Scientific attribution matters: Learning about extreme weather event attribution increases climate change engagement

Event attribution science quantifies the influence of anthropogenic climate change on the occurrence of extreme weather events. One incentive for such research is an assumed motivational effect on people’s climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, but little empirical evidence exists regarding this. While subjective attribution has been shown to matter, the few studies concerned with scientific attribution were gathered in societies polarised above average. Moreover, scientists and stakeholders have suggested that intellectual and communicative obstacles hinder motivational effects. They also questioned any effect on adaptation (rather than mitigation) intentions.

Here, we present results using the high-impact flood in July 2021 in Germany to empirically test the motivational effect of scientific attribution on mitigation and adaptation intentions. Data from a nationally representative sample and oversamples from the two flood-affected federal states in a control (n=663) and an attribution (n=611) group were collected in March 2022. Both groups learned about the consequences and immediate causes of the flood. The attribution group additionally learned about the World Weather Attribution's result that climate change to date had made the associated heavy rainfall more likely and more intense and that this influence would increase further in future. Groups did not differ in socioeconomic factors; mediation analyses and ordinary least squares linear regressions were applied.

Results showed that learning about event attribution results increased people’s subjective attribution of the event to climate change and their mitigation and adaptation intentions. It also increased their belief that the climate is changing and that this is due to human activities. Subjective attribution, but not personal flooding experience, mediated these effects. The effect on adaptation but not mitigation intentions was positively related to low education and to far-right political orientation. We set the results in the context of related evidence, highlight methodological caveats, and discuss implications for climate/impact attribution science.