Stop preaching to the converted

Abstract

Traditional moral arguments fail to persuade conservative climate sceptics. Pope Francis' gifting of his climate encyclical to President Trump prior to his leaving the Paris Agreement shows that even a religious leader's persuasive power is constrained by how his message resonates with conservative moral values.

Full text

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 7 | AUGUST 2017 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 1
opinion & comment
COMMENTARY:
Stop preaching to the converted
Asheley R. Landrum and Robert B. Lull
Traditional moral arguments fail to persuade conservative climate sceptics. Pope Francis’ gifting of his
climate encyclical to President Trump prior to his leaving the Paris Agreement shows that even a religious
leader’s persuasive power is constrained by how his message resonates with conservative moral values.
In June 2015, Pope Francis’ encyclical
Laudato Si’: On Care of Our Common
Home received considerable attention
as an ocial Catholic document urging
global climate change mitigation. As the
spiritual leader of over 1billion Catholics
throughout the world, it was anticipated
that Pope Francis was well-positioned to
appeal to his followers’ moral sensibilities
and perhaps initiate broader impact given
his popularity among the general public1.
Almost two years later, on 24May2017,
Pope Francis met with US president,
DonaldTrump, who on multiple occasions
has expressed scepticism about the
existence of climate change. e Pope gave
President Trump a copy of the encyclical,
presumably hoping to convince Trump
to reconsider his views on climate change
and his plan to withdraw from the Paris
Agreement on climate. Optimistically,
senate minority leader Chuck Schumer
said, “If President Trump reads the Pope’s
writing, I’m condent he’ll not withdraw
the [Paris] agreement. We’ve gotta get him
to read it.”2
We did not share Senator Schumer’s
condence. Not only was President
Trump, like most Americans, unlikely to
read the 40,000 word document, but our
work and that of our colleagues suggests
that familiarity with the encyclical was
not sucient to alter US conservatives’
climate change attitudes3,4. Believing
that President Trump—a US president
representing the conservative Republican
party—would react any dierently to the
average conservative survey respondent
represented naïve optimism with minimal
empiricaljustication.
Unsurprisingly, a week later
PresidentTrump announced his plan
to withdraw from the Paris Agreement,
stating “e Paris climate accord is simply
the latest example of Washington entering
into an agreement that disadvantages
the United States to the exclusive benet
of other countries, leaving American
workers—who I love—and taxpayers
to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs,
lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly
diminished economicproduction.”5
The importance of values
President Trump’s statement stressed
conservative values, citing potential job
losses and concern about restrictions on
business while arming his loyalty to the
American public (versus the rest of the
world) and his fears that the agreement
puts the US at a disadvantage compared
to other foreign powers. Yet prior to
President Trump’s announcement, many
people shared Senator Schumer’s optimism
that Pope Francis’ moral arguments,
such as his assertion that climate change
disproportionately aects the poor, would
change the course of the debate.
ere was little reason to be so hopeful.
Although Laudato Si’ contains moral
arguments with considerable empathetic
appeal—couching climate-change concern
in terms of care for the environment,
the poor, and future generations—it
lacked emphasis on appeals that would
resonate with conservative moral values
such as loyalty and authority. Because
of this, we believe Laudato Si’ was a
missed opportunity. If Pope Francis and
other climate advocates wish to persuade
conservatives to embrace climate-friendly
behaviours and support mitigation policies
such as the Paris Agreement, they need
to embrace a more strategic approach
to climate communication. Specically,
they ought to demonstrate to political
conservatives that acting to mitigate the
eects of climate change can be consistent
with conservative moral values.
Diverse cultural values
As their fundamental priorities dier,
progressives and conservatives oen
struggle to understand each other’s social
and political values6,7. Moral foundations
theory provides a means for understanding
these dierences, proposing that morality
is rooted in multiple values—or
foundations—that are recurring and
universal but vary within individuals and
across cultures6 (Table1).
Importantly, people’s political attitudes
towards issues such as climate change
are oen based on their moral concerns8.
A rapidly expanding research eld has
examined whether, and if so, to what
extent, moral foundations inuence
support for various political stances6,7.
is research has found, for example, that
US progressives are primarily concerned
with issues of care and fairness, while
conservatives rely on all ve of the
foundations7. One promising strategy for
bridging climate-change divides, then, is
to frame climate change according to the
moral foundations that will resonate most
with particular stakeholder groups8.
Environmental issues have oen
been framed as appeals to care (for
example, harming the poor and future
generations) and fairness (for example,
unjustly burdening some people more than
others); these foundations resonate with
conservatives, but in a dierent way and
to a lesser extent than with progressives.
Eectively engaging conservatives’ moral
sensibilities requires appealing to a broader
moral palette8,9. One study, for example,
found that conservatives exposed to a
sanctity frame (for example, depicting
environmental degradation with images
of pollution and garbage) reported greater
pro-environmental attitudes, more
support for pro-environmental legislation,
and greater belief in global warming
than those exposed to a care frame8 (for
example, images emphasizing the harm
and destruction humans are causing to
the land). Similar results were found when
environmental issues were framed to
appeal to loyalty andauthority9.

2 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 7 | AUGUST 2017 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange
opinion & comment
Importantly, these studies found a
plausible mechanism for these eects:
conservatives felt that the messages
about sanctity, authority and loyalty
sounded like messages from an in-group
member, and they were thus more likely
to support such claims9. erefore,
appealing to a broader network of moral
foundations is a promising approach to
climate communication with a sceptical,
conservative audience.
Attack on conservative values
Although some of the arguments
presented in the encyclical alluded to
moral foundations other than care and
fairness (Table1), references to the care
and fairness foundations constituted
the majority of the moral language in
the text10,11. Furthermore, some of the
moral appeals in the encyclical attacked
conservative values. For instance, Pope
Francis blamed multinational businesses
for knowingly creating issues such as
water scarcity and destruction of nature.
In addition, he accused business and
politics of being slow to react to important
challenges and asserted that proposed
technological innovation to address
man-made problems may solve one
problem only to createothers.
For conservative readers, these
confrontational passages likely
overshadowed other, more positive,
sentiments towards free enterprise. Indeed,
opinion editorials in the Wall Street Journal
by Vatican correspondent Francis X. Rocca
and Acton Institute director Robert Sirico
criticized the Pope for his “vehement
criticism of capitalism throughout the
entire encyclical” and for the encyclical’s
“bias against free markets”, respectively12,13.
Why would conservatives respond
otherwise? Since when have repeated
reprimands persuaded bad actors to change
their ways? Yes, the ‘technocratic paradigm’
has rightfully earned the Pope’s rebukes
given its role in our modern ecological
crises. But that same paradigm also has
the power—or, in moral foundation
parlance, the authority—to take the
lead in climate-change mitigation. Useful
technologies such as carbon capture and
storage and market solutions such as
cap-and-trade hold promise as elements
of a successful approach to climate
change mitigation; a more eectively
designed message might have challenged
capitalists to embrace climate action as
an opportunity to channel traditions of
innovation, invoking the authority of
economics in solving complexproblems.
Such a message rooted in the moral
value of authority might have appealed to
conservative values, but the Pope dismissed
innovation and economics as inecient
and insucient, questioning whether
climate change represents the ultimate
failure of the technocratic paradigm. His
plea is instead an urgent call for humanity
to “overcome individualism” and replace it
with “a new way of thinking about human
beings, life, society and our relationship
with nature”. is is a noble ambition, but
the Pope, of all people, should recognize
that Rome was not built in a day. Not only
do changes in human thinking occur at a
pace too slow for the urgent crisis posed by
climate change, but the “new and universal
solidarity” the Pope seeks cannot emerge
from the ashes of individualism. In fact,
individualism (that is, “liberty”) has been
proposed as a sixth moral foundation
valued both by conservatives and
progressives, albeit in dierent ways14.
Gaining traction for moral messages
Some might argue that it was not
PopeFrancis’ goal to convince US
conservatives to be concerned about
climate change, but we disagree. We
suspect that the Pope hoped to convince
those who are least likely to be concerned
about climate change and least likely to
want to change their lifestyle in order
to protect the planet, many of whom
are conservative Americans. e Pope
conrmed this suspicion by giing
LaudatoSi’ to President Trump in an
apparent eort to salvage the United States’
participation in the Paris Agreement.
But if Pope Francis and other climate
advocates really wish to persuade
conservative sceptics, a useful rst step is
to recognize that morality is multifaceted.
Care and fairness are important when
preaching to the converted. But messages
of loyalty, sanctity, and authority resonate
with conservatives at a moral level that
may be less apparent to those with
progressiveideologies. ❐
Asheley R.Landrum1* and Robert B.Lull2 are at
1College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech
University, 3003 15th Street, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas 79413, USA. 2Department
of Communication, 5201 North Maple Ave,
Table 1 | Appeals to five moral foundations in the text of the encyclical.
Foundation Definition Examples in Laudato Si’ (ref. 10)
Care versus harm Concern for the suffering of others Besides the subtitle “On Care for our Common Home”, Laudato Si’ includes many appeals to
the care foundation. The effects of climate change on the poor and vulnerable are emphasized
throughout the encyclical. Both decades-old arguments (for example, climate change will
especially burden future generations) and newer arguments (for example, climate change
will increase the number of refugees) are used to demonstrate that caring for others requires
caring for the environment.
Fairness versus cheating Concerns about equality, unfair
treatment and justice
Laudato Si’ also appeals to the fairness foundation, often in tandem with care. By juxtaposing
excessive resource consumption by “the richest countries of the world” with “repercussions
on the poorest areas of the world,” Pope Francis suggests that climate change and its effects
on the poor and vulnerable are the results of “unequal distribution of available resources”.
Sanctity versus
degradation
Concern for purity and sacredness,
avoidance of disgust
Perhaps the most striking passage from Laudato Si’ is also an appeal to the sanctity moral
foundation: “The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile
of filth”. Arrestingly blunt rhetoric such as this would be expected to elicit disgust, a crucial
component of sanctity.
Loyalty versus betrayal Concern regarding forming groups
and acting for the group’s greater
good
Some of the arguments in Laudato Si’ are framed as issues of loyalty and solidarity with
others. Pope Francis writes about how we should “cultivate a proper relationship with [our]
neighbour”, citing Genesis. He also makes the important connection that caring for ourselves
and nature is “inseparable from fraternity… and faithfulness to others”.
Authority versus
subversion
Deference to legitimate authority and
respect for tradition
Pope Francis cites the teachings of well-known Catholic saints, such as St. Francis of Assisi and
St. John Paul II, to invoke their authority as widely beloved figures in the Catholic Church.

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 7 | AUGUST 2017 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 3
opinion & comment
MailStop SA 46, Fresno, California 93740-8027,
USA. *e-mail: LandrumAR@gmail.com
References
1. USCatholics View Pope Francis as a Change for the Better
(PewResearch Center, 2014).
2. Reilly, K. Pope Francis gave President Trump a copy of his
encyclical on climate change. Time (24May 2017).
3. Landrum, A.R., Lull, R.B., Akin, H., Hasell, A. & Jamieson, K.H.
Cognition 166, 1–12 (2017).
4. Li, N., Hilgard, J., Scheufele, D.A., Winneg, K.M.
& Jamieson, K.H. Climatic Change 139, 367–380 (2016).
5. Trump, D.J. Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate
Accord (e Whitehouse, 2017).
6. Haidt, J. & Graham, J. Soc. Justice Res. 20, 98–116 (2007).
7. Graham, J., Haidt, J. & Nosek, B.A. J. Personality Soc. Psychol.
96, 1029–1046 (2009).
8. Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. Personality Soc. Psychol. Bull.
41, 1665–1681 (2013).
9. Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H. & Seiden, J.J.Exp. Soc. Psychol.
65, 7–19 (2016).
10. Franci s, P. Laudato Si’ (Press Oc e of the Holy See, 2015).
11. Landrum, A.R., Lull, R.B., Akin, H. & Jamieson, K.H. Making
it about morals: Pope Francis shis the climate change debate.
In71st Ann. Conf. Am. Assoc. Public Opinion Res.
http://doi.org/b85h (2016).
12. Rocca, F. X. Pope blames markets for environment’s ills.
Wall Street Journal (18 June 2015).
13. Sirico, R. e Pope’s green theology. Wall Street Journal
(18 June 2015).
14. Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P. & Haidt, J. PLoS ONE
7, e42366 (2012).