![\"\"](\"https:\/\/webspace.royalroads.ca\/aspark\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/912\/2021\/10\/sit-spot-reduced.jpg\")
A few weeks ago, I was debriefing the recent federal election with friends. As a politically active person, I was eager to discuss the nuances: the ups, downs and surprises of the snap election. Instead, all I heard was disappointment. My friends were craving strong climate leadership from their elected officials, and were frustrated by the results. Several of them shared sentiments of \u201cI feel surprised every time<\/em> an election rolls around\u2026 why do I even let myself be hopeful?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several days after that, I gave a presentation on climate to a local community group. At the beginning, I asked them to share what they were interested in discussing. Most wanted to know what they could do to reduce their carbon footprint. One gentleman, however, was despondent. He told the group he needed to feel hope again. He was so discouraged by the lack of action at the political level and wanted to know what he could do with his anger and hopelessness. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In both these cases, I thought back to my communications training. I remembered the literature emphasizes understanding your audience and shape messaging to fit the audience (Zia & Todd, 2010). So, I started with language to demonstrate I was listening (\u201cI know it is disappointing\u201d) and then talked about specific impacts and actions I thought would resonate. I remembered gain-frames are more effective than loss-frames (Morton et al., 2011). So, I emphasized the progress happening locally and the shift in Alberta attitudes the federal election uncovered. I thought of the six Americas<\/a> by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and remembered that research from Australia found people falling into both the \u201calarmed\u201d and \u201cuncommitted\u201d categories respond to similar framing (Hine et al., 2016). So, I walked the line of balanced realism, trying to acknowledge that people felt alarmed, but encouraging them to get (or stay) involved. I tried my hardest to communicate by the book.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, in both situations I left the conversation feeling as though my community thought I was na\u00efve for even attempting to frame the climate emergency as an opportunity for positive change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of our sit spot prompts was to reflect on a situation in which we need to motivate and inspire two groups with two different versions of the same message. Yet as I sat under the large, rapidly emptying poplar tree earlier this week I realized that perhaps we need to acknowledge various audiences within ourselves. <\/em>There aren\u2019t only six types of people \u2013 there are multiple people within each of us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I had been communicating as though people were one-dimensional and unchangeable \u2013 as though their mental and emotional state doesn\u2019t fluctuate day by day or hour by hour. I saw my friends and this gentleman as part of a group of \u201calarmed and discouraged\u201d. Yet, I realized that is exactly how I was feeling on my second visit to my sit spot. I was discouraged and despondent and didn\u2019t want to think about climate. I saw the lawn signs for our upcoming municipal election and thought \u201cugh\u201d, despite being politically active. But I don’t always<\/em> feel like this \u2013 sometimes I feel hopeful and driven \u2013 like I did the first time I came to my sit spot. Both versions of myself are there; its just that depending on the day, one tends to be louder than the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I went back and read about the six Americas again. One part stood out to me more than it had before: effective engagement must start \u201cwith the fundamental recognition that people are different and have different psychological, cultural, and political reasons for acting \u2013 or not acting \u2013 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions\u201d (Yale, 2020, para. 1). Initially, I had assumed that the psychological state referenced in this statement was static. I only needed to find the right language and right framing to fit someone\u2019s psychological state to be effective. However, I know from my own experience that human psychology is anything but static. It is fluid, changeable, and malleable. Perhaps getting to know one\u2019s audience really means getting to know your audience in this particular moment<\/em> in time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The next time I communicate about climate, should I take a step back and ask first, \u201chow are you doing? No, I mean \u2013 how are you really <\/em>doing?\u201d Would our communication efforts be more meaningful and effective if we took the time to understand and incorporate the emotional state of the person we are speaking to?<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hine, D.W., Phillips, W.J., Cooksey, R., Reser, J.P., Nunn, P., Marks, A.D.G., Loi, N.M., & Watt, S.E. (2016). Preaching to different choirs: How to motivate dismissive, uncommitted, and alarmed audiences to adapt to climate change? Global Environmental Change 36<\/em>, 1-11. doi: 10.1016\/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.002<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morton, T., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change 21<\/em>(1), 103-109.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. (2020). Global Warming\u2019s Six Americas. <\/em>https:\/\/climatecommunication.yale.edu\/about\/projects\/global-warmings-six-americas\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n