Question 1: Which elements of Chapter 4, Identifying and Expressing Feelings, did you find most useful? Please cite the specific passages and give examples of how you might use this information in eve

Some o f the author s of this public ation are also w orking on these r elated pr ojects: Fracking V ie w pr oject Household le vel c arbon emissions r eduction Vie w pr oject Rachel Ho well The Univ ersity of Edinbur gh 24 PUBLICATIONS    312 CITATIONS     SEE PROFILE All c ontent f ollowing this p age w as uplo aded by Rachel Ho well on 04 F ebruary 2015. The user has r equested enhanc ement of the do wnloaded file. 1 Using the transtheoretical model of behavioural change to understand the processes through which climate change films mi ght encourage mitigation action Rachel A. Howell Institute of Geography and the Lived Environment, S chool of GeoSciences, The University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK Now at: Institute of Geography and Earth Science, A berystwyth University, Aberystwyth SY23 3DB, UK Tel: +44 1790 622608; Fax: +44 1790 622659 Email address: [email protected] Abstract A number of recent films such as An Inconvenient Truth and The Age of Stupid aim not merely to inform their audience about climate change, but to engage them in taking mitigation action. This paper outlines the transtheoretical model of behavi oural change, which incorporates six stages of change that individuals progress through as they change th eir behaviour, and ten associated processes of change . Using four climate change films as illustrations, I show how the model can be applied to identify the processes of change employe d or depicted by sustainability communications.

I then discuss research on the impacts of the films in the light of this analysis, considering the strengths and limitations of the movies’ use/portra yal of processes of change with regard to encouraging viewers to change their behaviour. The paper concludes with recommendations for how film may be used more effectively as a tool to inspire climate change mitigation action.

Keywords Climate change communications; Sustainability movie s; Lower-carbon behaviours; Pro- environmental behaviour; Behavioural change; Transt heoretical model; Stages of change; Processes of change; Public attitudes; Climate change mitigat ion action Acknowledgements My thanks to Paul Graham Morris who first introduce d the transtheoretical model to me, and to Simon Allen, Pete Higgins, Dave Reay, and Charles W arren, who made helpful comments on the first draft of this paper. I am also grateful to th e anonymous reviewers and to the guest editors of this special issue of the journal for their comment s and advice on the manuscript. This research was supported by a studentship from the Scottish Allian ce for Geosciences, Environment and Society (SAGES). Accepted for publication in a Special Issue of the International Journal of Sustainable Development on ‘Sustainability Tales, Fictions and Other Stories from the Movie Industry’. 2 1 Introduction In recent years, a number of full-length ‘climate change films’ have been made, including drama, documentaries, and hybrid genres. These range from The Day After Tomorrow, in which climate change is the basis for a typical Hollywood disaste r movie, through documentaries that explain the problem, to Just Do It, which focuses on the exploits of climate action g roups. Most of these films aim not merely to inform their audiences about clim ate change, but to persuade people to take action to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissio ns, and/or to get involved in political campaigns or even illegal ‘direct action’ (such as attempting to occupy coal-fired power stations). It is important to understand how climate change films attempt to engage viewers and whether these processes can be effective in motivating behavioura l change.

Film offers a number of advantages as a means of p romoting climate change mitigation action to individuals. Visual images can convey messages i nstantly in a way that makes them memorable (Nicholson-Cole, 2005), and movies in particular ha ve immediacy, allowing us to receive information as if we were with the people speaking/ acting. Such ‘messengers’ need to be credible and likely to be trusted (Breakwell, 2000; Chess an d Johnson, 2007; Moser, 2008), and information should be presented by people with whom the intende d audience can identify (Kahan, 2010). But information alone is not enough: knowledge by itsel f does not lead to action (Blake, 1999; Hungerford and Volk, 1990). Pooley and O'Connor (20 00) and Moser (2007) argue that there is a need to appeal to people’s emotions rather than jus t cognitive processes, and films are well-placed to do this through their use of imagery, music, and sound effects.

The temptation with a threat as great as climate c hange might be to use the dramatic possibilities of film to depict climate catastrophe . This is a common theme in climate discourses (Hulme, 2008), and Tickell (2002, p.737) suggests t hat we may need a “useful catastrophe or two” to “illuminate the issues”. However, research by Sp ence and Pidgeon (2010) and Morton et al.

(2011) suggests that positive framing of climate ch ange mitigation, rather than focussing on what will be lost if we do not act, promotes more positi ve attitudes towards action. Fear can undermine belief that it is possible for individuals to ‘make a difference’ (O'Neill and Nicholson-Cole, 2009; Vasi and Macy, 2003) and may prompt undesirable def ensive responses (Moser, 2007; Witte and Allen, 2000). Therefore it is recommended that comm unications about climate change should explain or show what people can do to mitigate the problem (Lorenzoni et al., 2006; Moser and Dilling, 2004). Social cognitive theory posits that an important w ay that people learn is through observing others’ attitudes, behaviour, and the outcomes of t hat behaviour (Bandura, 1977). Media programmes (including films) featuring characters w hom the audience like and identify with can improve knowledge and change attitudes; they can mo del desirable behaviours, which increases viewers’ sense of self-efficacy (belief that they c an adopt the behaviours) as well as cognitive skill s regarding those behaviours; and they can motivate a nd positively reinforce action through depicting rewards for desirable behaviours and punishments fo r those that are undesirable (Bandura, 2004).

This theory is put to use in entertainment-educati on (E-E). E-E involves using entertainment media programmes such as radio serials/soap operas (e.g. Papa et al., 2000; Vaughan et al., 2000; Wray et al., 2004), television dramas (e.g. Hether et al., 2008), and telenovelas (e.g. Wilkin et al., 2007) as a means to influence viewers’ knowledge, a ttitudes, and behaviour regarding social concerns. E-E has been shown to be successful in ch anging attitudes and behaviour with respect to a number of issues, including family planning (Vaugha n and Rogers, 2000), HIV prevention (Vaughan et al., 2000), breast cancer screening (He ther et al., 2008; Wilkin et al., 2007), domestic violence (Usdin et al., 2004), and dowry payments ( Papa et al., 2000). Moyer-Gusé (2008) explains that E-E works through narrative engagement as well as the identification with and emulation of characters tha t is predicted by social cognitive theory. She suggests that the narrative format of E-E means tha t viewers are less likely to perceive it as having a persuasive intent, which may reduce the reactance s ometimes triggered when persuasive messages are perceived as a threat to freedom, leading to me ssage rejection. The narrative format also leads to 3 the audience being engaged in a more immersive and less critical way (Shrum, 2004, cited in Moyer-Gusé, 2008) and therefore less likely to coun ter-argue with the persuasive message embedded in the storyline. Enjoyment of the story a nd identification with one or more characters reduces avoidance, another problem for overtly pers uasive messages (Moyer-Gusé, 2008). Climate change films can utilise the E-E approach, aiming t o provide an entertaining and engaging narrative.

However, there are many psychological and contextu al barriers (e.g. social norms, lack of enabling infrastructure) that may prevent people fr om taking action even if they are inspired to do so (Gifford, 2011; Howell, 2011; Lorenzoni, Nichols on-Cole, and Whitmarsh, 2007). It can also be difficult to overcome the force of habit (Hargreave s, Nye, and Burgess, 2010; Oeuellette and Wood, 1998; Webb and Sheeran, 2006). Efforts have been made to investigate the impact o f climate change films on viewers’ attitudes and (occasionally) behaviour. This includes researc h on The Day After Tomorrow (Balmford et al., 2004; Leiserowitz, 2004; Lowe, 2006; Lowe et al., 2 006; Reusswig, Schwarzkopf, and Pohlenz, 2004); An Inconvenient Truth (Beattie, 2011; Beattie, Sale, and McGuire, 2011; Nolan, 2010); The Age of Stupid (Howell, 2011; 2012); and Just Do It (Lander, 2012). These studies give a mixed picture: the films generally raise concern about cl imate change, and often promote motivation to act or even behavioural intentions. The effect on behav iour is not so clear, especially as it is rarely studied and there are methodological problems with doing so (Howell, 2012). Behaviour change is a process, rather than an even t. In Section 2 I introduce a process model of behavioural change, the transtheoretical model (also known as the stages of change model ), which has potential for use in the field of sustainabilit y-related communication because it can help identif y the processes of change that are best employed or m odelled by movies for viewers at different stages of change. To illustrate how the model might be useful, four climate change films that vary in terms of intent, genre, focus, mood and messages are briefly described (Section 3), then analysed using core concepts of the model (Section 4), to in vestigate how they might encourage individuals to take climate change mitigation action of various kinds, and to draw lessons for future films (and indeed, sustainability communication more generally ) (Section 5). Conclusions are presented in Section 6. The focus of the paper is on presenting the model and giving an example of how it might be employed, in the belief that it may prove a valu able tool for use in empirical research and by climate change communication practitioners seeking to improve the efficacy of their work. A rigorous investigation involving identifying film v iewers’ stage of change with regard to particular climate change mitigation actions and testing wheth er films portraying different processes of change promote stage progression is not attempted h ere. Instead, other analyses are used insofar as possible to discuss the impacts of the films in the light of the insights gained from the model.

2 The transtheoretical model of behavioural change 2.1 Stages and processes of change The transtheoretical model (TTM) of behavioural cha nge was developed by James Prochaska, Carlo DiClemente, and colleagues, within the field of hea lth psychology (DiClemente and Prochaska, 1982; DiClemente et al., 1991; Prochaska, 1994; Pro chaska and DiClemente, 1982; 1983; Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross, 1992; Prochask a and Velicer, 1997; Prochaska et al., 1994).

Their research on interventions to help individuals overcome addictions and/or develop healthy behaviours suggests that behavioural change is a pr ocess involving several stages, defined in Table 1 (Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross, 1992; Proch aska and Velicer, 1997). Individuals do not necessarily progress through these stages linearly, but may ‘relapse’ back to an earlier stage (Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross, 1992), as ill ustrated by Figure 1.

The model also identifies ten common processes use d to facilitate behavioural change (Prochaska and Velicer, 1997), outlined in Table 2. Different processes of change have been found to be emphasised more at different stages of change , with ‘cognitive/affective processes’ such as 4 consciousness-raising and self-re-evaluation utilised more at earlier stages of change, while ‘behavioural processes’ such as stimulus control an d counter-conditioning are more important at later stages (DiClemente and Prochaska, 1982; DiCle mente et al., 1991). Table 3 shows the change processes considered most important at each stage o f change. Proponents of the model recommend that processes of change should be matched to the s tage of change reached by the target individual/group (Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcro ss, 1992; Prochaska and Velicer, 1997).

Individuals at later stages of change report highe r levels of ‘self-efficacy’ (confidence that they can change their behaviour and maintain changes) th an those at earlier stages of change (DiClemente et al., 1991). There are also changes i n individuals’ ‘decisional balance’ (relative weighting of the pros and cons of changing their be haviour), with progression from contemplation to action being associated with a significant incre ase in the evaluation of pros of change, and a smaller decrease in the evaluation of cons (Hall an d Rossi, 2008; Prochaska, 1994).

2.2 Applications and criticisms The TTM has been used to design interventions to pr omote positive behaviours such as physical activity/exercise (Adams and White, 2003; Spencer e t al., 2006), healthy eating (Armitage et al., 2004; Horwath, 1999; Spencer et al., 2007), and mam mography screening (Ashworth, 1997; Spencer, Pagell, and Adams, 2005), as well as to he lp people avoid pregnancy and sexually- transmitted diseases (Horowitz, 2003) and overcome harmful behaviours such as smoking and substance abuse (Migneault, Adams, and Read, 2005; Spencer et al., 2002). The apparent success of some of these communication and intervention progra mmes suggests that it might be worth applying insights from the model to the promotion o f lower-carbon and other sustainability-related behaviours.

However, the model has garnered little attention i n the sustainability field to date. The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs employs it “on the basis of its conceptual lessons only and does not use it to inform the deve lopment of practical interventions” (Defra, 2009, p.5). A study by Duddleston, Stradling, and Anable (2005) categorised people according to stages of change with regard to travel attitudes and behav iour, and Steg (2008) suggests tailored information could be given according to stage of ch ange to promote household energy conservation.

He, Greenberg, and Huang (2009) use the model to as sess the utility of existing energy feedback technologies designed to motivate sustainable energ y consumption behaviours, and to make recommendations for the design of future feedback t echnologies suitable for individuals at different stages of change regarding sustainable energy usage . Two studies (Chib et al., 2009; Gatersleben and Appleton, 2007) have attempted to categorise pa rticipants with regard to waste behaviours and cycling respectively, and then implement an interve ntion designed to change behaviour, although the categorisation of stages did not necessarily ma tch the definitions used in the TTM and the interventions were not tailored to different stages of change.

Questions have been raised about both the theoreti cal validity of aspects of the TTM, and the effectiveness of model-based interventions (Adams a nd White, 2003; Bridle et al., 2005; Herzog et al., 1999; Rosen, 2000; Weinstein, Rothman, and Sut ton, 1998). However, researchers suggest that many studies are poorly designed, and stage-based i nterventions often fail to represent accurately all facets of the TTM (Ashworth, 1997; Bridle et al., 2 005; Hutchison, Breckon, and Johnston, 2009). 2.3 The utility of the TTM with respect to sustaina bility communications Although there is clearly a need for more research into the theoretical basis of the model and the effectiveness of well-designed interventions, the e vidence that currently exists that different change processes are used at different stages of change (D iClemente and Prochaska, 1982; DiClemente et al., 1991; Herzog et al., 1999; Rosen, 2000) makes an analysis of the processes employed by or modelled in climate change films worthwhile because this helps with understanding how different films (and different types of content) might appeal to and motivate different audiences. For 5 example, even if behavioural change should be conceptualised as a continuum, rather than as progress through discrete stages, as Bridle et al. (2005) and Weinstein, Rothman, and Sutton (1998) suggest may be the case, it seems likely that diffe rent change processes will be important as individuals move along the continuum from unawarene ss to altered lifestyles.

Sood, Menard, and Witte (2004) argue that stage mo dels of change are important in the design and evaluation of E-E, because they help with the i dentification of the stage of change intended audiences have reached, with designing messages app ropriate for these audiences, and with mapping and understanding changes made in response. By extension, the TTM can be employed in the design and evaluation of behaviour change commu nications more generally. Borrayo (2004), for example, describes how the TTM was used to design a short film to promote breast cancer screening, while Cottone and Byrd-Bredbenner (2007) applied the TTM to evaluate the effectiveness of the film Super Size Me as a tool in nutrition education, and were able to determine the movie’s impacts on a range of model parameters such as stage of change and self-efficacy. This aids with comprehending not only whether a particular communication promotes change, but how it might do so. Stage models such as the TTM are also very sensitive to change, and thus can add to the literature on media effects. An evaluation that simply measures whether a desired end result has been achieved (e.g. whether viewers of a climate ch ange film have adopted particular lower-carbon behaviours) might conclude that it has no effect, w here an evaluation using the TTM could discover that the film had encouraged stage progression, if not actual behavioural change.

The TTM is not the only stage model of change, but it was chosen for this analysis because it is an extremely popular and enduring model (Horwath, 1 999; Spencer et al., 2007) and has been used successfully both to design interventions promoting a variety of behaviours (Spencer et al., 2006; Spencer et al., 2002; Spencer, Pagell, and Adams, 2 005) and to evaluate communications in other fields (e.g. Cottone and Byrd-Bredbenner, 2007). Us ing the model to analyse what processes of change climate change movies depict should help to identify which audiences those films are best suited to (communication evaluation), and how such films could be improved by focussing on more or different processes (communication design). 3 Four climate change films The films examined in this paper were chosen to off er variety in terms of genre, mood, messages, and filmmakers’ intentions, and also because some r esearch has been done on the impact of each film. It is necessary to have this available in ord er to discuss the effects of the films in light of the insights gained from the TTM. 3.1 The Day After Tomorrow (USA, 2004) Unlike the other films examined here, which all hav e associated websites promoting personal action to mitigate climate change in some way, it is not c lear that the makers of Hollywood climate- catastrophe movie The Day After Tomorrow had any intention to promote behavioural change.

Although director Roland Emmerich spoke of being ab le “to give people a message” (Gilchrist, 2004), he is also quoted as saying, “We just wanted to make a movie people would enjoy” (Bowles, 2004). As the film did well at the box office, rank ing sixth highest-grossing disaster movie in the USA since 1979 (Box Office Mojo, 2011), and some sc ientists and other commentators welcomed the fact that it might bring climate change to publ ic attention, despite criticising its many scientific inaccuracies (see e.g. Hyde, 2004; Monbiot, 2004; S cienceDaily, 2004), the film is worth including in this analysis.

The movie is pure fiction, with a familiar, plucky -hero-overcomes-disaster narrative. Dennis Quaid stars as paleoclimatologist Jack Hall, whose warnings about the potential for abrupt climate change go unheeded by the USA government. Global wa rming then causes a series of extreme weather events and the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, ushering in a new ice age in Western Europe 6 and North America within a matter of days. Spectacular special effects and iconic images include the Statue of Liberty hung with enormous icicles an d the destruction of the famous ‘Hollywood’ sign by a tornado. Jack’s son Sam is stranded in Ne w York and Jack, promising “I will come for you”, sets off from Washington to drive and then wa lk through the storm to reach him. They survive (with a few friends) and are airlifted to M exico, where millions of Americans are living as refugees. 3.2 An Inconvenient Truth (USA, 2006) Perhaps the best-known climate change film is An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Academy Award® for Best Documentary Feature. The website as sociated with the movie, www.climatecrisis.net, states that the estimated wo rldwide audience for the film was 5 million people; Box Office Mojo (2011) puts worldwide earni ngs at US$49.8 million.

The film shows former Vice President of the USA Al Gore giving a slideshow presentation of the evidence for climate change and discussing actu al and predicted impacts, using graphs, maps, statistics, photographs, and animations. Interspers ed with the lecture are segments that focus on Gore’s life: for example, his young son’s near-fata l car accident and his sister’s death from lung cancer. These sections are illustrated with news cl ips and stills as well as film footage, with (sometimes emotional) voiceovers by Gore. Almost the whole movie focuses on the problem of c limate change; only at the very end does Gore touch on solutions (such as renewable energy a nd carbon capture and storage). He finishes his presentation by stating that “Future generations ma y well have occasion to ask themselves, ‘What were our parents thinking? Why didn’t they wake up when they had a chance?’ We have to hear that question from them, now.” The credits sequence then includes a list of things to do, such as “Buy energy efficient appliances”; “When you can, w alk or use a bicycle”; and “Write to Congress”. 3.3 The Age of Stupid (UK, 2009) Echoing the question with which Gore ends An Inconvenient Truth, The Age of Stupid features Pete Postlethwaite as an old man living alone in 2055 in a world devastated by climate change, watching documentary footage from 2008 and asking, “Why didn ’t we save ourselves while we had the chance?” The movie thereby combines a fictional dys topian future with six interwoven documentary strands focussing on personal stories t hat highlight different aspects of climate change and fossil fuel dependency. Animated sequences illu strate information such as average energy use per person in different countries.

Characters include UK wind farm developer Piers, s truggling to overcome local opposition to proposed turbines; 82-year-old French mountain guid e Fernand, through whose eyes we see the retreat of Alpine glaciers; businessman Jeh, starti ng up a low-cost airline in India; and lifelong She ll employee Alvin, who lost his home and saved over 10 0 people when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. It is he who, reflecting on humanity’s was tefulness, names our age “The Age of Stupid”. The Age of Stupid and associated Not Stupid campaign aimed to “turn 250 million viewers into physical or virtual activists” (Not Stupid, undated ). The film premiere was screened in 62 cinemas simultaneously around the UK in March 2009, and a ‘ global premiere’ took place the following September in 63 different countries. In addition, t here have been 1497 screenings organised by individuals and groups of various kinds (Indie Scre enings, undated).

3.4 Just Do It (UK, 2010) Subtitled “A tale of modern-day outlaws”, Just Do It is a feature-length documentary by Emily James, who spent a year ‘embedded’ in UK climate ac tion groups Plane Stupid, Climate Rush, and Climate Camp, filming their meetings and direct act ion campaigns. Viewers see activists 7 blockading the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters in London in protest at “banks which finance climate change”, attempting to breach a security fe nce to shut down a coal-fired power station, and locked in cages after being pre-emptively arrested en-route to protest at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. The film also revea ls the meticulous planning, consensus decision-making, and practical preparations behind the scenes.

In addition to the action, the film features inter views with people talking in retrospect about their experiences, and their thoughts and feelings about climate change and involvement in the campaigns. Like The Age of Stupid , Just Do It follows particular individuals, but unlike in the former film, we hardly see anything of their person al lives – viewers are invited to relate to them only as activists. The film features lively background music and upbe at, humorous narration by one of the activists. Arrests and police violence are document ed but the action is generally framed very positively. 4 Analysis: climate change films and processes of c hange Each film was watched more than once, and detailed notes were made about the content, and the images and music used in different scenes. These no tes were then used to identify examples of the TTM processes of change (such as given below). In s ome cases there were many examples, in others only one or two; the following analysis atte mpts to reflect the weight given in each film to each process, determined by how many examples of ea ch process were identified and an estimate of the relative amount of time accorded to each in eac h film.

4.1 The Day After Tomorrow The process most frequently in evidence in this fi lm is dramatic relief (emotional engagement).

Opening shots panning over Antarctica to haunting b ackground music invite appreciation of the beauty of nature. However, danger is abruptly signa lled: the ice shelf from which Jack is drilling ice cores cracks in seconds, almost under his feet. The reafter, the sense of threat builds steadily as weather events become rapidly more extreme and news reports convey surprise and alarm. The use of iconic images such as the Hollywood sign and the Statue of Liberty encourages viewers to experience shock and fear because of the magnitude of the disaster and what could be lost. Set against the large-scale action are many personal st ories to engage the audience’s empathy with, and therefore concern for, the characters: for example, Sam’s romantic attachment to a classmate; the fate of a child with cancer; and above all, Jack’s mission to reach his son in New York. Early in the film, Jack gives a presentation to an international gathering of scientists and politicians during which he explains how global war ming could possibly lead to the shutdown of the Gulf Stream. This and scenes in which scientist s are creating, using, and explaining climate models, promote consciousness-raising about climate change among viewers because they provide information about the potential impacts of the prob lem, and show how scientists predict such effects. Some characters in the film experience environment al and self-re-evaluation as they come to understand the extent of the impacts of anthropogen ic global warming and accept responsibility for the problem. Jack declares that the future “depends on whether or not we’re able to learn from our mistakes”, and at the end of the film the new Presi dent of the USA (the formerly intransigent Vice President) announces on TV, “For years, we operated under the belief that we could continue consuming our planet’s natural resources without co nsequence. We were wrong. I was wrong.” 4.2 An Inconvenient Truth The process most frequently employed by An Inconvenient Truth is consciousness-raising, through the traditional method of a lecture. Many of the da ta are presented in ways that encourage dramatic 8 relief, by making human connections that prompt feelings of empathy. For example, Gore graphically illustrates how millions of people will be affected by sea-level rise, and shows photographs of scientists to give a human face to t heir work. He also employs humour to develop rapport with his audience, and the non-lecture sect ions of the film seem designed specifically to encourage sympathetic emotional engagement with Gor e as a person.

Viewers are encouraged to begin environmental re-e valuation by Gore showing images of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina while stre ssing that this scale of disaster is something new for the USA, and to connect environmental impacts directly with human behaviour through the juxtaposition of images of destruction of nature al ongside smoking industrial chimneys. Gore models self-re-evaluation through talking about how the near death of his son made him re-think his purpose in life, and how his sister’s death from lu ng cancer painfully brought home to him his family’s part in growing tobacco. His questions at the end about how future generations will regard us appear to be a plea for viewers to ‘wake up’ and engage in re-evaluation of their behaviour.

Self-liberation is promoted towards the end of An Inconvenient Truth, when Gore gives a ‘pep talk’ about what “we” have achieved, such as the su ccesses of the civil rights movement, suggesting that we have the ability to mitigate climate change , and urging people to take action: “It is your time to seize this issue. It is our time to rise again t o secure our future.” Social liberation is also tou ched upon: Gore mentions technologies such as renewables and carbon capture and storage, which offer societal-level alternatives to carbon-intensive ele ctricity generation.

4.3 The Age of Stupid Much of this film involves consciousness-raising in various ways, including the animated sequences that present statistics and explain proposed climat e mitigation policies, and the documentary strands that highlight aspects of the problem including cau ses, consequences, and responses. Piers and his wife Lisa are shown calculating their household car bon footprint, modelling another form of consciousness-raising (and environmental re-evaluat ion), because through this they discover the relative GHG emissions associated with different ac tivities, and understand better the contribution they are making to climate change.

Dramatic relief is a strong feature: for example, the imagery of the fictional dystopian future (refugee camps, famous landmarks destroyed etc), th e edgy, repetitive music associated with these scenes, and the (fictional) news clip voiceovers th at announce, for instance, that it has become necessary to eat pets all suggest a sense of threat . Viewers are also invited to engage emotionally through characters to empathise with (an intimate p ortrait of Piers and his home life is presented, including footage in which he and Lisa are drinking their morning cup of tea in bed while the answerphone plays a wind farm opponent’s threatenin g message, though we don’t see inside the lives of the wind farm protestors), and characters who are less attractive (airline-entrepreneur Jeh raging at his employees). A common discourse in the film is one of emergency, even catastrophe:

humans “face extinction”, not having “saved ourselv es” from “climate crisis”; we should treat climate change like “a war situation”.

Environmental and self-re-evaluation are often in tertwined: Fernand says, “I think everyone in the future will perhaps blame us for not thinkin g to protect the environment” and Postlethwaite’s character (who frequently uses the words “our” and “we”) speaks regretfully of the fatal impacts on his children and grandchildren of his generation’s failure to act. The title suggests that we are acting stupidly, and the opening credits emphasise the per sonal message by stating “and you” after the list of individuals featured in the film. Self-liberation is modelled by Piers and Lisa deci ding not to fly on holiday. A small part of the film portrays counter-conditioning: Piers and famil y travel to France by train rather than flying; they also talk about other ways they reduce their c arbon footprint. Fernand is seen growing his own vegetables. Ideas for social liberation include men tion of the policies of contraction and convergence and personal carbon rationing, as well as the storyline about wind farm developments, and Fernand, Piers, and Lisa attend protests to dem and change. 9 4.4 Just Do It This film has a rather different emphasis to the previous two, in that it focuses on climate change mitigation action rather than on the problem. Viewe rs see self-liberation in practice as people go through the process of making a commitment to act ( in the form of political campaigning rather than personal emissions reductions) and preparing t o do so (then actually carrying out the action).

The film also expresses a strong belief that it is possible to effect change, although when activist Marina is asked, “Does all of this do any good?” sh e pauses for a long time. Her eventual response stresses how taking part in direct action is empowe ring and involves “taking back control of your life”, very much a self-liberation process. Social liberation is presumably the desired end of campaigners’ actions, although there is little in t he film about proposed alternatives to the policies and practices they oppose, other than the conversio n of abandoned land and greenhouses near Heathrow airport into a thriving community garden.

Helping relationships are very prominent in Just Do It. Protestors plan and carry out actions together in ‘affinity groups’, and share skills, fo od, and tools. At one point an activist is caught b y a policeman; he shouts “de-arrest!” and other activis ts help release him from the officer and thereby escape arrest. Consciousness-raising is also focussed on action r ather than the problem: the film shows how affinity groups work, how consensus decisions are t aken, and what actually happens at protests. Dramatic relief is encouraged by the use of lively background music, focus on particular characters to relate to, and humour. For example, f ootage of the protest at the G20 meeting in 2009 is accompanied by the narrator saying, “Climate Cam p are planning to turn the heart of the financial district into a street party”; when police in riot gear move in he calls them “a bunch of uninvited party-poopers.” The violence of the police response is effectively highlighted and given ‘shock value’ by this light-hearted introduction. 5 Discussion The foregoing analysis suggests that these films em ploy or depict several processes of change that the TTM suggests should encourage attitudinal or be havioural change. No research has yet attempted to assess whether climate change films ha ve been successful in promoting stage progression according to the model; however, as men tioned in Section 1, various studies have attempted to determine the impact of the films exam ined here on viewers’ attitudes, behavioural intentions, and in some cases, actual behaviour. Th ese and other studies can shed some light on how films might encourage climate change mitigation act ion.

The processes of change most frequently associated with these films are consciousness-raising and dramatic relief. Visual media are particularly suitable for consciousness-raising because of their ability to convey new information and complex ideas quickly and memorably (Nicholson-Cole, 2005). Given that people need to trust and identify with ‘messengers’ (Chess and Johnson, 2007; Kahan, 2010), and with media characters from whom t hey might learn through emulation (Bandura, 2004), it is important that a range of figures (whe ther fictional or real) appear in films that attempt to influence audiences. Research on the impacts of The Age of Stupid found that viewers did not universally empathise with wind farm developer Pier s (Howell, 2011) so it is useful that the film also features other, quite different individuals. I n Just Do It, almost all the activists followed are young, and all are white, which may give an uninten ded message about who the film is relevant to, and/or limit its appeal. Audience members commented on the lack of older people and the fact that characters appeared to be engaged full-time in acti vism instead of having jobs, which had a distancing effect (Lander, 2012). An Inconvenient Truth relies on the credibility of Al Gore for its consciousness-raising effect; no doubt his celebrit y encouraged interest in the film, but in the USA, Republicans were far less likely than Democrats to report that it influenced their belief in global warming (Borick and Rabe, 2010). 10 Film is an ideal medium for dramatic relief: storytelling, vivid imagery, music, pace, and sound effects can all be used to emotionally engage an au dience. As discussed earlier, there can be problems when the presentation creates feelings of fear. The Day After Tomorrow and The Age of Stupid both utilise a ‘climate catastrophe’ narrative, bu t in the case of the former film this was lightened by humour and was resolved by an upbeat e nding – the threat to the characters with whom viewers are encouraged to identify seemed to be ove r. Howell (2011) found that viewers of The Age of Stupid did not generally find the disaster-framing of the movie disempowering, exhibiting increased motivation to act and belief that they co uld do something about climate change immediately after seeing the film; however, she sug gests that this could be because they already knew what to do to reduce emissions. Climate change films can also encourage viewers to engage in environmental and self-re- evaluation. This again may need to be modelled by c haracters they can relate to (Bandura, 2004). In The Day After Tomorrow , Jack’s struggle to get the Vice President of the USA to listen to his warnings could lead viewers to infer that responsib ility lies with scientists and politicians. Scientists are responsible for communicating the threat to pol iticians (never the public in this film); the politicians are the ones ignoring the message and r efusing to take action. There is no storyline about individual mitigation behaviour. For example, nobod y mentions, let alone questions, the GHG emissions associated with Sam and his classmates fl ying to New York to take part in a quiz. It is scientists we see re-evaluating the impacts of clim ate change, and a politician who models self-re- evaluation, not ‘ordinary’ individuals. It is perha ps not surprising, then, that a study by Reusswig, Schwarzkopf, and Pohlenz (2004) revealed that Germa n viewers agreed more strongly after seeing the film than beforehand that the government should play a big role in taking action on climate change, but it had a negligible influence on views about the role of individuals. Similarly, Beattie, Sale, and McGuire (2011) found that one clip from An Inconvenient Truth, which emphasises the contribution of China to global warming, led to an increase in ‘shifting responsibility’ for action on climate change from self to others.

Self-liberation was a feature of some of the films , particularly Just Do It, but this perhaps needs to be emphasised more, as according to the TTM it i s the pivotal process that occurs between thinking about change and actually beginning it. Se lf-liberation involves believing that one can make necessary changes. Interestingly, individuals who were shown clips from An Inconvenient Truth agreed more strongly afterwards with statements su ch as “I can personally help reduce climate change” and “I feel empowered in the fight against climate change” even when the clips were not positive (Beattie, Sale, and McGuire, 2011 ). However, this study did not test whether participants felt increased efficacy in relation to specific actions, nor whether they planned (or too k) any action. In addition to the confidence individuals feel tha t they can change their behaviour and maintain changes, another aspect of efficacy is belief that changes made will be effective in overcoming the problem, and this is something climate change films can encourage. For example, Just Do It gives information at the end of the film about the appare nt success of some of the campaigns featured. It is worth stressing the advantages of acting togethe r, as Just Do It does; groups can provide many benefits, including moral support, shared learning, and accountability (Howell, 2009) and can therefore build capacity and effect more change (Mi ddlemiss and Parrish, 2010; Staats, Harland, and Wilke, 2004).

By their nature, films generally employ or involve cognitive/affective processes; they are not suitable vehicles for behavioural processes such as contingency management. However, some of the films analysed did show behavioural processes in ac tion. Filmmakers keen to stimulate action could give more attention to portraying the variety of pr ocesses that help to support and maintain behavioural change. The TTM suggests that the fact that films employ a nd depict more cognitive/affective than behavioural processes of change makes them more app ropriate ‘interventions’ to use with audiences at earlier stages of change. It is difficult to kno w whether climate change films gain such audiences, as no studies have directly assessed viewers’ stage of change, but some studies include information 11 that can perhaps be used as proxy measures. For example, Howell (2011) found that in the year prior to seeing The Age of Stupid , 61.8% of viewers sampled had donated money to, an d 36.1% were actively involved in, groups campaigning about climate change. Furthermore, respondents later reported several actions they were doing but not because of having seen the film. These results suggest that many viewers of that film could have b een at the action or even maintenance stage for some lower-carbon behaviours. Akter and Bennett (20 11) discovered that Australians who had seen An Inconvenient Truth were significantly more likely to report having re duced their use of motorized vehicles and/or electricity than non-view ers, and claim that the film influenced behaviour, but the study appears to show correlatio n rather than causality and it seems equally likely that people already engaged in climate chang e mitigation action are more likely to see the movie than those who are not. Individuals who saw i t at a free showing organised by an NGO in the USA exhibited high levels of belief in climate chan ge and motivation to act beforehand (Nolan, 2010). The film has, however, been incorporated int o the school curriculum in several countries (Climate Crisis, undated), which makes it likely it will be seen by children at a range of stages of change with respect to lower-carbon behaviours. An E-E format, embedding information and behaviour al role models in serial dramas not perceived to be primarily about climate change, mig ht reach a wider and more appropriate audience than climate change movies, avoiding problems of av oidance and reactance. However, this could be difficult to arrange as climate change is a controv ersial topic and broadcasters are wary of controversy, especially in media-saturated commerci al broadcasting environments – E-E programmes that have addressed controversial topics have tended to air in developing countries where there is less media saturation (Singhal and R ogers, 2004). Instead, filmmakers could learn from E-E and focus more on embedding intended persu asive content in enjoyable movies rather than making the messages overt.

Being primarily a summer entertainment movie, The Day After Tomorrow is more similar to E- E programmes than the documentary films studied her e. It thus seems likely to attract a different audience, and indeed UK viewers of this movie did n ot seem particularly concerned about climate change beforehand (Balmford et al., 2004; Lowe et a l., 2006). They therefore might have been at earlier stages of change, so the TTM would suggest that the processes of change it employs should work well with this audience. However, Lowe et al. (2006) found a decrease in viewers’ evaluation of the likelihood that they would experience climat e change impacts in their own lifetime. This is important because people are less likely to respond to a threat if they do not feel personally vulnerable (Das, de Wit, and Stroebe, 2003). Other studies also found a decrease among viewers in the perceived likelihood of climate change (Lowe, 2 006; Reusswig, Schwarzkopf, and Pohlenz, 2004) or less realistic expectations of climate cha nge impacts than people who hadn’t seen the film (Balmford et al., 2004). This may be due to the fac t that the movie sacrificed realism for dramatic effect; in TTM terms, it concentrated on dramatic r elief at the expense of consciousness-raising.

The film did increase concern about climate change (Balmford et al., 2004; Leiserowitz, 2004; Lowe et al., 2006) but a study that included a late r follow-up found that this was short-lived and viewers did not know what to do (Lowe et al., 2006) . This demonstrates the necessity of teaming emotional engagement with solution messages (dramat ic relief with consciousness-raising), as in E- E. Leiserowitz (2004) and Lowe et al. (2006) found respondents were more likely to express intentions to take climate change mitigation action s having seen The Day After Tomorrow ; Balmford et al. (2004) found no change in the numbe r of emission-reducing activities people planned to undertake. According to the model, evaluation of the efficacy of climate change films need not depend on whether individuals actually change their behaviour . Indeed, those that utilise primarily cognitive/affective processes of change should be e xpected to encourage early stage progression, rather than behavioural change. Nolan (2010) found that An Inconvenient Truth inspired little concrete action among students who were recruited t o watch it and who did not display high levels of concern about climate change beforehand, but the film did increase concern and motivation to act immediately afterwards. This might be evidence of p rogression from precontemplation to 12 contemplation, or from contemplation to preparation, among an audience who were at early stages of change. The finding that viewers often do not ac t on the increased motivation or behavioural intentions prompted by climate change films (Howell , 2011; Lowe et al., 2006; Nolan, 2010) suggests that films need to be coupled with other i nterventions if they are to help people progress from contemplation to action. Armitage et al.(2004) suggest the use of implementation interventions (Gollwitzer, 1993); public commitments such as pled ges may also be useful (Cobern et al., 1995; Schultz, Oskamp, and Mainieri, 1995). The Day After Tomorrow , An Inconvenient Truth , and The Age of Stupid essentially point out the cons of not taking action; films may need to focus more on pos itive framing in order to influence decisional balance. Just Do It portrays several benefits of involvement in direct action campaigns: camaraderie, empowerment, and campaign s uccesses, although some viewers will likely evaluate the cons of conflict and arrest as outweig hing these pros. In contrast to An Inconvenient Truth and The Age of Stupid , Just Do It takes audience acceptance of the problem for granted. This kind of film therefore appears more suitable, according to the TTM, for the kind of audience likely to volu ntarily watch documentaries related to climate change, who already evidence a high level of concer n (Howell, 2011). Having said that, it should be noted that Rosen (2000) found that for some health behaviours, cognitive/affective processes were used at all stages of change. He argues that when t aking up healthy behaviours, individuals “must continually reinitiate a new behavior and may be he lped by continuing to think about the benefits” (Rosen, 2000, p.602). Even for people who may have reached later stages of change, films such as The Age of Stupid can provide reinforcement and moral support (Howell , 2011), thus helping prevent ‘relapse’.

In reality, climate change films are likely to be able to encourage behavioural change only to a certain extent, unless there are changes to the soc ial context within which individuals act (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000; Young and Middlemiss, 2012). T his implies that social liberation is essential (and thus worth films promoting; Ockwell, Whitmarsh , and O'Neill (2009) propose that a particular role for climate change communications is in gettin g people to accept and demand regulation).

Prochaska (1994) suggests that to facilitate action , the increase required in the evaluation of pros of change is so large that it may well be necessary to apply both individual change processes (to increase perceived pros of making a change) and policies to change th e actual pros. One limitation of the TTM in the context of pro-environmental beha viours is that it pays little attention to the power of social norms (Schultz et al., 2007). The n eed to challenge dominant norms (e.g. around consumerism) to achieve sustainability can perhaps be seen as part of social liberation, but this idea arguably needs to be developed further in the model .

6 Conclusions This paper has demonstrated the potential of using the TTM to provide insights into the promotion of pro-environmental behaviour. Analysis of climate change films using the model suggests that they can play a part in encouraging individuals to take climate change mitigation action through employing and modelling several processes of change . Films are particularly suitable vehicles for consciousness-raising and dramatic relief, and ther efore might most usefully promote change – which may be a change in attitudes (progression fro m precontemplation to contemplation, and re- evaluation of the pros and cons of change) – among viewers at earlier stages of change. The challenge is for films to attract such audiences. E mbedding climate change themes in ‘ordinary’ movies has potential, but these should contain real istic depictions of the issue to provide accurate information, and show how ‘people like me’ can tack le the problem, to promote engagement and self-efficacy. Filmmakers who wish to encourage act ual action, rather than early-stage progression, should consider portraying behavioural processes of change. Consciousness-raising and dramatic relief may help to reinforce behavioural change amo ng audiences who are already taking action.

However, a film on its own is unlikely to achieve s ignificant and widespread climate change 13 mitigation action, given the number of factors that affect behaviour, so it is advisable to consider how movies can be teamed with other interventions. References Adams, J. and White, M. (2003) ‘Are activity promot ion interventions based on the transtheoretical model effective? A critical review’, British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 37, pp.106- 114.

Akter, S. and Bennett, J. (2011) ‘Household percept ions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia’, Climatic Change , Vol. 109, pp.417-436.

Armitage, C.J., Sheeran, P., Conner, M. and Arden, M.A. (2004) ‘Stages of Change or Changes of Stage? Predicting Transitions in Transtheoretical M odel Stage in Relation to Healthy Food Choice’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , Vol. 72, pp.491-499.

Ashworth, P. (1997) ‘Breakthrough or bandwagon? Are interventions tailored to stages of change more effective than non-staged interventions?’, Health Education Journal, Vol. 56, pp.166- 174.

Atkins, T. (2009) Stages of Change, Baton Rouge Counseling, 7 November 2009. Availabl e at:

http://batonrougecounseling.net/stages-change (acce ssed 18.01.2012).

Balmford, A., Manica, A., Airey, L., Birkin, L., Ol iver, A. and Schleicher, J. (2004) ‘Hollywood, Climate Change, and the Public’, Science, Vol. 305, pp.1713.

Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory , General Learning Press, New York.

Bandura, A. (2004) ‘Social Cognitive Theory for Per sonal and Social Change by Enabling Media’, in Singhal, A., Cody, M.J., Rogers, E.M. and Sabido , M. (Eds.), Entertainment-Education and Social Change: History, Research, and Practice , Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Beattie, G. (2011) ‘Making an action film’, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 1, pp.372-275.

Beattie, G., Sale, L. and McGuire, L. (2011) ‘An in convenient truth? Can a film really affect psychological mood and our explicit attitudes towar ds climate change?’, Semiotica, Vol.

187, pp.105-125.

Blake, J. (1999) ‘Overcoming the ‘Value-Action Gap’ in Environmental Policy: tensions between national policy and local experience’, Local Environment, Vol. 4, pp.257-278.

Borick, C.P. and Rabe, B.G. (2010) ‘A Reason to Bel ieve: Examining the Factors that Determine Individual Views on Global Warming’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 91, pp.777-800.

Borrayo, E.A. (2004) ‘Where’s Maria? A video to inc rease awareness about breast cancer and mammography screening among low-literacy Latinas’, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 39, pp.99- 110.

Bowles, S. (2004) The Day After Tomorrow heats up a political debate , USA Today, 26 May 2004.

Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/educate/colle ge/firstyear/articles/20040530.htm (accessed 21.12.2011).

Box Office Mojo. (2011) Available at: http://www.bo xofficemojo.com/movies (accessed 21.12.2011).

Breakwell, G.M. (2000) ‘Risk communication: factors affecting impact’, British Medical Bulletin , Vol. 56, pp.110-120.

Bridle, C., Riemsma, R.P., Pattenden, J., Sowden, A .J., Mather, L., Watt, I.S. and Walker, A.

(2005) ‘Systematic review of the effectiveness of h ealth behavior interventions based on the transtheoretical model’, Psychology and Health, Vol. 20, pp.283-301.

Chess, C. and Johnson, B.B. (2007) ‘Information is not enough’, in Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L.

(Eds.), Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climat e Change and Facilitating Social Change , Cambridge University Press, New York.

Chib, A., Chiew, H.J., Kumar, C., Choon, L.G. and A le, K. (2009) ‘[minus]plastic: influencing pro- environmental attitudes among Singaporean youth’, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 15, pp.679-696. 14 Climate Crisis. (undated) Available at: http://www.climatecrisis.net (accessed 24.01.2012).

Cobern, M.K., Porter, B.E., Leeming, F.C. and Dwyer , W.O. (1995) ‘The Effect of Commitment on Adoption and Diffusion of Grass Cycling’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 27, pp.213-232.

Corraliza, J.A. and Berenguer, J. (2000) ‘Environme ntal values, beliefs, and actions: A situational approach’, Environment and Behavior , Vol. 32, pp.832-848.

Cottone, E. and Byrd-Bredbenner, C. (2007) ‘Knowled ge and Psychosocial Effects of the Film Super Size Me on Young Adults’, Journal of the American Dietetic Association , Vol. 107, pp.1197-1203.

Das, E.H.H.J., de Wit, J.B.F. and Stroebe, W. (2003 ) ‘Fear Appeals Motivate Acceptance of Action Recommendations: Evidence for a Positive Bias in th e Processing of Persuasive Messages’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , Vol. 29, pp.650-664.

Defra. (2009) 2009 Survey of public attitudes and behaviours towa rds the environment, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London .

DiClemente, C.C. and Prochaska, J.O. (1982) ‘Self-C hange and Therapy Change of Smoking Behavior: A Comparison of Processes of Change’, Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 7, pp.133-142.

DiClemente, C.C., Prochaska, J.O., Fairhurst, S.K., Velicer, W.F., Velasquez, M.M. and Rossi, J.S.

(1991) ‘The Process of Smoking Cessation: An Analys is of Precontemplation, Contemplation, and Preparation Stages of Change’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , Vol. 59, pp.295-304.

Duddleston, A., Stradling, S. and Anable, J. (2005) Public Perceptions of Travel Awareness – Phase 3. , Scottish Executive Transport Research Series, Edi nburgh.

Gatersleben, B. and Appleton, K.M. (2007) ‘Contempl ating cycling to work: Attitudes and perceptions in different stages of change’, Transportation Research A, Vol. 41, pp.302-312.

Gifford, R. (2011) ‘The Dragons of Inaction: Psycho logical Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation’, American Psychologist , Vol. 66, pp.290-302.

Gilchrist, T. (2004) The Day After Tomorrow: An interview with Roland Em merich, blackfilm.com, May 2004. Available at: http://www.blackfilm.com/20040528/features/rolandem merich.shtml (accessed 21.12.2011).

Gollwitzer, P.M. (1993) ‘Goal achievement: The role of intentions’, European Review of Social Psychology , Vol. 4, pp.141-185.

Hall, K.L. and Rossi, J.S. (2008) ‘Meta-analytic ex amination of the strong and weak principles across 48 health behaviors’, Preventative Medicine, Vol. 46, pp.266-274.

Hargreaves, T., Nye, M. and Burgess, J. (2010) ‘Mak ing energy visible: A qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors’, Energy Policy, Vol.

38, pp.6111-6119.

He, H.A., Greenberg, S. and Huang, E.M. (2009) One size does not fit all: Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Energy Feedback Technolog y Design, Report 2009-943-22, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Herzog, T.A., Abrams, D.B., Emmons, K.M., Linnan, L .A. and Shadel, W.G. (1999) ‘Do Processes of Change Predict Smoking Stage Movements? A Prospe ctive Analysis of the Transtheoretical Model’, Health Psychology, Vol. 18, pp.369-375.

Hether, H.J., Huang, G.C., Beck, V., Murphy, S.T. a nd Valente, T.W. (2008) ‘Entertainment- Education in a Media-Saturated Environment: Examini ng the Impact of Single and Multiple Exposures to Breast Cancer Storylines on Two Popula r Medical Dramas’, Journal of Health Communication , Vol. 13, pp.808-823.

Horowitz, S.M. (2003) ‘Applying the transtheoretica l model to pregnancy and STD prevention: a review of the literature’, American Journal of Health Promotion , Vol. 17, pp.304-328.

Horwath, C.C. (1999) ‘Applying the transtheoretical model to eating behaviour change: challenges and opportunities’, Nutrition Research Reviews , Vol. 12, pp.281-317.

Howell, R.A. (2009) The Experience of Carbon Rationing Action Groups: I mplications for a Personal Carbon Allowances Policy , UKERC Final Report, Environmental Change Institute, Oxford. 15 Howell, R.A. (2011) ‘Lights, camera ... action? Altered attitudes and behaviour in response to the climate change film The Age of Stupid’, Global Environmental Change , Vol. 21, pp.177- 187.

Howell, R.A. (2012) ‘Investigating the long-term im pacts of climate change communications on individuals’ attitudes and behavior’, Environment and Behavior, doi:

10.1177/0013916512452428.

Hulme, M. (2008) ‘The conquering of climate: discou rses of fear and their dissolution’, The Geographical Journal , Vol. 174, pp.5-16.

Hungerford, H.R. and Volk, T.L. (1990) ‘Changing le arner behavior through environmental education’, Journal of Environmental Education , Vol. 21, pp.8-21.

Hutchison, A.J., Breckon, J.D. and Johnston, L.H. ( 2009) ‘Physical Activity Behavior Change Interventions Based on the Transtheoretical Model: A Systematic Review’, Health Education and Behavior , Vol. 38, pp.829-845.

Hyde, W. (2004) My Day After Tomorrow review(ish) thing , Usenet, 2 July 2004. Available at:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/ msg/6e52157aaf63775f (accessed 21.12.2011).

Kahan, D. (2010) ‘Fixing the communications failure ’, Nature , Vol. 463, pp.296-297.

Lander, R. (2012) Green Shoots Audience Forum. Report 1, Meeting 11th August 2011: “Just Do It” , Report by Take One Action! Available at:

http://www.takeoneaction.org.uk/images/uploads/news blog/Audience_Forum_Report_1_- _Just_Do_It1.pdf (accessed 30.04.2012).

Leiserowitz, A. (2004) ‘Before and After The Day Af ter Tomorrow: A U.S. Study of Climate Change Risk Perception’, Environment, Vol. 46, pp.22-37.

Lorenzoni, I., Leiserowitz, A., de Franca Doria, M. , Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2006) ‘Cross- National Comparisons of Image Associations with “Gl obal Warming” and “Climate Change” Among Laypeople in the United States of Ame rica and Great Britain’, Journal of Risk Research , Vol. 9, pp.265-281.

Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S. and Whitmarsh, L. (2007) ‘Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications’, Global Environmental Change , Vol. 17, pp.445-459.

Lowe, T. (2006) Vicarious Experience vs. Scientific Information in Climate Change Risk Perception and Behaviour: A Case Study of Undergrad uate Students in Norwich, UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 43, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, UK.

Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de Franca Doria, M ., Haynes, K. and Vincent, K. (2006) ‘Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public p erceptions of climate change’, Public Understanding of Science , Vol. 15, pp.435-457.

Middlemiss, L. and Parrish, B.D. (2010) ‘Building c apacity for low-carbon communities: The role of grassroots initiatives’, Energy Policy, Vol. 38, pp.7559-7566.

Migneault, J.P., Adams, T.B. and Read, J.P. (2005) ‘Application of the Transtheoretical Model to substance abuse: historical development and future directions’, Drug and Alcohol Review , Vol. 24, pp.437-448.

Monbiot, G. (2004) A hard rain’s a-gonna fall , The Guardian, 14 May 2004. Available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/may/14/climatec hange (accessed 21.12.2011).

Morton, T.A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D. and Bret schneider, P. (2011) ‘The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to unc ertainty in climate change communications’, Global Environmental Change , Vol. 21, pp.103-109.

Moser, S.C. (2007) ‘More bad news: the risk of negl ecting emotional response to climate change information’, in Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L. (Eds.) , Creating a Climate for Change:

Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Socia l Change, Cambridge University Press, New York. 16 Moser, S.C. (2008) ‘Toward a deeper engagement of the U.S. public on climate change: an open letter to the 44th president of the United States o f America’, International Journal of Sustainability Communication , Vol. 3, pp.119-132.

Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L. (2004) ‘Making Climate Hot: Communicating the Urgency and Challenge of Global Warming’, Environment, Vol. 46, pp.32-46.

Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008) ‘Toward a Theory of Entertain ment Persuasion: Explaining the Persuasive Effects of Entertainment-Education Messages’, Communication Theory, Vol. 18, pp.407- 425.

Nicholson-Cole, S.A. (2005) ‘Representing climate c hange futures: a critique on the use of images or visual communication’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , Vol. 29, pp.255- 273.

Nolan, J.M. (2010) ‘“An Inconvenient Truth” Increas es Knowledge, Concern, and Willingness to Reduce Greenhouse Gases’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 42, pp.643-658.

O'Neill, S. and Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009) ‘"Fear Wo n't Do It": Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Repre sentations’, Science Communication , Vol. 30, pp.355-379.

Ockwell, D., Whitmarsh, L. and O’Neill, S. (2009) ‘ Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement?’, Science Communication , Vol. 30, pp.305-327.

Oeuellette, J.A. and Wood, W. (1998) ‘Habit and int ention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, pp.57- 74.

Papa, M.J., Singhal, A., Law, S., Pant, S., Sood, S ., Rogers, E.M. and Shefner-Rogers, C.L. (2000) ‘Entertainment-education and social change: an anal ysis of parasocial interaction, social learning, collective efficacy, and paradoxical comm unication’, Journal of Communication , Vol. 50, pp.31-55.

Pooley, J.A. and O’Connor, M. (2000) ‘Environmental Education and Attitudes: Emotions and Beliefs Are What is Needed’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 32, pp.711-723.

Prochaska, J.O. (1994) ‘Strong and Weak Principles for Progressing From Precontemplation to Action on the Basis of Twelve Problem Behaviors’, Health Psychology, Vol. 13, pp.47-51.

Prochaska, J.O. and DiClemente, C.C. (1982) ‘Transt heoretical Therapy: Toward a More Integrative Model of Change’, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice , Vol. 19, pp.276-288.

Prochaska, J.O. and DiClemente, C.C. (1983) ‘Stages and Processes of Self-Change of Smoking:

Toward An Integrative Model of Change’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , Vol. 51, pp.390-395.

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C. and Norcross, J.C . (1992) ‘In Search of How People Change:

Applications to Addictive Behaviors’, American Psychologist, Vol. 47, pp.1102-1114.

Prochaska, J.O. and Velicer, W.F. (1997) ‘The Trans theoretical Model of Health Behavior Change’, American Journal of Health Promotion , Vol. 12, pp.38-48.

Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F., Rossi, J.S., Goldst ein, M.G., Marcus, B.H., Rakowski, W., Fiore, C., Harlow, L.L., Redding, C.A., Rosenbloom, D. and Rossi, S.R. (1994) ‘Stages of Change and Decisional Balance for 12 Problem Behaviors’, Health Psychology, Vol. 13, pp.39-46.

Reusswig, F., Schwarzkopf, J. and Pohlenz, P. (2004 ) Double Impact: The Climate Blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow and its Impact on the German Cin ema Public, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Report 92, Potsdam, Germany .

Rosen, C.S. (2000) ‘Is the Sequencing of Change Pro cesses by Stage Consistent Across Health Problems? A Meta-Analysis’, Health Psychology, Vol. 19, pp.593-604.

Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldste in, N.J. and Griskevicius, V. (2007) ‘The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms’, Psychological Science , Vol. 18, pp.429-434. 17 Schultz, P.W., Oskamp, S. and Mainieri, T. (1995) ‘Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors’, Journal of Environmental Psychology , Vol. 15, pp.105-121.

ScienceDaily. (2004) Disaster Flick Exaggerates Speed Of Ice Age , ScienceDaily, 12 May 2004.

Available at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/ 2004/05/040512044611.htm (accessed 21.12.2011).

Shrum, L.J., Ed. (2004). The psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion , Lawrence Erlbaum. Mahwah, NJ.

Singhal, A. and Rogers, E.M. (2004) ‘The Status of Entertainment-Education Worldwide’, in Singhal, A., Cody, M.J., Rogers, E.M. and Sabido, M . (Eds.), Entertainment-Education and Social Change: History, Research, and Practice , Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Sood, S., Menard, T. and Witte, K. (2004) ‘The Theo ry Behind Entertainment-Education’, in Singhal, A., Cody, M.J., Rogers, E.M. and Sabido, M . (Eds.), Entertainment-Education and Social Change: History, Research, and Practice , Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Spence, A. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2010) ‘Framing and co mmunicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations’, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 20, pp.656-667.

Spencer, L., Adams, T.B., Malone, S., Roy, L. and Y ost, E. (2006) ‘Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Exercise: A Systematic and Comprehensive R eview of the Literature’, Health Promotion Practice , Vol. 7, pp.428-443.

Spencer, L., Pagell, F., Hallion, M.E. and Adams, T .B. (2002) ‘Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Tobacco Cessation and Prevention: A Review of Literature’, American Journal of Health Promotion , Vol. 17, pp.7-71.

Spencer, L., Wharton, C., Moyle, S. and Adams, T.B. (2007) ‘The transtheoretical model as applied to dietary behaviour and outcomes’, Nutrition Research Reviews, Vol. 20, pp.46-73.

Spencer, L.S., Pagell, F.L. and Adams, T.B. (2005) ‘Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Cancer Screening Behavior: A review of the literature’, American Journal of Health Behavior, Vol.

29, pp.36-56.

Staats, H., Harland, P. and Wilke, H.A.M. (2004) ‘E ffecting Durable Change: A Team Approach to Improve Environmental Behavior in the Household’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 36, pp.341-367.

Steg, L. (2008) ‘Promoting household energy conserv ation’, Energy Policy , Vol. 36, pp.4449-4453.

Tickell, C. (2002) ‘Communicating Climate Change’, Science, Vol. 297, pp.737.

Usdin, S., Singhal, A., Shongwe, T., Goldstein, S. and Shabalala, A. (2004) ‘No Short Cuts in Entertainment-Education: Designing Soul City Step-By-Step’, in Singhal, A., Cody, M.J., Rogers, E.M. and Sabido, M. (Eds.), Entertainment-Education and Social Change: History, Research, and Practice , Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Vasi, I.B. and Macy, M. (2003) ‘The Mobilizer’s Dil emma: Crisis, Empowerment, and Collective Action’, Social Forces , Vol. 81, pp.979-998.

Vaughan, P.W. and Rogers, E.M. (2000) ‘A Staged Mod el of Communication Effects: Evidence from an Entertainment-Education Radio Soap Opera in Tanzania’, Journal of Health Communication , Vol. 5, pp.203-227.

Vaughan, P.W., Rogers, E.M., Singhal, A. and Swaleh e, R.M. (2000) ‘Entertainment-Education and HIV/AIDS Prevention: A Field Experiment in Tanzania ’, Journal of Health Communication , Vol. 5, pp.81-100.

Webb, T.L. and Sheeran, P. (2006) ‘Does changing be havioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidenc e’, Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 132, pp.249-268.

Weinstein, N.D., Rothman, A.J. and Sutton, S.R. (19 98) ‘Stage Theories of Health Behavior:

Conceptual and Methodological Issues’, Health Psychology, Vol. 17, pp.290-299.

Wilkin, H.A., Valente, T.W., Murphy, S., Cody, M.J. , Huang, G. and Beck, V. (2007) ‘Does Entertainment-Education Work With Latinos in the Un ited States? Identification and the 18 Effects of a Telenovela Breast Cancer Storyline’, Journal of Health Communication, Vol.

12, pp.455-469.

Witte, K. and Allen, M. (2000) ‘A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns’, Health Education and Behavior , Vol. 27, pp.591-615.

Wray, R.J., Hornik, R.M., Gandy, O.H., Stryker, J.O ., Ghez, M. and Mitchell-Clark, K. (2004) ‘Preventing Domestic Violence in the African Americ an Community: Assessing the Impact of a Dramatic Radio Serial’, Journal of Health Communication , Vol. 9, pp.31-52.

Young, W. and Middlemiss, L. (2012) ‘A rethink of h ow policy and social science approach changing individuals’ actions on greenhouse gas emi ssions’, Energy Policy , Vol. 41, pp.742-747.

19 Table 1: Stages of change as defined by the transtheoretical model Stage Definition Precontemplation No intention to change behaviour in the foreseeable future (usually measured as the next six months). Individuals may be unaware or under-aware of problem behaviours, or have tried to change but rel apsed.

Contemplation Thinking about changing behaviour (often measured a s seriously considering action within the next six months), but not committ ed to action now.

Weighing up pros and cons of current situation and of change.

Preparation Intending to take action in the near future (usuall y measured as the next month) and preparing to do so. Small behaviour chan ges may already have been made.

Action Behaviour changes (usually measured according to so me specific criteria) have been achieved for up to six months.

Maintenance Behaviour changes have been maintained for more tha n six months. Not a static stage as individuals still need to work to p revent relapse. Termination New behaviour has become habitual; no temptation to relapse. ‘Termination’ is not always a practical reality – for some behavi ours, a lifetime of maintenance is realistic. This stage is often not m entioned.

Sources: Based on information from Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross (1992) and Prochaska and Velicer (1997 ). 20 Table 2: Processes of change as defined by the transtheoretical model Process Definition Example interventions/techniques Cognitive/affective processes Consciousness-raising Increasing awareness about problem behaviour (causes, effects, solutions) Education, media campaigns, feedback, articles about climate science Dramatic relief Being moved emotionally with regards to the problem Role play, personal testimonies, media campaigns, vivid images of suffering Environmental re-evaluation Assessing how one’s behaviour affects social/physical environment Empathy training, family interventions, ecological footprinting Self-re-evaluation Assessing how one thinks and feels about oneself with regard to problem behaviour Value clarification, healthy role models, imagery, ‘ green values’ questionnaires Self-liberation Belief that one can change and commitment to do so New Year’s resolutions, public pledges, adopting an annual ‘carbon ration’ Behavioural processes Contingency/reinforcement management Instating consequences for behaviour – costs and/or rewards Self-reward, contingency contracts, group recognition, carbon taxation Helping relationships Open, trusting relationships with others who support behaviour change Self-help groups, buddy systems, Carbon Conversations a Counter-conditioning (Learning and) substituting alternatives for problem behaviour Depends on problem behaviour, e.g.

cycling/walking instead of driving Stimulus control Removing cues for undesired habits; adding prompts for desired ones Avoidance, restructuring environment, “switch off” stickers on light switches Social liberation Increase opportunities available in society/alternatives to problem behaviour Advocacy, empowerment, policy interventions, improve public transport Source: Based on information from Prochaska and Velicer ( 1997), with sustainability-specific examples by author in italics. aCarbon Conversations: six meetings about climate ch ange and carbon reduction (Randall, 2009) 21 Table 3: Processes of change matched with stages of change a Precontemplation Contemplation Preparation Action M aintenance Consciousness-raising Dramatic relief Environmental re-evaluation Self-re-evaluation Self-liberation Contingency management Helping relationships Counter-conditioning Stimulus control a The process of ‘social liberation’ is not included because it has been regarded as outside the remit o f the health behaviour programs from which the model was develop ed. Source: Prochaska and Velicer (1997). Used by permission. Figure 1: Progression through the stages of change Source : Based on a diagram from Atkins (2009).

Action Maintenance Preparation Contemplation Precontemplation Relapse Progress Termination View publication statsView publication stats