Dataset for: Applying fear appear theory to explain message framing in climate change communication: When are loss frames more effective?

This study investigated how three different goal frames (gain, non-loss, loss) either with or without efficacy statements affect climate change policy support. To address the framing literature’s difficulty establishing a theoretical framework with consistent findings, we propose the extended parallel process model of fear appeals as an alternative framework to explain goal framing. We then test several fear appeal mediators in a carefully-controlled experiment (<i>N</i> = 900) which avoids four common framing confounds possibly underlying the literature’s inconsistent findings. In line with fear appeal theory’s central tenet, a more-threatening loss frame paired with an efficacy statement produced stronger pro-policy attitudes and greater willingness to pay than (a) less-threatening gain or non-loss frames and (b) a loss frame lacking an efficacy statement. Policy support differences were mediated by five fear appeal variables (fear, threat, hope, collective efficacy, and message processing) in a pattern predicted by the extended parallel process model.<br>