27 pages, via online journal, This study explored whether satire (an emotional blend of humor/indignation) can minimize the emotional tradeoffs researchers have documented for humorous appeals about climate change. Using a sample of U.S. young adults, we conducted a 2 (humor: present/absent) × 2 (indignation: present/absent) + 1 (control) experiment in which we manipulated a climate change segment from Jimmy Kimmel Live! Our evidence suggests that it is possible for a late-night host to affect young adults’ climate change risk perception and behavioral intentions under certain conditions. Moderation analyses indicated that avoiding humor helped close the partisan gap in risk perception between Republicans and Democrats.
17 pages, via online journal, Sarcastic content is prevalent in online social media, although little research has explored its effects. In this study, we examine how exposure to one-sided versus two-sided sarcastic perspectives on climate change shapes beliefs about climate change. We find that exposure to one-sided messages that use irony to deride those who believe that climate change is a hoax (presented in The Onion) raises belief certainty in and perceived risk of climate change for those who do not already believe climate change is an important issue (N = 141). The two-sided message (presented by The Weather Channel) does not show any effects.
Analysis reveals some evidence that a spiral of silence developed in public discourse about biotechnology in the U.S. Spiral of science theory argues that fear of social isolation inhibits the expression of opinions perceived to be in a minority.
