Video communication, blue marble awe, and attitudes toward climate change and renewable energy

Scientific reports show that human influence has warmed the climate at an unprecedented rate over the last 2000 years and warn that time is running out to prevent major irreversible damage to the Earth’s climate^1,2. Nevertheless, public opinion in countries such as the United States remains divided about the causes and consequences of climate change. Due to growing ideological polarization, there exists a considerable gap between liberals and conservatives in terms of climate change attitudes and beliefs^3,4,5. For example, in 2023 only 54 percent of Americans and 23 percent of Republicans believed that climate change is a major threat to the country⁶. Moreover, only a minority of people are willing to engage in climate change mitigation through personal actions such as installing solar panels or paying more for renewable energy. For instance, in 2024 only about 5 percent of U.S. single-family homes generated electricity from small-scale solar arrays⁷. A key question for scientists and policymakers is: how is it possible to increase public awareness about climate change and support for low-carbon technologies through effective communication of science and technology?

Climate change communication has become a vibrant and highly interdisciplinary area of research^8,9,10. Indeed, a growing number of climate scientists are asking “how to communicate the increasingly urgent, ‘bad’ and ‘unwelcome’ messages to a seemingly indifferent public.”⁹ Research shows that public perception of the salience of the climate change problem is influenced by factors such as individual values and beliefs^{11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18}, emotions^{19,20,21,22,23}, weather events^{24,25,26,27,28,29}, political discourses and polarization^{30,31,32,33,34}, and mass media coverage^35,36,37. Research also has demonstrated that watching movies and documentaries related to climate change can affect climate change attitudes^38,39,40,41, even though climate change is rarely mentioned in current films and TV shows⁴². Similarly, research on the text messages used by companies that install solar panels shows that many companies communicate not only the panels’ financial benefits but also their environmental benefits, in particular their significant reduction of carbon dioxide emissions^43,44. Despite this growing area of research, scholars lack assessments of the effectiveness of different communication approaches for increasing pro-environmental attitudes. In particular, we lack evidence that video communication can increase not only awareness about climate change but also support for low-carbon technologies.

Here we implemented a survey experiment to examine how respondents’ attitudes toward energy and environment are affected by video communication that employs facts, feelings, and a combination of the two. Our interventions use online video communication because we build upon multi-disciplinary research which shows that watching movies and documentaries can enhance pro-environmental attitudes^38,39,40,41 and may even stimulate collective actions to address environmental issues^45,46. Additionally, studies suggest that online videos can be an effective tool for science communication^47,48. Our study allows us to compare the efficacy of different online videos on attitudes and beliefs that are relevant to climate change mitigation.

Our interventions also use communication approaches that combine facts and feelings because we build upon work examining the influence of emotions such as awe on prosocial tendencies^49,50. Although awe can be triggered by various experiences associated with art, music, religion, and spirituality, it is frequently elicited by stimuli that are immense in size and complexity, such as the night sky or majestic nature scenes⁵¹. A particularly powerful trigger for the feeling of awe is the first-hand experience of viewing the Earth from orbit or from the moon, which is described as the “overview effect”^52,53. This effect represents a major shift in awareness experienced by astronauts due to the realization that the Earth is fragile and that life on our planet is protected by a paper-thin atmosphere. However, the feeling of awe for our planet can be experienced without traveling to outer space, by looking at photographs and watching videos of Earth from space. Photographs such as “Earthrise”, taken by NASA astronauts in 1968, and “The Blue Marble”, taken by NASA astronauts in 1972, are credited with creating public awareness about the Earth’s vulnerability and have become symbols of the environmental movement^54,55. Similarly, it is possible that watching a video of the Earth that highlights the fragility of the atmosphere elicits the feeling of blue marble awe in some individuals, enhancing their understanding of the interconnection of all life and their responsibility to take care of the environment. Our study allows us to examine if the efficacy of communication approaches that focus on climate change science or renewable energy technology can be improved by emphasizing blue marble awe.

We examined the efficacy of six approaches, based on their use of facts about science and technology, the feeling of blue marble awe, a combination of the two, and a reinforced message from an ambassador, to enhance awareness about climate change and support for renewable energy. First, we used a single message approach that focused on climate change science facts, such as the atmospheric measurements that show an increase in carbon emissions due to human activities and document rapid climate change during recent decades, because this focus is common in research on climate change communication^8,9,10. Second, we used a single message approach that focused on solar photovoltaic (PV) technology facts, such as an explanation of the way in which solar panels work and a description of their economic and environmental benefits, because the adoption of this technology can accelerate the decarbonization of the electric grid⁵⁶. These particular climate change science and solar PV technology facts can increase the climate and energy literacy of viewers by refuting potential misconceptions about the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the benefits of renewable energy.

Third, we used a single message that focused on “blue marble awe”, or the feeling of awe for the Earth arising from the realization that we live on a fragile planet, because research suggests that emotions can play a significant role in shaping environmental attitudes^{19,20,21,22,23}. Fourth, we used a dual message approach that combined blue marble awe and climate change science facts because it is likely that blue marble awe can enhance individuals’ openness to receive subsequent information about climate change science. Fifth, we used a dual message approach that combined blue marble awe and solar PV technology facts because we anticipated that blue marble awe can improve individuals’ receptivity to subsequent information about solar technology. Sixth, we used a dual reinforced message approach that included facts, feelings, and direct communication from a high credibility “ambassador” for solar PV technology because climate change communication research highlights the importance of trusted messengers^8,9,10. Furthermore, because Americans’ attitudes about climate change differ by political orientation^3,4,5, we also examine whether some communication approaches are more effective for conservatives, while others are more effective for liberals.

Our paper is guided by several general expectations. First, we expect that the video that use a science-focused approach aimed at clarifying misconceptions about the scale and complexity of anthropogenic climate change can influence perceptions of climate change attitudes. At the same time, we anticipate that this video does not influence renewable energy attitudes and planned behaviors because it presents information only about the climate change problem, not about individual-level solutions to this problem (e.g., installing solar panels, purchasing renewable energy). Moreover, we expect that the effect of this video will be influenced by individuals’ political orientation since conservatives are less likely to trust climate change science⁶. Hence, our first hypothesis states:

Hypothesis 1a

The climate change science video will have a positive effect on climate change attitudes, but not on renewable energy attitudes and planned behaviors.

Hypothesis 1b

The effect of the climate change science video will be stronger for liberals than for conservatives.

Second, we anticipate that the video that focuses on solar PV technology will influence climate change and renewable energy attitudes because it emphasizes not only the financial but also the environmental benefits of this technology. However, this video is less likely to change perceptions of an ecological crisis because it does not discuss the gravity of the climate change problem. The effectiveness of an approach that focuses on solar PV technology is less likely to vary with political orientation because, unlike climate change messages, solar PV technology messages are less likely to be influenced by politically motivated reasoning. Conservatives may see solar technology communication as less politically biased than climate change communication because, unlike climate change mitigation, adopting solar PV does not necessarily require phasing out fossil fuels. Because many conservatives consider fossil fuel to be essential for sustaining “the American way of life”, they support an “all-of-the-above” energy policy that favors investing in fossil fuels and renewable energy. Therefore, our second hypothesis states:

Hypothesis 2

The solar PV video will have a positive effect on climate change attitudes and on renewable energy attitudes and planned behaviors.

Third, we expect that a communication approach focused only on blue marble awe is not likely to have a strong influence on individuals’ climate change and renewable energy attitudes. Given the relatively low level of knowledge about climate change science, individuals’ perceptions of an ecological crisis and climate change attitudes are unlikely to change without receiving information about climate change science. Similarly, because of the relatively low level of knowledge about solar PV technology, individuals’ attitudes and planned behaviors towards renewable energy are unlikely to change without receiving information about solar panels’ environmental and financial benefits. This communication approach may, however, increase perceptions of an ecological crisis and awareness about climate change for conservatives. This is because, unlike climate change messages, blue marble awe messages are less likely to be influenced by politically motivated reasoning. Conservatives are likely to see the blue marble awe communication as less politically biased than the climate change communication because it draws attention to the importance of protecting the Earth’s atmosphere without discussing climate change. Protecting the Earth’s atmosphere could be interpreted as planting trees or investing in carbon capture and sequestration technology, rather than reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, our third hypothesis states:

Hypothesis 3

The blue marble awe video will have a positive effect on climate change attitudes for conservatives.

Fourth, we anticipate that communicating information about the emotion of blue marble awe can enhance individuals’ openness to receive subsequent information about climate change science or solar PV technology. We develop this argument based on psychological research which demonstrates the importance of emotions for processes such as attention, reasoning, and memory^57,58,59. Indeed, given that emotions can influence attention and reasoning, scholars have argued that educators can improve learning by incorporating emotional influences in teaching materials⁶⁰. Our arguments are also based on research which demonstrates that organizations can shape public conversations, attract resources, and mobilize supporters when they combine emotional stimuli with informational content. For example, social movement organizations can organize more effective campaigns when they combine cognitive and emotional frames, particularly if emotional frames juxtapose negative emotions (e.g., pity, shame, fear) with positive emotions (e.g., joy, pride, hope)⁶¹. Thus:

Hypothesis 4

The blue marble and climate change video will have a positive effect on climate and renewable energy attitudes and on renewable energy planned behaviors.

Hypothesis 5

The blue marble and solar PV video will have a positive effect on climate and renewable energy attitudes and on renewable energy planned behaviors.

Finally, we anticipate that adding communication from an astronaut who acts as an ambassador for both the Earth and for solar PV technology increases the efficacy of the approach that communicates information about the emotion of blue marble awe and the solar PV technology. Our argument is rooted in research examining the importance of trust for environmental attitudes and climate change communication. Research on cross-national climate change attitudes shows that both social trust (or generalized trust in others within a society) and trust in institutions (e.g., the presidency, the government, the parliament, courts, political parties) influence climate change attitudes and planned behaviors⁶². Similarly, studies of climate change attitudes in the United States show that trust in scientists is associated with increased concern about climate change, particularly among Democrats and Independents⁶³. Additionally, researchers have argued that the effectiveness of climate change communication can be increased by including trusted messengers^8,9,10. Therefore, we expect that the blue marble, solar PV, and ambassador video will have a positive effect on climate change and renewable energy attitudes, and on renewable energy planned behaviors. We also anticipate that this effect will be stronger than the effects of other approaches because the message from the astronaut reinforces the blue marble awe and the solar PV technology messages.

Hypothesis 6a

The blue marble, solar PV, and ambassador video will have a positive effect on climate and renewable energy attitudes and on renewable energy planned behaviors.

Hypothesis 6b

The blue marble, solar PV, and ambassador video will have a stronger effect than all other videos.

Study overview

We fielded a survey experiment through Qualtrics in January 2023 to a nationally representative sample of 2847 American adults. Qualtrics provided a nationally representative sample of the US adult population, balanced on age, gender, race, and education. Qualtrics ensured the quality of the survey data by checking for bots, duplicates, speeders, and fraudulent responses. To reduce social desirability bias, which results from the respondents’ desire to answer survey questions in a way they believe is morally or socially acceptable, we omitted information about the purpose of the research. Instead of informing the respondents that the purpose of the survey experiment was to examine how their attitudes related to energy and the environment are affected by different types of communication, we informed them that we conducted a study about how various issues related to science and technology can be communicated more clearly. We randomly assigned one of seven short videos to each respondent. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the video stimuli using Qualtrics’ survey flow randomizer, with the “evenly present elements” feature enabled to ensure each of the seven elements was presented an equal number of times.

1. 1.

   The control: A video that described blockchains, a topic related to technology but not to climate change or renewable energy. (2:35 min)

2. 2.

   The first treatment: A climate change video that described results from scientific research related to climate change. (2:36 min)

3. 3.

   The second treatment: A solar PV video that described how solar PV technology works and discussed some of its benefits, such as mitigating climate change. (2:29 min)

4. 4.

   The third treatment: A blue marble video that described the fragility of the Earth as it is viewed from space. (2:46 min)

5. 5.

   The fourth treatment: A blue marble and climate change video that described the fragility of the Earth viewed from space and results from scientific research related to climate change. (5:15 min)

6. 6.

   The fifth treatment: A blue marble and solar PV video that described the fragility of the Earth as it is viewed from space and also explained how solar PV technology works and how it can mitigate climate change. (5:09 min)

7. 7.

   The sixth treatment: A blue marble, solar PV, and ambassador video that described the fragility of the Earth as it is viewed from space, explained how solar PV technology works and how it can mitigate climate change, and included a testimony from an astronaut (Scott Kelly) who is a high credibility ambassador for solar PV technology and environmental protection. (6:41 min)

The control and the first three treatments videos were edited to have similar length (between 2:29 and 2:46 minutes); the last three treatments were longer because they combined the videos for treatments 2 and 4, 3 and 4, or 3, 4, and an additional video containing a message from the solar ambassador (between 5:09 and 6:41). It is possible that shorter videos were more effective at retaining viewers’ attention; yet, as we explain below, our comprehension check ensured that viewers in all conditions understood the basic information that was discussed in the videos. We deliberately edited all videos and used language and images that are as close as possible to the language and images used on websites of scientific agencies (e.g., NASA) and online documentaries about climate change science and solar PV technology produced by reputable media sources (e.g., British Broadcasting Corporation, Deutsche Welle), thus creating realistic videos. To ensure that the respondents watched the video, we created a timer which prevented participants from moving to the next section of the survey experiment before the video ended. Additionally, we checked for comprehension by asking respondents to answer the question “The video presented to me was about…”, which had one correct answer and three incorrect answers. Only respondents who answered correctly were allowed to proceed to the next section.

Next, we asked respondents who correctly answered the comprehension question a series of questions divided into sections. In one section, respondents were asked to answer several questions about the information presented in the videos and their responses to this information. We asked the question “What are your thoughts after watching this video?”, “What are your feelings after watching this video?”, and “Would you say that you have learned anything from this video?” Respondents were asked to briefly answer these questions by writing between 1 and 3 sentences.

In the following section, we assessed respondents’ attitudes related to climate change. We asked respondents to indicate to what degree they agree with the following statements: “Human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, contributes to global climate change” (labeled “climate change human activity”), and “I personally worry about climate change” (labeled “climate change personal worry”). Beliefs about human involvement in climate change are a politically relevant and timely issue, consistently highlighted in polls by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, which reveal significant divisions along political party lines⁶⁴. Recent research underscores the importance of personal worry in shaping climate change attitudes and behaviors⁶⁵. Both the gateway belief model^66,67 and the hierarchy of concern model⁶⁸ posit personal worry about climate change as a key predictor of climate mitigation behaviors and policy support. Additionally, one study provides evidence for the crucial role of worry in fostering individual support for climate policies⁶⁹, and another study demonstrates the validity of single-item measures for climate change concern⁷⁰. Thus, while single-item measures are typically discouraged in climate research, we believe they are valuable for exploratory analyses due to their alignment with existing models of climate change beliefs. For these questions, respondents could choose from “agree 0 percent” to “agree 100 percent” in 10-point increments.

In the following section, we gauged respondents’ attitudes towards solar power and other types of energy. To further reduce the possibility that respondents would deduce the real purpose of the study, we also asked several questions that were not related to environment or energy (these questions are described in the Methods section). We asked respondents to indicate to what degree they support expanding solar panel farms, wind turbine farms, offshore drilling, nuclear power plants, natural gas, and coal mining (“Please indicate to what degree you support expanding [solar panel farms/wind turbine farms/offshore drilling/nuclear power plants/natural gas/coal mining]”. For these questions, respondents could choose from “support 0 percent” to “support 100 percent” in 10-point increments (labeled “Support solar PV energy”). We asked respondents to indicate to what degree they agree with the statement “I am planning to install solar panels on my own home as soon as possible” (labeled “Plan install solar PV”). For these questions, respondents could choose from “agree 0 percent” to “agree 100 percent” in 10-point increments. Additionally, we assessed willingness to pay (WTP) for renewable electricity by asking “Would you be willing to pay more each month on your electricity bill to purchase all of your electricity from clean, renewable sources (such as wind and solar)?” (labeled “Pay more for RE”). Respondents could choose different options, from 0 dollars to 45 dollars and above, in five-dollar increments. Finally, we asked respondents questions about their age, gender, level of education, race, and political views. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the five dependent variables: Climate change human activity; Climate change personal worry; Support solar PV energy; Plan to install solar PV; Pay more for renewable energy.

The Methods section describes the data collection process and the ordered logistic regression used in our models. The Supplementary Materials documents provide (1) descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the control variables; (2) the script used in each video and links to each video; (3) additional results from text analyses; (4) tables of results from regression analyses; (5) results from additional variables that were not included in the main text due to lack of space.

We present the results from the survey experiment in four parts. First, we examine whether the treatments had an influence on respondents’ emotions. Next, we present the effects of the six treatments and their interactions with political orientation on climate change attitudes, followed by the effects of the treatments and interaction effects with political orientation on solar energy attitudes. Finally, we present the effects of the treatments and interaction effects with political orientation on willingness to pay for renewable energy.

The effects of treatments on respondents’ emotions

We examine whether the treatments that attempted to induce blue marble awe had an influence on respondents’ emotions by examining responses to the question “What are your feelings after watching this video?” Fig. 1 shows the percentage of respondents who reported their feelings after each treatment or intervention. We read each statement and identified the main feelings reported by each participant (due to lack of space, we did not include feelings that were reported by less than three participants). We calculated the percent of respondents who reported experiencing a feeling out of the total number of participants in each treatment. We created our own categorization of feelings rather than use automated sentiment analysis (e.g., Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count or LIWC) to avoid false positive errors (e.g., “The video was great” instead of “I feel great”).

Percentage of respondents who reported their feelings after each of the six treatments (T₁–T₆)

Full size image

After the blue marble video (third treatment) participants reported experiencing awe or being amazed, but also negative feelings (sad, concerned, worried or scared) and positive feelings (good or great, happy). After the climate change video (first treatment) participants reported negative feelings (sad, concerned, worried or scared), while after the solar PV video (second treatment) participants reported positive feelings (good or great and happy). After the blue marble and climate change video (fourth treatment) participants reported predominantly negative feelings (sad, concerned, worried or scared) and a few positive feelings such as feeling great, being in awe, or being amazed. After the blue marble and solar PV video and the blue marble, solar PV, and ambassador videos (fifth and sixth treatments) participants reported both negative and positive feelings, but the proportion of positive emotions was higher.

Results from Fig. 1 suggest that the blue marble video triggered the experience of awe for a significant number of participants, and that videos that combined blue marble awe and either climate change or solar PV messages triggered fewer feelings of awe. However, the blue marble awe video also triggered negative and positive feelings. This was also the case for the videos that combined blue marble awe and climate change or solar PV videos. In particular, for the videos that combined blue marble awe and solar PV messages (T5 and T6) respondents reported both negative and positive feelings, which suggests that some respondents experienced what some social movement scholars term a “moral battery” that combines positive and negative emotions and creates a tension that demands attention and can motivate action⁶¹. For example, one respondent who watched the blue marble and solar PV video stated: “My first feeling is excitement to do more. My second feeling is anger because we have wasted so much of our planet. My third feeling is hopefully we can fix most problems.” Similarly, another respondent stated: “I feel worried. I feel concerned. I feel hopeful.”

Individual statements from Table 2 illustrate how some respondents felt after watching the videos and what they learned from the videos. Many respondents who watched the climate change videos reported negative emotions; for example, one stated “I am sad to think of the effects of global warming. I have seen glaciers receding and icebergs calving, and the need to control emissions is extremely urgent.” Others had negative reactions to the video and expressed their skepticism of climate change science (e.g., “The ideas presented are a one-sided effort to support climate change. They are constantly used by the eco-extremists to push their global agenda”). Many respondents who watched the solar PV video expressed positive feelings (e.g., “I feel relieved that solar energy is economical and better for the environment. I feel happy solar energy is being used more by businesses and homes”), while some reported negative feelings but a positive response to solar power (e.g., “It’s sad that people have been convinced solar energy is not a legitimate source of energy and videos like this are needed to slowly build consumer confidence.”). Still, others had a negative reaction to the video and criticized solar PV technology (e.g., “It’s a biased presentation. Solar power does NOT make financial sense for most homeowners”). Many also expressed their intent to act after watching the video (e.g., “Wow! I loved the video and I think every new home built should have solar automatically. It made me more interested in getting some solar. The video was very informative”). (See Table 2 for additional examples).

We present additional results from automated text analyses in the Supplementary Material section.

The effects of treatments and interaction effects on attitudes toward climate change

Next, we examined the efficacy of different communication approaches for shaping climate change attitudes. Figure 2 shows the effects of treatments and interaction effects on the variable “climate change human activity”. This figure presents the effects of the six treatments (T1-T6) and of interaction effects between treatments and political orientation (T1XPO, etc.) on personal belief that climate change is caused by human activity. Figure 3 shows the effects of treatments and interaction effects on the variable “climate change personal worry”. This figure presents the effects of the six treatments (T1-T6) and of interaction effects between treatments and political orientation (T1XPO, etc.) on personal concern about climate change. The dots in these figures show odds ratios from ordered logistic regressions, and the lines show 95% confidence intervals, which indicate that there is a 95% probability that the real value of the regression coefficients is within this interval. Because we are showing the odds ratios, values above 1 indicate that the effect is positive, and values below 1 indicate that the effect is negative. For simplicity in interpretation, we color coded the values of odd ratios as follows: the blue dot indicates that the odds ratio is significant at p < 0.05 or higher. The regressions include all treatments and control for respondent’s age, gender, level of education, race, and political orientation.

This figure presents the effects of treatments (T1–T6) and of interaction effects between treatments and political orientation (T1XPO, etc.) on personal belief that climate change is caused by human activity. The dots show odds ratios from ordered logistic regressions, and the lines show 95% confidence intervals. Values above 1 indicate that the effect is positive, and values below 1 indicate that the effect is negative. The blue dot indicates that the odds ratio is significant at p < 0.05 or higher. The regressions include all treatments and control for respondent’s age, gender, level of education, race, and political orientation.

Full size image

This figure presents the effects of treatments (T1–T6) and of interaction effects between treatments and political orientation (T1XPO, etc.) on personal concern about climate change. The dots show odds ratios from ordered logistic regressions, and the lines show 95% confidence intervals. Values above 1 indicate that the effect is positive, and values below 1 indicate that the effect is negative. The blue dot indicates that the odds ratio is significant at p < 0.05 or higher. The regressions include all treatments and control for respondent’s age, gender, level of education, race, and political orientation.

Full size image

Results from Fig. 2 show that the first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth treatments (T1, T2, T4, T5, T6) have significant positive effects on personal belief that climate change is caused by human activity. Due to lack of space, we interpret results only for one of these measures. For example, for respondents who watched the climate change video (T1) the odds of agreeing 100 percent versus agreeing 90 percent or less with the “climate change human activity” statement are 1.74 times greater (p < 0.001) than for respondents who watched the control video. Additionally, results show that the interaction between the first treatment and political orientation (T1XPO) is significant (p < 0.01) and positive, indicating that those with a liberal political orientation are more likely to believe that climate change is caused by human activity after watching the climate change video than those with a conservative political orientation. However, the interaction between the third treatment and political orientation (T3XPO) is significant (p < 0.01) and negative, indicating that those with a conservative political orientation are more likely to believe that climate change is caused by human activity after watching the blue marble awe video than those with a liberal political orientation.

Results from Fig. 3 show that the first, fourth, fifth and sixth treatments (T1, T4, T5, T6) have significant positive effects on personal concern about climate change. For example, for respondents who watched the climate change video (T1) the odds of agreeing 100 percent versus agreeing 90 percent or less with the “climate change personal worry” statement are 1.42 times greater (p < 0.01) than for respondents who watched the control video. Results from Fig. 4 also show that the interaction between the first treatment and political orientation (T1XPO) is significant (p < 0.01) and positive, indicating that those with a liberal political orientation are more likely to be personally concerned about climate change after watching the climate change video than those with a conservative political orientation. Moreover, the interaction between the third treatment and political orientation (T3XPO) is significant (p < 0.01) and negative, indicating that those with a conservative political orientation are more likely to personally worry about climate change after watching the blue marble awe video (T3) than those with a liberal political orientation. Similarly, the interaction between the fourth treatment and political orientation (T4XPO) is significant (p < 0.01) and negative, indicating that those with a conservative political orientation are more likely to personally worry about climate change after watching the blue marble awe and climate change video (T4) than those with a liberal political orientation.

Taken together, results from Figs. 2 and 3 suggest that watching a climate change video (T1) had a significant positive effect on both measures of climate change attitudes and that watching a video that combine blue marble awe and either climate change or solar technology facts (T4, T5, T6) also had a significant positive effect on climate change attitudes. Additionally, watching the blue marble awe (T3) video has a stronger effect for conservatives than for liberals on both measures of climate change attitudes.

The effects of treatments and interaction effects on attitudes toward solar energy

We also examined the efficacy of different communication approaches for shaping solar energy attitudes. Figure 4 shows the effects of treatments and interaction effects on the variable “support solar PV energy”. Figure 5 shows the effects of treatments and interaction effects on the variable “plan to install solar PV”. The interpretation of these figures is similar to the interpretation of Figs. 2 and 3.

This figure presents the effects of treatments (T1-T6) and of interaction effects between treatments and political orientation (T1XPO, etc.) on personal support for solar PV energy. The dots show odds ratios from ordered logistic regressions, and the lines show 95% confidence intervals. Values above 1 indicate that the effect is positive, and values below 1 indicate that the effect is negative. The blue dot indicates that the odds ratio is significant at p < 0.05 or higher. The regressions include all treatments and control for respondent’s age, gender, level of education, race, and political orientation.

Full size image

This figure presents the effects of treatments (T1–T6) and of interaction effects between treatments and political orientation (T1XPO, etc.) on personal intention to install solar PV energy. The dots show odds ratios from ordered logistic regressions, and the lines show 95% confidence intervals. Values above 1 indicate that the effect is positive, and values below 1 indicate that the effect is negative. The blue dot indicates that the odds ratio is significant at p < 0.05 or higher. The regressions include all treatments and control for respondent’s age, gender, level of education, race, and political orientation.

Full size image

Results from Fig. 4 show that the second, fourth, fifth and sixth treatments (T2, T4, T5, T6) have significant positive effects on personal support for solar PV energy. Due to lack of space, we interpret results only for one of these measures. For example, for respondents who watched the blue marble awe, solar PV technology, and solar ambassador video (T6) the odds of agreeing 100 percent versus agreeing 90 percent or less with the “support solar PV energy” statement are 2.01 times greater (p < 0.001) than for respondents who watched the control video. Additionally, results from Fig. 4 show that the interaction between the first treatment and political orientation (T1XPO) is significant (p < 0.05) and positive, indicating that those with a liberal political orientation are more likely to support solar PV technology after watching the climate change video (T1) than those with a conservative political orientation. Yet, the interaction between the third treatment and political orientation (T3XPO) is significant (p < 0.05) and negative, indicating that those with a conservative political orientation are more likely to support solar PV technology after watching the blue marble awe video (T3) than those with a liberal political orientation.

Results from Fig. 5 show that the second, fifth and sixth treatments (T2, T5, T6) have significant positive effects on personal intention to install solar PV. Due to lack of space, we interpret results only for one of these measures. For example, for respondents who watched the blue marble awe, solar PV technology, and solar ambassador video (T6) the odds of agreeing 100 percent versus agreeing 90 percent or less with the “plan to install solar PV” statement are 1.83 times greater (p < 0.001) than for respondents who watched the control video. However, results from Fig. 5 show that none of the interactions between the treatments and political orientation are significant.

Results from Figs. 4 and 5 suggest that watching a video about climate change facts (T1) does not have a significant positive effect on both measures of solar energy attitudes, but that watching a video about solar technology facts (T2) has a significant positive effect on both measures of solar energy attitudes. Similarly, watching a video that combines blue marble awe and solar technology facts (T5, T6) had a significant positive effect on both measures of solar energy attitudes. Watching the blue marble awe (T3) video has a stronger effect for conservatives than for liberals on respondents’ support for solar energy, but not on their plan to install solar PV. Finally, we note that the sixth treatment (the blue marble awe, solar PV technology, and solar ambassador video) had a stronger effect than all other treatments on both measures of solar energy attitudes.

The effects of treatments and interaction effects on willingness to pay for renewable energy

Finally, we investigated the efficacy of different communication approaches for the willingness to pay for renewable energy. Figure 6 shows the effects of treatments and interaction effects on the variable “pay more for renewable energy”. The interpretation of this figure is similar to the interpretation of previous figures.

This figure presents the effects of treatments (T1-T6) and of interaction effects between treatments and political orientation (T1XPO, etc.) on willingness to pay more for renewable energy. The dots show odds ratios from ordered logistic regressions, and the lines show 95% confidence intervals. Values above 1 indicate that the effect is positive, and values below 1 indicate that the effect is negative. The blue dot indicates that the odds ratio is significant at p < 0.05 or higher. The regressions include all treatments and control for respondent’s age, gender, level of education, race, and political orientation.

Full size image

Results from Fig. 6 show that the fourth and sixth treatments (T4, T6) have significant positive effects on willingness to pay more for renewable energy. Due to lack of space, we interpret results only for one of these measures. For example, for respondents who watched the blue marble awe, solar PV technology, and solar ambassador video (T6) the odds of willing to pay more than 45 dollars versus willing to pay less than 45 dollars are 1.53 times greater (p < 0.001) than for respondents who watched the control video. Additionally, results from Fig. 6 show that the interaction between the fourth treatment and political orientation (T4XPO) is significant (p < 0.05) and negative, indicating that those with a conservative political orientation are more likely to be willing to pay more for renewable energy after watching the blue marble awe and climate change science video (T4) than those with a liberal political orientation.

Results from Fig. 6 suggest that watching a video about climate change facts (T1) does not have a significant positive effect on willingness to pay more for renewable energy, but that watching a video that combines blue marble awe and climate change facts (T4) has a significant positive effect. Watching a video that combines blue marble awe and climate change facts has a stronger effect on conservatives’ willingness to pay more for renewable energy than on liberals’ willingness to pay. Additionally, watching a video that combines blue marble awe, climate change facts, and a message from a solar ambassador (T6) has the strongest effect on willingness to pay more for renewable energy.

This paper has examined how different communication approaches affect individuals’ attitudes related to energy and the environment. Although climate change scientists have called for urgent action to address anthropogenic climate change, public opinion in the United States remains divided about the causes and consequences of climate change, and relatively few people have significantly reduced their emissions of greenhouse gases. The question “is it possible to increase public awareness about climate change and support for decarbonization efforts through video communication of science and technology?” is salient for policymakers and scientists interested in climate change mitigation. Our results are somewhat encouraging.

We highlight four findings. First, watching a short video that communicates climate change science facts can positively influence climate change attitudes, and watching a short video that communicates solar photovoltaic (PV) technology facts can positively influence attitudes toward solar energy. This finding contributes to research on climate change communication^{8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37} by showing that short online videos can have a moderate effect on pro-environmental attitudes. Second, this study shows that, while brief videos about blue marble awe do not have significant effects on pro-environmental attitudes, videos that combine blue marble awe with facts about either climate change science or solar photovoltaic (PV) technology can have more significant effects on those attitudes. This finding contributes to the literature on awe^49,50,51 by showing that combining blue marble awe and either science or technology information can enhance pro-environmental attitudes. Third, our study contributes to research on the “overview effect”^52,53 by revealing that including a message from an astronaut who has direct experience with this effect and acts as an “ambassador” for solar PV technology can enhance the efficacy of video communication approaches. Last but not least, our study offers hope that a solution to the growing problem of ideological polarization of climate change attitudes^3,4,5 is possible, albeit not simple. More specifically, our study suggests that a targeted communication approach that uses blue marble awe can nudge conservatives’ environmental attitudes more than a “one size fits all” approach that focuses only on climate change science. Science and energy communicators addressing conservative audiences may be successful in increasing both awareness about climate change and willingness to pay more for renewable energy if they combine blue marble and climate change messages, rather than if they provide only climate change messages. Given the fact that climate change has become highly politicized in the U.S. and other countries, climate change scientists and educators may be more effective if they first emphasize the fragility of the Earth’s atmosphere and the unity of the human species before they present climate change facts.

This paper adds to the growing interdisciplinary body of literature aimed at understanding how to use effective communication, public outreach, and education to increase support for policy, attitudes, and behavior change related to addressing anthropogenic climate change. Given the growing number of scholars who have called for increasing the efficiency of climate change science communication^8,9,10 and for magnifying the representation of the climate crisis in visual media⁴², our findings offer a cautiously optimistic perspective on how videos that provide information about climate change science and renewable energy technology can be made more effective by incorporating the experience of awe for the Earth.

This article provides new insights for both social scientists and practitioners during a time of increased urgency to mitigate climate change, but it has important limitations. Although we provided an explanation for how video communication can affect climate change and renewable energy attitudes and renewable energy planned behaviors, it remains to be determined whether these attitudes and planned behaviors have consequences for actual behaviors. Given the well-documented attitude-behavior gap from research on green consumption⁷¹, future studies should examine if videos that communicate information about blue marble awe and renewable energy technology can affect behaviors such as purchasing hybrid or electric cars, installing heat pumps, and supporting non-profit organizations that work to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. Social scientists have an opportunity to expand on our study and create a body of research on effective video communication that has practical applications for educators, non-profits, governmental agencies, and businesses involved in decarbonization efforts.

Future studies should also compare the effects of videos that have different lengths on the gap between what climate scientists say and what individuals think and do about climate change. Our study suggests that relatively short videos can affect planned behaviors related to renewable energy. While short videos can hold the viewers’ attention better, they also contain less information that can affect energy and environmental attitudes; conversely, long videos such as regular documentaries contain more information but may not retain the viewers’ attention. Hence, additional research is needed to identify the optimal length of video communication. Additionally, further research is necessary to replicate our results using different scales for measuring environmental attitudes and behaviors. Scholars should also investigate the potential misuse of blue marble images by companies that conduct marketing campaigns to “greenwash” their products, rather than make substantial changes in their practices.

Our analysis also opens a plethora of opportunities for future research on the potential of video communication to address other environmental challenges and tragedies of the commons⁷². The approaches we investigated can also be applied to improve the efficacy of communication efforts that aim to mitigate other global environmental problems such as plastic pollution, loss of biodiversity, and water scarcity. Extending and adapting the approaches developed here to new contexts will allow future studies to determine how effective the combination of blue marble awe, information related to science and technology, and messages from trusted ambassadors is for promoting various sustainable behaviors. We hope this study will encourage further research on the promise of disseminating information about science and technology while also instilling blue marble awe to empower individuals and organizations to address the climate crisis and other environmental challenges facing humanity.

The study was approved by University of Iowa’s IRB committee. The IRB committee consisted of Lance Hanson and Michael Lovaglia. The DHHS Registration number is IRB00000100, and the Federal-wide Assurance number is FWA00003007. Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants. Our survey sample was recruited by Qualtrics and fielded using the online Qualtrics platform. Qualtrics provided a nationally representative sample of US adult population, balanced on age, gender, race, and education. Random assignment was used for all treatments and all results presented in the body of the paper are estimated using the following Ordered Logistic Regression:

Where Y_i is an ordinal response variable recording respondent’s attitudes toward energy and environment, such that lower numbers reflect less agreement with a statement (e.g., “Human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, contributes to global climate change.”). β₀ is an intercept term, Treated_i is binary variable that denotes whether the respondent watched a video that communicated (1) climate change science, (2) solar PV technology, (3) blue marble awe, (4) blue marble awe and climate change science, (5) blue marble awe and solar PV technology, (6) blue marble awe, solar PV technology, and solar ambassador. X_i is a vector of controls and ϕ is the associated coefficient vector, including the respondents’ age, gender, level of education, race, and political orientation.

In addition to our comprehension check described in the paper, Qualtrics ensured the quality of the survey data by checking for bots, duplicates, speeders, and fraudulent responses. To further reduce social desirability bias and reduce the possibility that respondents would deduce the real purpose of the experiment (namely that we were interested in studying how different communication approaches shape pro-environmental attitudes, rather than how various issues related to science and technology can be communicated more clearly), we asked respondents to answer these questions: “How easy or difficult was it to understand the information presented in the video?” (on a five-point scale from extremely difficult to not at all difficult) and “How informative was the information presented in the video?” (on a five-point scale from extremely informative to not at all informative). We also asked the questions: “What are your thoughts after watching this video? Please write between 1 and 3 sentences describing what you think.”; “What are your feelings after watching this video? Please write between 1 and 3 sentences describing how you feel.”; “Would you say that you have learned anything from this video? If so, please write between 1 and 3 sentences describing what you have learned.”

To further reduce the possibility that respondents would deduce the real purpose of the study, we asked several questions that were not related to environment or energy. We asked: “On a scale from ‘Agree 100% to “Agree 0%’, please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statement: ‘We are spending too much on science education in this country’”; “On a scale from ‘Agree 0% to “Agree 100%’, please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statement: ‘We are spending too much on advancing space exploration in this country’.”

We also asked respondents questions about various civic organizations, not just environmental organizations. We deliberately designed statements about generic environmental, women’s rights, and voting rights organizations to be as close as possible to the language used by actual organizations on their websites, thus creating realistic civic organizations. We included the following statements and questions:

• “This environmental organization is an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all. This organization recognizes that the climate crisis is immense and that we must be daring and courageous in response. It embraces experiments and new solutions, recognizing that the crisis requires innovative ways of solving problems. On a scale from “Likely 100%” to “Likely 0%”, how likely are you to recommend this environmental organization to a friend or colleague?”

• “This women’s rights organization is dedicated to its multi-issue and multi-strategy approach to women’s rights and is the largest organization of feminist grassroots activists in the United States. Its purpose is to act through intersectional grassroots activism to promote feminist ideals, lead societal change, eliminate discrimination, and achieve and protect the equal rights of all women and girls in all aspects of social, political, and economic life. On a scale from “Likely 100%” to “Likely 0%”, how likely are you to recommend this organization to a friend or colleague?”

• “This voting rights organization works to ensure that every vote counts, that every eligible voter has an equal say, that our elections represent the will of the people, and that our government is of, by, and for the people through a network of experts working at the state and local level across the country. On a scale from “Likely 100%” to “Likely 0%”, how likely are you to recommend this organization to a friend or colleague?”

Finally, we asked questions not only about renewable energy but also about other types of energy. We asked: “Please indicate the extent that you support expanding the following energy sources. On a scale from “Support 100% to “Support 0%“, please indicate to what degree you support expanding solar panel farms.”; “On a scale from “Support 0% to “Support 100%“, please indicate to what degree you support expanding wind turbine farms.”; “On a scale from “Support 100% to “Support 0%“, please indicate to what degree you support expanding offshore drilling.”; “On a scale from “Support 0% to “Support 100%“, please indicate to what degree you support expanding nuclear power plants.”; “On a scale from “Support 100% to “Support 0%“, please indicate to what degree you support expanding natural gas.” “On a scale from “Support 0% to “Support 100%“, please indicate to what degree you support expanding coal mining.”