1. A closer look at the draft and its evaluation
The original message has genuine strengths. It communicates urgency, introduces a real-world problem, includes a personal testimony, and asks readers to support climate action.
Yet, according to the evaluation, it will “underperform with donors”and gets a low 5.1/10.
It currently works against the donation goal because of the heavy doom framing and unclear structure that will trigger avoidance rather than action in most readers. Here’s a breakdown of the Understories’ score by criteria.
Accessibility 5/10: The message uses concrete, sensory language that brings climate impacts to life.
Actionability 5/10: The call to action names a specific target (the donor) and goal.
Clarity 4/10: Concrete details—Marcel's story, drought, fires, agrivoltaics—ground abstract climate impacts in lived experience.
Credibility 5/10: The message lacks citations and source verification, leaving key claims unverifiable.
Emotional resonance 6/10: The specific human consequences through Marcel's voice and concrete farm impacts align with framings that test strongly.
Hope/Doom balance 2/10: The message acknowledges real loss and urgency while offering a concrete solution in agrivoltaics.
Personal relevance 8/10: The message grounds climate impacts in a named figure and a specific locale, reducing psychological distance through socio-spatial proximity.
Solutions focus 3/10: The draft pairs climate risks with a concrete solution and explains how it works and its benefits.
2. What’s working against the draft: a psychological focus
Psychology helps us understand how people actually process risk, fear, and identity.
It’s a strategic tool for climate advocates, but it cannot predict every reader’s response. Nor does a single theory explain why a particular sentence will succeed or fail. Research offers useful perspectives for identifying potential tensions in a message and considering alternative approaches.
Urgency without sufficient scientific precision
❌“We have less than 10 years to act before catastrophic tipping points make recovery impossible.”
WHY - This sentence oversimplifies scientific consensus; it didn’t pass the ethical check and was removed. This suggestion is based on the “Construal-level theory of psychological distance”. Trope & Liberman's 2010 foundational theory explains why distance — in time, space, or likelihood — produces abstract, low-urgency thinking, and by extension, what kinds of message framing might close that gap.
A threat without a sufficiently tangible route forward
❌ “The future looks bleak without immediate action.”
WHY - This suggestion is based on “Appealing to Fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories”. Tannenbaum et al. found that fear appeals have mixed results, but they work better when they include efficacy statements: a message that tells the audience they can act, and that acting will help. Without that, it tends to produce avoidance, not action.
A sweeping claim that may not create a point of connection
❌”Climate change is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced.”
WHY - This may read as a moralized, activist claim rather than a locally relevant problem, and trigger defensive avoidance. This suggestion is based on “Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus”. According to Dan Kahan et al., people filter evidence through identity before facts. A message that doesn't require picking a side reaches further than one that does.
An appeal that does not make the donor’s contribution tangible
❌“Donate today to help us fight climate denial and push for the aggressive emissions cuts we desperately need.”
WHY - This shows a vague individual sacrifice framing that places the burden on donors rather than framing government/business responsibility, which research shows is more effective. In its “Theory of Basic Individual Values”, Schwartz et al. says that values such as security, benevolence, achievement, tradition, and self-direction shape attitudes and behavior. Appeals anchored in a single clear value tend to hold up better than ones that hedge across several.
A narrative dominated by inevitable loss
❌”Extreme weather will devastate communities. Food systems will collapse.”
WHY - Alisa’s draft tells a story of inevitability; a narrative of possibility would tell a story of contingency and agency. According to novelist Susan Choi, quoted in “How Do Other Fields Think About Narrative? Lessons for Narrative Change Practitioners” from the Frameworks Institute, one should offer a “narrative of possibility”. People asking themselves "What is it? Can I do it? Will it make a difference?" need enough specifics to picture themselves inside the story.
3. What the evaluation surfaces, and what are the main takeaways
Alisa's asthma story is the strongest asset of the draft. The line "There is no point in having cheap energy if our children's health is at stake" is concrete, personal, and immediately relatable. It connects climate action to something every parent cares about.
The specificity of Battambang and next month's council vote also creates psychological proximity; this isn't abstract, it's happening now, in a real place.
That's why it scores 8/10 for personal relevance.
The 5-minute win: Delete the opening paragraph entirely. Start instead with: "Alisa's 8-year-old son in Battambang has severe asthma. She knows why: coal pollution." This single move, leading with the person, not the planet, will immediately increase clarity and emotional resonance without changing a single fact.
Alisa’s story offers concrete takeaways:
Personal relevance: Do I give readers a concrete point of connection?
Possibility: Do I show a credible way forward, not just what could go wrong?
Proof: Are my scientific claims precise and verifiable?
Purpose: Is the requested action specific and meaningful?
Agency: Can readers see how decisions and actions might make a difference?
Understories can identify tensions and point to relevant research. It cannot decide what Alisa’s community needs, what is culturally appropriate, or which action is most credible locally. That remains the communicator’s judgment. The system suggests, you decide.
Have a message you're trying to make land?
Test Your Message
–
Explore the Understories Research Library on Climate Communication.