Delivering effective messages is critical to creating a more sustainable and resilient culture. The explosion of social media has enhanced information access but has often reinforced and polarized pre-existing viewpoints and norms. In contrast, digital signs are an “in your face in your space” technology that has the potential to deliver common content to a diverse local audience. Environmental Dashboard (ED) is a communications platform and set of content applications that combines information on current environmental conditions, real-time resource consumption, positive actions being taken by community members, and a community calendar. We conducted a longitudinal study to assess whether ED content delivered via digital signs in public locations would result in desirable psychological changes within a community. Participants completed surveys in six designated signage locations prior to installation (N = 174) and following two years of continuous exposure (N = 133). We observed: increases in pro-environmental social norms among people of color (a demographic emphasized); enhanced awareness of and sense of connection with the local community and ecology; increased self-reported electricity conservation; and increased perception of youth engagement (another demographic emphasized). Changes were mediated by exposure to digital signage. These findings support the hypothesis that content delivered through digital signs can strengthen pro-environmental and pro-social culture within communities.

An online study was designed to assess how a sample of people from the NE Ohio region and a national sample responded to a brief exposure to pro-social CV content and to climate action-focused CV content. Pro-social Community Voices (CV) content for this research was acquired from an existing repository that our team continues to develop for use on Dashboard digital signs deployed in NE Ohio. Climate action-focused content was developed through a recent initiative focused specifically on enhancing norms related to local climate action in Oberlin and in the metro-Cleveland region.

Participants were recruited via Prolific, a company that provides online samples (www.prolific.com) and were paid $2.25 for a survey that we designed to be completed in 8.5 min (equivalent to ~$16 per hour). Participants were recruited from both a national pool (N = 445) and a NE Ohio pool (N = 524).

The experimental design was a 2 (sample: regional vs. national) × 3 (condition: no exposure vs. pro-social CV exposure vs. climate action-focused CV exposure) between-subjects design. Survey questions designed to assess response to these conditions were asked after exposure.

The survey instructed all participants: “In this study, you will answer a series of questions about climate change and your community…” Participants were then randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. Participants who were exposed to a CV sideshow (about two-thirds of participants) were told: “This is a slide show containing 12 images paired with quotes, which will last 2 min and 30 s. We ask that you watch the entire slideshow for the purposes of this study. We also suggest that you watch it in full screen to be more able to view the pictures on the slides. After the slide show is finished, you may proceed to the next part of the study.” The slideshow, which was shown immediately after the instructions above were provided, contained real Community Voices content that is currently being displayed on digital dashboards throughout NE Ohio.  After watching the slideshow, participants were asked to complete the measures described below.

Manipulation check/norm awareness. Participants responded to the item “I am aware of what others think about climate change” on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). This item was designed to be a manipulation check, to ensure that participants exposed to climate content were aware that they had been exposed to it.

Descriptive and Prescriptive Climate Norms. Participants responded to six questions based on items from the YPCCC’s “Climate Opinion Maps” survey [2]. Four items measured descriptive norms (e.g., “People in my community are taking action to address climate change”) and two items measured prescriptive norms (e.g., “People have a responsibility to protect the environment for future generations”) on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Exploratory factor analysis on all six items with oblimin rotation confirmed that these two factors explained 70% of the variance. Both subscales were reliable: descriptive norm alpha = 0.724, prescriptive norm alpha = 0.749.

Psychological Distance of Climate Change. On a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree), survey participants rated agreement with statements designed to measure spatial, social, and temporal psychological distance (e.g., “Serious effects of climate change will mostly occur in communities far away from here”, “I don’t see myself as someone who will experience the effects of climate change”). The scale was reliable; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.805.

Envisioning a Positive Environmental Future. Participants completed a subset of the Environmental Cognitive Alternatives Scale (ECAS), a 10-item scale designed to measure “the ability to imagine what a sustainable relationship between humans and the rest of nature might look like” [25]. Participants responded on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) to items such as, “It is easy to imagine a world where we no longer use fossil fuels”. The scale was reliable; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.834.

Positive and negative emotions. Using a four-point scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = Slightly, 3 = Moderately, 4 = Strongly), survey participants reported their levels of 9 different emotions in response to the prompt “How strongly do you feel each of the following emotions when you think about the issue of climate change?”. The four positive emotions (hopeful, brave, resilient, and optimistic) and five negative emotions (guilty, angry, betrayed, sad, and afraid) were presented in random order. Both scales were reliable, negation emotions Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.87, positive emotions Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.84.

Efficacy. We used two items to measure participants’ sense of collective efficacy, at the community level, to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Participants read the statement, “consider two different ways that people cope with climate change. Mitigation is when people work to reduce the causes of climate change. This means reducing greenhouse gas emissions and/or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Adaptation involves anticipating the impacts of a changing climate and taking action to prevent or minimize the damage caused. For example, this might mean installing air-conditioning to deal with extreme heat or installing sea walls to prevent flooding.”

Then participants were asked: “Think about humans’ ability to mitigate (or reduce) climate change. Which of the following statements comes closest to your view?” Participants chose one of four statements ranging from “My community can’t reduce climate change” to “My community can reduce climate change, and we are going to do so successfully”.

Next, participants were asked: “Now think about whether humans can adapt to climate change. Can we take actions that make the impacts of climate change less disruptive? Which of the following statements comes closest to your view?” Participants chose one of four statements ranging from “My community can’t adapt to climate change” to “My community can adapt to climate change, and we are going to do so successfully”.

Policy Support. On a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree), survey participants rated how much they supported using “significant tax dollars” to mitigate climate emissions, adapt to a changing climate, invest in public transit, and invest in renewable energy. The scale was highly reliable; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.921.

Demographics. At the end of the study, participants were asked to report on their age, gender, education level, income, ethnicity, political orientation (measured on a seven-point scale between conservative and liberal), and rural, suburban, or urban locality.