Science Or Morality? The Effects of Frames on Stakeholder Dialogue, a Field Experiment

Achieving the ambitions set forth in international climate agreements requires stakeholder dialogue, which is often hindered by the adoption of different frames. While existing research focuses on the development and evolution of frames within stakeholder groups, we know little about how different frames influence perceptions and dialogue among stakeholders. The deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR), seen by some stakeholders as the ultimate solution while deeply contested by others, provides an interesting context for studying how different frames influence the process and outcome of dialogue. We conducted a series of five workshops with a quasi-experimental design, involving over 100 stakeholders from both the private sector and NGOs. Participants were primed to adopt either a logical/scientific or an emotional/moral frame in dialoguing about potential CDR-related policies. We find that dialogue reduces stakeholder polarization, especially when it is based on a logical/scientific frame, while it increases stakeholder skepticism toward CDR-supportive policies, especially when the adopted frame is aligned with the stakeholder group’s value. Furthermore, when the adopted frame is aligned with the stakeholder group values, participants perceived other stakeholders as more reasonable and understanding. Understanding the frames of other stakeholders is therefore critical to encouraging a more open and constructive dialogue about climate solutions.