© FRANCOIS GUILLOT/AFP/Getty Images
Neuroscience research suggests that "global warming" and "climate change" do not produce a powerful enough reaction in people, whereas "climate crisis" got "a 60 percent greater emotional response from listeners" according to a recent study.
Environmental lobbying has reportedly yielded a 15-point increase in the share of Americans who believe that climate change is a serious problem, but activists are looking for ways to boost that number still further by using more explosive language.
Enter SPARK Neuro, an advertising consulting firm that measures physiological data such as brain activity and palm sweat to quantify people's emotional reactions to stimuli.
SPARK Neuro fixed electroencephalography (EEG) devices to the heads of 120 volunteers to gauge the electrical activity coming from their brains. At the same time, a webcam monitored their facial expressions and sensors on their fingers recorded the sweat produced by heightened emotions.
The group, which was evenly divided among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, listened to audio recordings of six different climate phrases. "Global warming" and "climate change" performed the worst, beaten hands down by "climate crisis," "environmental destruction," "weather destabilization," and "environmental collapse."
According to Spencer Gerrol, CEO of SPARK Neuro, there are two probable reasons that "global warming" and "climate change" perform so poorly. For starters, they are both neutral phrases, with nothing "inherently negative or positive" about the words themselves.
Second, people have gotten used to these expressions and they no longer pack a significant punch. Both global warming and climate change are "incredibly worn out," Gerrol said. Moreover, if an expression doesn't elicit a strong emotional response in the first place, it is even more likely to wear out quickly, Gerrol said.
In its study, Spark said it was looking for a "sweet spot" that provoked a response but did not backfire by driving people over the edge.
"A successful candidate's aim is to broaden the conversation around an issue with words that spark interest on both ends of the political spectrum... while avoiding overstating the problem," it declared.
Reader Comments
wants 500 people to the acre, and a ban on living in the country for ordinary folk.
careful what you wish for.
Goebbels would be really proud, and extremely jealous
People all slow to a pause for a fateful moment in the middle of their busy work days, in schools, in traffic. (While they're paying their taxes). Just stop in their tracks, everybody with a puzzled look. -The expression one makes when a dawning suspicion has blossomed in the brain like a little snow drop opening up after a cold winter of extreme stupid.
"Waaaaaait a minute!" everybody would say in unison. Outloud even! "Why.., I think this carbon scare might all be bullshit! Do you think..? The Green Movement, the whole "humans are terrible" movement. Why I think it might just be a complete and total con job! Holy crap! Is everybody else seeing this? Yes? We all are? My GOD! (It's full of STARS!)"
Wouldn't that be cool?
Put THAT episode in your shitty new SJW "Twilight Zone" show.
You dirty, dirty smear merchants.
Those protesters no doubt like to travel around, have new clothes which were probably shipped in from the far east, upgrade their phones regularly etc. ... they are serious consumers
In much the same way, if I were to find myself beamed up to stand before a galactic court of justice to represent all of humanity, I would steadfastly refuse to accept any responsibility for the banking system. I might even blame his honor, the worthy alien freakazoid holding the damned gavel for messing things up on Earth this badly.