Cover not available

Article published In: Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 15:1 (2025) ► pp.77–106

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

The climate battle in America

War metaphors alarm Republicans but Democrats more likely to act

ORCiD logo with link | University of Lancaster | Umeå University
 | The University of Oslo | Umeå University
 | Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

My current affiliation is Lancaster University but the study was funded in part by the Department of Language Studies of Umea University.

Published online: 14 April 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.24015.gae
Abstract
Metaphorical frames are commonly used in public discourse in the United States of America to communicate about climate change and promote climate action. Previous work found climate metaphors to resonate more so with Democrats than with Republicans. Democrats are also more likely to increase their support for climate action. The present study investigated if tailoring climate metaphors to conservatives’ affective domain and personality traits may trigger metaphor realisation. It experimentally tested, for the first time, if a war frame for climate change which better fits with conservatives’ worldview, can induce fear and anger, and if these emotions alongside personality trait aggressiveness predict increasing support for climate action in both liberal (n = 63) and conservative (n = 63) respondents. The findings showed that the war frame induced fear in both groups, especially among Republicans, but not anger, and that it directly impacted climate attitudes, primarily among Democrats. Trait aggressiveness predicted lower support for climate action at baseline but did not predict attitudinal changes. These novel findings show conservatives are not climate apathetic and encourage further research into how the fear triggered by climate metaphors can be channelled into attitudinal changes in climate inactive populations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Ethics
    • 2.3Instruments and Materials
      • DQ
      • Reading task
      • CAQ
      • FQ
      • TAQ
    • 2.4Procedure
    • 2.5Analytic approach
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Initial analyses
      • Demographic analyses
      • Climate attitudes
      • Fear analyses
      • Trait aggressiveness analyses
    • 3.2Regression analyses
      • Variables
      • Climate support at baseline
      • Metaphorical framing effects
  • 4.Discussion
  • References
References (58)
References
Boeynaems, A., Burgers, C., & Konijn, E. A. (2021). When Figurative Frames Decrease Political Persuasion: The Case of Right-Wing Anti-Immigration Rhetoric. Discourse Processes, 58(3), 193–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, B. C., Burgers, C., & Steen, G. J. (2017). Recategorizing political frames: A systematic review of metaphorical framing in experiments on political communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), 181–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, B. C., Burgers, C., & Vis, B. (2019). Metaphorical framing in political discourse through words vs. concepts: A meta-analysis. Language and Cognition, 11(1), 41–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bush, G. W. (2006, January 31). State of the Union: The Advanced Energy Initiative. [URL]
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cottraux, J., Bouvard, M., & Messy, P. (1987). Validation and factor analysis of a phobia scale. The French version of the Marks-Mathews fear questionnaire. L’Encephale, 13(1), 23–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croissant, Y., & Millo, G. (2008). Panel Data Econometrics in R: The plm Package. Journal of Statistical Software, 27(1), Article 1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Panel data econometrics with R (First edition). John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2007). The Fight for English: How Language Pundits Ate, Shot, and Left. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. [URL]
DeNicola, E., & Subramaniam, P. R. (2014). Environmental attitudes and political partisanship. Public Health, 128(5), 404–409. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019). The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change, 9(2), 111–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2017). Metaphors for the War (or Race) against Climate Change. Environmental Communication, 11(6), 769–783. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flusberg, S. J., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2023). Why Is Mother Earth on Life Support? Metaphors in Environmental Discourse. Topics in Cognitive Science, 15(3), 522–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2020). How Americans see climate change and the environment in 7 charts. Pew Research Center. [URL]
Gibbs, R. W. (2013). Metaphoric cognition as social activity. Metaphor & the Social World, 3(1), 54–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gubler, J. R., & Kalmoe, N. P. (2015). Violent Rhetoric in Protracted Group Conflicts: Experimental Evidence from Israel and India. Political Research Quarterly, 68(4), 651–664. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hajjar, S. T. (2018). Statistical analysis: Internal-consistency reliability and construct validity. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 6(1), 27–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hlavac, M. (2018). stargazer: Well-Formatted Regression and Summary Statistics Tables (v5.2.1). [URL]
Johansson Falck, M. (2018). From ecological cognition to language: When and why do speakers use words metaphorically? Metaphor and Symbol, 33(2), 61–84. [URL].
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), Article 10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kalmoe, N. P. (2013). From Fistfights to Firefights: Trait Aggression and Support for State Violence. Political Behavior, 35(2), 311–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Fueling the Fire: Violent Metaphors, Trait Aggression, and Support for Political Violence. Political Communication, 31(4), 545–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Trait aggression in two representative U.S. surveys: Testing the generalizability of college samples. Aggressive Behavior, 41(2), 171–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Mobilizing Voters with Aggressive Metaphors. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(3), 411–429. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kalmoe, N. P., Gubler, J. R., & Wood, D. A. (2018). Toward Conflict or Compromise? How Violent Metaphors Polarize Partisan Issue Attitudes. Political Communication, 35(3), 333–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, B. (2020, April 16). U.S. concern about climate change is rising, but mainly among Democrats. Pew Research Center. [URL]
Kennedy, B., & Johnson, C. (2020). More Americans see climate change as a priority, but Democrats are much more concerned than Republicans. Pew Research Center. [URL]
Kitching, N. (2021, October 8). Just like smokers, fossil-fuel addicts are going to need help to quit — Neil Kitching. The Scotsman. [URL]
Kraska-MIller, M. (2013). Nonparametric Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences (0 ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakey, H. (2013). Morphosyntax of Fear and Distance. Indo-European Linguistics, 1(1), 131–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). The Grammar of Fear: Morphosyntactic Metaphor in Fear Constructions. [URL]
Lakoff. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and thought, 2nd ed (pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 115–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, X. S. (2013). Statistical Power Analysis for the Social and Behavioral Sciences: Basic and Advanced Techniques. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Vraga, E., Bloodhart, B., Stenhouse, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2013). A national survey of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents on energy and climate change.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marks, I. M., & Mathews, A. M. (1979). Brief standard self-rating for phobic patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17(3), 263–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Okonski, L., & Ferreira, L. C. (2019). Gonna be on my fucking period in boomtown, souuuunndd thanks Mother Nature: Using Twitter to find multimodal creativity and embodied instant metaphors. Signo, 44(79), 122–134. [URL].
Okonski, L., Martinez-Cruz, A. L., & Gaele, C. (2025). Conservatives for energy freedom: Subjective responses to ecological frames predict subsequent pro-environmental attitudes. [Manuscript in preparation]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear Won’t Do It”: Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355–379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plantin, C. (2019). Tense Arguments. Informal Logic, 39(4), 347–371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prolific. (2021). Prolific. [URL]
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.0.4). [URL]
Raimi, K. T., Stern, P. C., & Maki, A. (2017). The Promise and Limitations of Using Analogies to Improve Decision-Relevant Understanding of Climate Change. PLOS ONE, 12(1), e0171130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J. (2015). How viruses and beasts affect our opinions (or not): The role of extendedness in metaphorical framing. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 245–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reser, J. P., & Bradley, G. L. (2017). Fear Appeals in Climate Change Communication. In J. P. Reser & G. L. Bradley, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Reijnierse, W. G., & Burgers, C. (2014). When Do Natural Language Metaphors Influence Reasoning? A Follow-Up Study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2013). PLOS ONE, 9(12), e113536. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096–1104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). PsyToolkit: A Novel Web-Based Method for Running Online Questionnaires and Reaction-Time Experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning. PLOS ONE, 6(2), e16782. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tremblay, P. F., & Ewart, L. A. (2005). The Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire and its relations to values, the Big Five, provoking hypothetical situations, alcohol consumption patterns, and alcohol expectancies. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(2), 337–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trump, D. J. (Director). (2016, June 28). Donald Trump Remarks in Monessen, Pennsylvania (411870–1) [Speech]. In Road to the White House 2016. C-SPAN. [URL]
Van Boven, L., Ehret, P. J., & Sherman, D. K. (2018). Psychological Barriers to Bipartisan Public Support for Climate Policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 492–507. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Bache, S., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wirz, D. S. (2018). Persuasion Through Emotion? An Experimental Test of the Emotion-Eliciting Nature of Populist Communication. International Journal of Communication, 12(0), Article 0. [URL]
Zuuren, F. J. V. (1988). The Fear Questionnaire: Some Data on Validity, Reliability and Layout. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 153(5), 659–662. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue