A story induces greater environmental contributions than scientific information among liberals but not conservatives

Abstract

<h2>Summary</h2> Scientific evidence that links human activities to environmental damage frequently fails to motivate people to act. Meanwhile, research on emotion, imagery, and identifiable victims has found these factors to influence behavior, and scientists and environmentalists are increasingly advocating for the use of narratives depicting personal stories of loss. We tested the behavioral effects of a narrative compared with scientific facts in a randomized field experiment with over 1,200 adults in a polluted urban watershed. Prior to making real purchase decisions about landscaping products that reduce nutrient runoff, consumers saw either scientific information about runoff's impacts or a narrative with tenuous scientific foundations. When exposed to the narrative rather than scientific information, consumers were willing to pay 11% more (95% confidence interval [4%, 18%]). This average effect, however, masks heterogeneity by political affiliation. While Democrats paid more after reading the narrative, Republicans paid less by roughly the same amount.