Eat more plants vs. eat less meat: Do-more-good frames increase climate action likelihood and anticipated happiness compared to do-less-bad frames

Abstract

Calls for climate action often emphasize the need to reduce harm, such as by eating less meat, driving less, and shopping less. A more productive approach, however, may be to encourage people to do more good. To compare the two approaches, we conducted two pre-registered online experiments in which participants were randomly assigned to either a do-more-good condition or a do-less-bad condition. The do-more-good condition presented 15 actions framed so that doing more of each action would benefit the environment (e.g., eat more plants). In the do-less-bad condition, the 15 actions were framed so that doing less of each action would benefit the environment (e.g., eat less meat). In Experiment 1 (N=779), participants were more likely to take climate action and felt happier about doing so in the do-more-good condition than in the do-lessbad condition. Experiment 2 (N=770) replicated these results and showed that participants viewed doing more good as easier than doing less bad. These findings provide implications for climate communication, suggesting that calls for climate action can benefit from encouraging desired behaviors rather than discouraging undesired behaviors.

Keywords: framing, climate communication, pro-environmental behavior, well-being, positive reinforcement