Balancing the Benefits of Optimism and Pessimism in Conservation: a Response to Kidd, Bekessy, and Garrard

Abstract

In their recent article on conservation messaging, Kidd et al. [1] emphasised the need for empirical research on whether positive or negative messages provide the most effective way to communicate the problems and solutions of conservation. The authors conclude that empirical evidence from other disciplines advocating optimism remain uncertain, while the few conservation-specific studies do not provide ‘definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of positively or negatively framed messages.’ While the authors recognise that blanket statements using optimism or pessimism simplify a complex topic, they do miss an opportunity to develop our thinking beyond the dualism of optimistic versus pessimistic messaging.