some frame combinations retain persuasive power even among audiences whose prior views are incongruent with the frame’s message. By jointly examining multiple encouraging and discouraging frames, framing competition, and individual-level moderators in a multi-party European context, this study advances our understanding of how climate communication shapes public opinion under conditions that more closely resemble real-world political debate.