Special issue article: The social psychology of climate change Effects of message framing in policy communication on climate change MAURO BERTOLOTTI* AND PATRIZIA CATELLANI Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan, Milan, Italy Abstract In two studies, we investigated the framing effects of policy messages regarding climate change. In Study 1, we asked participants to read policy messages that envisioned positive consequences. Messages varied as to their outcome sensitivity (achievement of positive outcomes versus avoidance of negative outcomes), regulatory concern (growth versus safety) and goal-pursuit strategy (investment in renewable energy versus intervention on greenhouse gas emissions). Participants showed the highest agreement with a policy message on renewable energy when it was formulated in terms of the achievement of positive, growth-related outcomes and with a greenhouse gas emissions message when it was formulated in terms of the avoidance of negative, safety-related outcomes. The same held for the intention to vote for candidates proposing those policies. In Study 2, participants’ regulatory focus moderated these effects, with promotion-focused participants preferring messages focused on the achievement of positive outcomes and prevention-focused participants preferring messages focused on the avoidance of negative outcomes. Results show that the fit among the various levels of framing of a policy message regarding climate change, moderated by individual regulatory focus, increases the probability that recipients agree with the policy. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Since the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UNFCCC, 1992), national and international institutions have intensified efforts to address the issue of global warming and climate change and developed complex policies to deal with these two related issues. However, seeking support for these policies is difficult for governments, and even discussing these issues is a challenge. Firstly, although there is scientific consensus (Bray, 2010; Oreskes, 2004) that global warming is the result of human activities that promote the emission of greenhouse gases (primarily CO 2 ), many people are sceptical of the human origin of global warming and even doubt its existence (McCright & Dunlap, 2000, 2011). Secondly, the efforts required to effectively combat global warming have serious and unprecedented scope, ranging from small changes in individual lifestyle, such as reducing energy consumption at home, to large-scale changes to the present economic system. Thirdly, the technicalities of its measurement and the seem- ingly distant consequences of global warming make it hard to capture the interest of citizens in comparison with more familiar matters, such as the economic downturn. In the environmental domain, as in others, communication promoting the adoption of a given policy often focuses on the consequences of adopting (or not adopting) that policy, and these consequences may be framed in different ways. Frames are used to select and organise information on an issue or event (Chong & Druckman, 2007; Entman, 1993; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Scheufele, 1999), by providing meaning and attributing a positive or negative value to it. By emphasising some aspects of an event over others, frames can influence attitudes to and opinions on events. Research on how climate-related policies are presented by policy makers and the media (Cox, 2010; Floyd, 2010; Hulme, 2008; McDonald, 2013; Nisbet, 2009) shows that policies are often framed in terms of the achievement of potential gains or the avoidance of potential losses (Gifford & Comeau, 2011; Moser & Dilling, 2007; Reber & Berger, 2005). Differences in how environmental policies are framed may reflect differ- ent, complementary approaches to climate change. The aim of some policies is to increase energy generation through renewable means, such as wind, solar and hydroelectric power. The aim of others is to reduce the current emission levels of greenhouse gases by imposing regulations on energy and industrial production, transportation, household heating and electricity consumption. Some policies combine the two approaches (Bang, 2010). Understanding which frames are effective in promoting support for policies related to renewable energy and green- house gas emissions is obviously important. In the sections that follow, we will briefly discuss the main findings on the effects of message framing in climate change communication. Then, we will discuss some limits of this research and the possibility of overcoming them, at least in part, through the extension of the self-regulatory model of message framing (Cesario, Corker, & Jelinek, 2013) to the study of the effects *Correspondence to: Mauro Bertolotti, Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan, Largo Gemelli, 1 I-20123 Milan, Italy. E-mail: mauro.bertolotti@unicatt.it European Journal of Social Psychology, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44, 474–486 (2014) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2033 Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 7 October 2013, Accepted 24 April 2014