|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
This study investigates whether moral messaging can effectively increase support for pro-climate policies and promote individual pro-environmental behaviors. In a randomized experiment, we compare the effects of a religious narrative—extracted from a speech by Pope Francis—with those of a purely informational message about climate change impacts and a control group receiving no message. We assess how these narratives shape climate attitudes by analyzing a broad set of beliefs that span perceptions of material costs and strategic interdependence (e.g., expected economic and social costs, coordination failures), intergenerational and international equity (e.g., fairness across generations and between countries), religious moral framing (e.g., sin, duty, and divine purpose), and individual moral motivation (e.g., warm-glow effect, atomism, moral obbligation). To explore the role of moral emotions, we experimentally induce guilt in a subset of participants to test whether emotional activation amplifies the effect of the narratives. Guilt is examined as a channel that is psychologically consistent with the religious framing of climate action, potentially reinforcing its persuasive power.
|
After
This study investigates whether moral messaging can effectively increase support for pro-climate policies and promote individual pro-environmental behaviors. In a randomized experiment, we compare the effects of a religious narrative—extracted from speeches by Pope Francis and Pope Leone —with those of a purely informational message about climate change impacts and a control group receiving a neutral informational text about music history. We assess how these narratives shape climate attitudes by analyzing a broad set of beliefs that span perceptions of material costs and strategic interdependence (e.g., expected economic and social costs, coordination failures), intergenerational and international equity (e.g., fairness across generations and between countries), religious moral framing (e.g., sin, duty, and divine purpose), and individual moral motivation (e.g., warm-glow effect, atomism, moral obbligation). To explore the role of moral emotions, we experimentally induce guilt in a subset of participants to test whether emotional activation amplifies the effect of the narratives. Guilt is examined as a channel that is psychologically consistent with the religious framing of climate action, potentially reinforcing its persuasive power.
|
|
Field
Trial Start Date
|
Before
August 01, 2025
|
After
February 15, 2026
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
October 30, 2025
|
After
March 15, 2026
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
July 17, 2025 08:11 AM
|
After
January 23, 2026 10:23 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
August 01, 2025
|
After
February 15, 2026
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
September 01, 2025
|
After
March 15, 2026
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
Participants will be asked a series of policy support questions, rated on a 1 to 10 scale. These policies are designed to span a range of interventions: from carbon taxes and mobility restrictions to meat production limits and support for green infrastructure. Some questions explicitly introduce distributional trade-offs, such as whether the costs should fall more on the current generation or on future ones, or whether richer countries should bear more of the burden. This allows us to assess preferences around cost distribution, fairness, and political feasibility.
To complement these closed-ended measures, we include an open-ended question where participants can freely express the first considerations that come to mind when thinking about climate change. This will provide qualitative insight into spontaneous associations and mental models.
Additionally, participants are asked to prioritize different public policy areas, such as health, education, and the environment, to assess how climate concerns rank among other competing priorities.
Finally, a real-stakes donation task will offer a behavioral measure of climate concern. Participants who are randomly selected to win a cash prize will be asked how much of their prize (up to 50 euros) they would like to donate to different organizations, including environmental and humanitarian NGOs. This will allow us to observe actual willingness to part with resources, and whether pro-climate attitudes translate into real-world behavior.
|
After
Participants will be asked a series of policy support questions, rated on a 1 to 10 scale. These policies are designed to span a range of interventions: from carbon taxes and mobility restrictions to meat production limits and support for green infrastructure. Some questions explicitly introduce distributional trade-offs, such as whether the costs should fall more on the current generation or on future ones, or whether richer countries should bear more of the burden. This allows us to assess preferences around cost distribution, fairness, and political feasibility.
Additionally, participants are asked to prioritize different public policy areas, such as health, education, and the environment, to assess how climate concerns rank among other competing priorities.
Finally, a real-stakes donation task will offer a behavioral measure of climate concern. Participants who are randomly selected to win a cash prize will be asked how much of their prize (up to 50 euros) they would like to donate to different organizations, including environmental and humanitarian NGOs. This will allow us to observe actual willingness to part with resources, and whether pro-climate attitudes translate into real-world behavior.
|
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
The randomization is done by the pooling company.
|
After
Random assignment of participants across the six experimental groups will be managed by the research team using computer-based randomization software.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
4,000 respondents. Depending on budget availability we aim at expanding the sample to 6000 respondents as to achieve 1000 participants per condition.
|
After
6,000 respondents, with 1000 participants per condition.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
Around min. 660 respondents for each of the 6 subgroups that will receive different treatment conditions (or no treatment condition).
|
After
Around 1,000 respondents for each of the 6 subgroups that will receive different treatment conditions (or no treatment condition).
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
Participants will first answer a set of background questions, including their gender, age, location, marital status, family size, level of education, trust in people and institutions, time use, and altruistic behavior. Following this, we will include an attention-check question to ensure engagement.
Next, participants in the treatment groups will be asked to complete an autobiographical recall task designed to induce guilt. Those in the control group will instead describe a typical day. After this emotional intervention, the relevant groups will receive either an informational treatment or a religious/moral treatment, while some groups will receive no treatment at all.
Following the treatment phase, we will include another attention-check question to confirm that participants have read the provided material. Participants will then respond to an open-ended question asking for their general thoughts on climate change.
Subsequently, they will answer several outcome questions, including their support for various pro-climate policies, their views on the prioritization of different areas of public intervention, and a real-stakes question involving the donation of a potential prize to different nonprofit organizations. We will also assess their beliefs about climate change, such as perceived costs, the role of individual behaviors, consequences for future generations, and the connection between religion and climate change.
Participants will be also asked to report on the emotions they were feeling at that moment. In addition, we will administer the Moral Foundations Questionnaire to identify the dominant moral values of each participant.
Finally, we will gather a few additional control variables, including household income, political attitudes and voting behavior, and personal religious affiliation.
|
After
Participants will first answer a set of background questions, including their gender, age, location, marital status, family size, level of education, trust in people and institutions, time use, altruistic behavior, household income, political attitudes, voting behavior, and personal religious affiliation. Following this, we will include an attention-check question to ensure engagement.
Next, participants in the treatment groups will be asked to complete an autobiographical recall task designed to induce guilt. Those in the control group will instead describe a typical day. After this emotional intervention, the relevant groups will receive either an informational treatment or a religious/moral treatment, while some groups will receive a neutral informational text about music history.
Following the treatment phase, we will include another attention-check question to confirm that participants have read the provided material.
Subsequently, they will answer several outcome questions, including their support for various pro-climate policies, their views on the prioritization of different areas of public intervention, and a real-stakes question involving the donation of a potential prize to different nonprofit organizations. We will also assess their beliefs about climate change, such as perceived costs, the role of individual behaviors, consequences for future generations, and the connection between religion and climate change.
Participants will be also asked to report on the emotions they were feeling at that moment. In addition, we will administer the Moral Foundations Questionnaire to identify the dominant moral values of each participant. After the Moral Foundation Questionnaire, participants complete a debriefing phase where they state their perceived study objective, then receive full disclosure of the actual research aims and access to psychological support if needed.
|