Просмотр новости
Найдите то, что Вас интересует
Спутники
РН
SpaceX
Роскосмос
NASA
Effect of a narrative and behavioral science intervention on climate mitigation willingness among young professionals in India: A pilot randomized controlled trial [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
Дата публикации: 24-07-2026 12:24:33
Background India is highly vulnerable to climate change, yet translating awareness into personal action remains a persistent challenge. While narrative persuasion is a promising tool for behavioural shift, its efficacy in non-Western, high-awareness cohorts remains largely unexplored. This study, the first randomized controlled trial of its kind in India evaluates whether an interactive climate narrative can increase mitigation willingness among young working professionals. Methods Working professionals in Delhi-NCR (N = 80) were randomized to either a gamified, climate-narrative intervention (n = 40) or an information-only control (n = 40). Personal Climate Mitigation Activities (PCMA) were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and one-month follow-up. Linear mixed-effects models were employed to control for baseline imbalances. Results Despite high narrative engagement (“transportation”) in the intervention group, mixed-effects modelling revealed no significant group*time interaction for PCMA (P = 0.362). Crucially, a strong “ceiling effect” was identified, with participants displaying near-maximum willingness to adopt mitigation behaviours even at baseline. Narrative transportation did not correlate with immediate or sustained behavioural shifts (r = −0.05, P = 0.757). Conclusion This trial reveals a critical “value-action gap” among educated urban Indian professionals. Because baseline willingness is already exceptionally high, narrative-driven persuasion alone is insufficient to spur action. These findings pivot the climate communication paradigm, suggesting that future efforts must shift from trying to persuade an already willing audience to dismantling structural barriers and implementing environmental nudges that facilitate real-world behaviour change.
Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.
Mallika Mannan P, Maheshwari V and Basu S. Effect of a narrative and behavioral science intervention on climate mitigation willingness among young professionals in India: A pilot randomized controlled trial [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2026, 15:1215 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.186701.1)
Brief Report
[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4524-4634
1, Vansh Maheshwarihttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8723-5843
2, Saurav Basuhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1336-8720
3https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4524-4634
1, Vansh Maheshwarihttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8723-5843
2, Saurav Basuhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1336-8720
31 Independent Researcher, New Delhi, India
2 Newcastle University Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, UK
3 Department of Community Medicine, ESI‐PGIMSR, Medical College & Hospital and ODC EZ, Joka, Kolkata, India
Pallak Mallika Mannan
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
Vansh Maheshwari
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
Saurav Basu
Roles: Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW
Abstract
Background
India is highly vulnerable to climate change, yet translating awareness into personal action remains a persistent challenge. While narrative persuasion is a promising tool for behavioural shift, its efficacy in non-Western, high-awareness cohorts remains largely unexplored. This study, the first randomized controlled trial of its kind in India evaluates whether an interactive climate narrative can increase mitigation willingness among young working professionals.
MethodsWorking professionals in Delhi-NCR (N = 80) were randomized to either a gamified, climate-narrative intervention (n = 40) or an information-only control (n = 40). Personal Climate Mitigation Activities (PCMA) were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and one-month follow-up. Linear mixed-effects models were employed to control for baseline imbalances.
ResultsDespite high narrative engagement (“transportation”) in the intervention group, mixed-effects modelling revealed no significant group*time interaction for PCMA (P = 0.362). Crucially, a strong “ceiling effect” was identified, with participants displaying near-maximum willingness to adopt mitigation behaviours even at baseline. Narrative transportation did not correlate with immediate or sustained behavioural shifts (r = −0.05, P = 0.757).
ConclusionThis trial reveals a critical “value-action gap” among educated urban Indian professionals. Because baseline willingness is already exceptionally high, narrative-driven persuasion alone is insufficient to spur action. These findings pivot the climate communication paradigm, suggesting that future efforts must shift from trying to persuade an already willing audience to dismantling structural barriers and implementing environmental nudges that facilitate real-world behaviour change.
Keywords
Narrative intervention, narrative persuasion, behavior change, climate mitigation activities, randomized controlled trial
Corresponding author: Vansh Maheshwari Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Copyright: © 2026 Mallika Mannan P et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Mallika Mannan P, Maheshwari V and Basu S. Effect of a narrative and behavioral science intervention on climate mitigation willingness among young professionals in India: A pilot randomized controlled trial [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2026, 15:1215 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.186701.1) First published: 24 Jul 2026, 15:1215 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.186701.1) Latest published: 24 Jul 2026, 15:1215 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.186701.1)
Introduction
Climate change is driven by increased greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere.1 India is considered highly vulnerable countries to these changes, possessing limited capacity to cope with the exposure. A national survey revealed that while approximately 70% of Indians believe global warming is happening, only 31% attribute it to natural environmental changes, highlighting a gap in understanding anthropogenic causes.2
Overconsumption is a primary driver of environmental degradation, creating a significant lag in carbon mitigation efforts.3 While policy planners have addressed climate impacts for decades, there is growing evidence that relying solely on technological solutions is insufficient. Instead, encouraging behavioral shifts to reduce excessive consumption is essential.3
Adaptation behavior is influenced by cognitive, affective, and socio-cultural factors. Shifting from automatic, associative thinking to deliberate, analytic thinking is one pathway to cognitively process climate action.4 However, behavioral modification depends on individuals perceiving the risk of climate change as sufficiently serious and believing they are capable of effective adaptation. Thus, understanding community perceptions is critical for implementing effective climate plans.5
Research in environmental psychology suggests that the arts, specifically stories and visuals, can influence attitudes and beliefs by making the “invisible” nature of climate change felt closely in the present and imagined future.6 Narrative persuasion, which embeds messages within a story featuring identifiable characters and a plot, enhances message retention and persuasion through identification and transportation.7
Despite high climate concern, data regarding the willingness to engage in climate actions remains scarce, and behavioral change interventions are rarely utilized in India. This study is believed to be the first in India to utilize a narrative intervention, examining whether persuasive narrative text can increase the willingness of young working professionals to adopt personal mitigation activities.
Methods
Study design
This study was designed as a feasibility and acceptability randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a narrative and behavioral science intervention. The study was conducted from April 2023 to August 2024. The study was undertaken after obtaining ethical clearance from the Institutional Ethics Committee at IIPH-Delhi (Certificate number: IIPHD_IEC_S_2023) and was prospectively registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (Registration number: CTRI/2023/03/051206). As an open-label study, participants were informed of the purpose and time commitment, and fully written informed consent was obtained before their participation. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki and other applicable guidelines.
Participants
Participants were working professionals aged 23 to 35 residing in the Delhi NCR region. Inclusion criteria required participants to be comfortable with English and to have read at least one climate change story previously. The population of interest included fiction readers with moderate risk perception, specifically those who believed global warming is human caused but did not view the risks as severe or personally important.
During screening, individuals were asked “How worried are you about global warming?”. Only those responding “somewhat worried” or “not very worried” were selected. Individuals selecting the category as “very worried” were excluded.
Sample size and randomization
Eighty participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the intervention or control group (n = 40 each) using a computer-generated randomization sequence.
Interventions
The intervention was delivered via a website designed specifically for the study.
Intervention group (Narrative & Engagement): Upon entry, participants chose a “climate change savior” avatar. This process included reinforcing messages (e.g., “That’s a great choice!”). Participants then read a story adapted from In Flight Entertainment by Helen Simpson, set in the Indian subcontinent. The interface included a progress bar and completion of the task triggered “joyful” reinforcement (Supplementary Figure 1). This approach aimed to reduce psychological distance and promote engagement.
Control group (Information only): Participants received objective information regarding good nutritive practices without behavioral science elements or narrative components. Navigation was limited to simple “next” and “close” buttons.
Outcomes and measures
Outcomes were assessed at baseline (Pre), immediately post-intervention (Post), and at a one-month follow-up using items adapted from prior research on climate mitigation,8 climate views9 and narrative research10 (Supplementary Table 1).
• Primary Outcome: Personal Climate Mitigation Activities (PCMA) (8 items). Assessed willingness to adopt specific actions (e.g., reducing plastic, conserving water).
• Secondary Outcomes:
o Perception about Climate Change (PACT) (2 items): Assessed beliefs regarding global warming.
o Future Impact (FI) (4 items): Assessed perceived future risks (e.g., floods, water scarcity).
o Transportation and Identification (5 items): Measured engagement with the story (Intervention group only).
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using R Version 4.6.0. Due to non-normal distribution, continuous data are presented as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Baseline differences were assessed using the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test and Chi-squared/Fisher’s Exact Test.
To evaluate the intervention effect, a series of linear mixed-effects models were utilized. This approach was chosen to model the repeated-measures structure and to statistically control for significant baseline differences (confounding) in age, gender, and education identified during the randomization check. The definitive intervention effect was evaluated by the statistical significance of the Group * Time interaction term. A Pearson’s correlation was used to test the mechanism between Transportation scores and changes in PCMA. A P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Participant characteristics
Of the 80 participants randomized, 12 were lost to follow-up, leaving 68 for final analysis (Intervention: n = 37; Control: n = 31). Distribution of sex and education did not differ significantly between groups ( Table 1). The intervention group was significantly younger (Median 25.0 vs. 27.0, P = 0.042) and had a significantly lower baseline PCMA score compared to the control group (Median 3.25 vs. 3.50, P = 0.043). There were no significant baseline differences in PACT or FI scores.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study participants.CharacteristicOverall N = 68Control N = 31Intervention N = 37P-value 1Age, Median (IQR) 26.0 (23.0, 28.5)27.0 (25.0, 29.0)25.0 (22.0, 28.0)0.042 1Gender, n (%) 0.07 2 Female46 (68%)25 (81%)21 (57%) Male22 (32%)6 (19%)16 (43%)Education, n (%) 0.08 2 Sciences50 (75%)26 (87%)24 (65%) Others (Commerce and Humanities)17 (25%)4 (13%)13 (35%)Baseline PACT, Median (IQR) 3.50 (3.00, 4.00)3.50 (3.00, 4.00)3.50 (3.50, 4.00)0.30 1Baseline PCMA, Median (IQR) 3.44 (3.00, 3.75)3.50 (3.25, 3.88)3.25 (2.88, 3.63)0.043 1Baseline FI, Median (IQR) 3.50 (3.00, 4.00)3.75 (3.25, 4.00)3.25 (3.00, 3.75)0.075 1
Intervention effects
For the intervention effects ( Table 2), the group × time interaction was not statistically significant for PCMA (B = 0.67, 95% CI: −0.79, 2.1, P = 0.362), PACT (B = −0.28, 95% CI: −0.71, 0.14, P = 0.184), or FI (B = 0.92, 95% CI: −0.53, 2.4, P = 0.211). Across both time points, the intervention group maintained significantly lower scores than the control group on PCMA (P = 0.029) and FI (P = 0.042).
Table 2. Adjusted linear mixed-effects models predicting climate change outcomes.CharacteristicPCMAPACTFIBeta95% CIP-value Beta95% CIP-value Beta95% CIP-value Group Control—————— Intervention−2.2−4.1, −0.230.029 0.25−0.27, 0.770.345−1.2−2.4, −0.050.042 Time Pre—————— Post0.43−0.66, 1.50.430−0.07−0.38, 0.250.673−0.27−1.3, 0.810.622Age −0.11−0.26, 0.040.1600.040.00, 0.080.055−0.05−0.12, 0.030.219Gender Female—————— Male0.94−0.98, 2.90.3320.14−0.36, 0.640.581−0.03−1.0, 0.940.950Education Sciences—————— Others (Commerce and Humanities)−0.22−2.2, 1.80.8260.00−0.52, 0.520.99−0.34−1.3, 0.670.501Intervention * Time 0.67−0.79, 2.10.362−0.28−0.71, 0.140.1840.92−0.53, 2.40.211
Item-level analysis
A “ceiling effect” was observed as participants uniformly reported high initial concern regarding global warming and its future impacts, with a majority of the individual perception items scoring the maximum median of 4 (Supplementary Table 2). For within-group changes in behavioral willingness, the control group showed a small, significant increase in willingness to manage AC temperatures (P = 0.037), while the intervention group showed a marginal, non-significant trend (P = 0.053) (Supplementary Table 3). No other items showed significant pre-post change. Fisher’s Exact test found no significant difference between groups regarding beliefs in reducing catastrophic harm (P = 0.282).
Mechanism of action
Participants in the intervention group reported high engagement ( Figure 1), with median scores of 4 for “Imagined being the character” and 3 for “Felt fully absorbed”. However, Pearson’s correlation analysis revealed no significant relationship between engagement (Transportation score) and the change in willingness (PCMA change score) (r = −0.05, P = 0.757).
Discussion
This study assessed the impact of narrative persuasion and behavioral science techniques on climate mitigation willingness among young working professionals. Contrary to the hypothesis, the results indicated no significant interaction effect between the intervention and time on PCMA scores. This is comparable to other studies suggesting that narrative style intervention may not always translate into behavior change11 or exert only a small impact on persuasion.12 While participants in the intervention group reported high levels of engagement with the story, this transportation did not translate into an immediate or sustained increase in behavioral willingness.
Several factors may explain these null findings. First, a “ceiling effect” at baseline significantly limited the room for improvement. Participants in both groups were already “somewhat” or “not very” worried, yet their baseline willingness to using LED bulbs or reducing plastic was already near maximum. This suggests that the barrier to climate action may not be a lack of willingness or awareness, but rather structural barriers where individuals intend to act but fail to do so due to external constraints. Prior literature posits that education and awareness, may be insufficient precursors for behavior change,13 while economic, institutional and socio-cultural barriers may constrain adoption of mitigation activities.14
Second, baseline imbalances from randomization complicated the interpretation of results. The intervention group was significantly younger and started with lower PCMA scores than the control group. Although linear mixed-effects models were used to statistically adjust for these confounders, the inherent differences suggest that the two groups may have had different starting motivations. The control group, being slightly older, may have already established more sustainable household habits, whereas the younger intervention group may have had less agency over their household infrastructure.
Third, the duration and intensity of the intervention may have been inadequate. While the transportation scores were high, literature often highlights that deeper behavioral changes typically require repeated reinforcement.15 The lack of correlation between transportation scores and PCMA change reinforces the possibility that while the story was entertaining, it was presented in third person perspective and did not successfully link the narrative world to the participants’ real-world behavioral choices. First person narratives have greater persuasive potential when compared to third person narratives.16
While our study is a novel application of narrative intervention in India, it is limited by a small sample, a short one-month follow-up, and reliance on self-reported willingness rather than observed behavior.
Conclusion
A brief, one-time narrative intervention combined with gamified elements was not sufficient to significantly increase the willingness for climate mitigation activities among young Indian professionals. Future research should explore longitudinal interventions, use of culturally specific narratives paired with structural “nudges”, and objective measures of behavior change.
Ethics approval
The study was undertaken after obtaining ethical clearance from the Institutional Ethics Committee at IIPH-Delhi (Certificate number: IIPHD_IEC_S_2023) and was prospectively registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (Registration number: CTRI/2023/03/051206). The study was conducted in accordance with the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki and other applicable guidelines.
Consent to participate
As an open-label study, participants were informed of the purpose and time commitment, and fully informed consent was obtained.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the participants for their time and engagement with this study.
References
- 1. Prowse M, Snilstveit B: Impact evaluation and interventions to address climate change: a scoping study. J. Dev. Eff. 2010; 2(2): 228–262. Publisher Full Text
- 2. Leiserowitz A, Thaker J, Carman J, et al.: Climate change in the Indian mind, 2022. Yale University New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication; 2022.
- 3. Wiedmann T, Lenzen M, Keyßer LT, et al.: Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 2020; 11(1): 3107. Publisher Full Text
- 4. Van Valkengoed AM, Steg L: Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019; 9(2): 158–163. Publisher Full Text
- 5. Di Falco S, Sharma-Khushal S: Cognitive drivers, and the effect of information on climate change adaptive behaviour in Fiji Islands. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2019; 92: 245–254. Publisher Full Text
- 6. Corbett JB, Clark B: The arts and humanities in climate change engagement.2016. Publisher Full Text
- 7. Hinyard LJ, Kreuter MW: Using narrative communication as a tool for health behavior change: a conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overview. Health Educ. Behav. 2007; 34(5): 777–792. Publisher Full Text
- 8. Sinatra GM, Kardash CM, Taasoobshirazi G, et al.: Promoting attitude change and expressed willingness to take action toward climate change in college students. Instr. Sci. 2012; 40(1): 1–17. Publisher Full Text
- 9. Chryst B, Marlon J, Van Der Linden S, et al.: Global warming’s “six Americas short survey”: Audience segmentation of climate change views using a four question instrument. Environ. Commun. 2018; 12(8): 1109–1122. Publisher Full Text
- 10. Schneider-Mayerson M, Gustafson A, Leiserowitz A, et al.: Environmental literature as persuasion: An experimental test of the effects of reading climate fiction. Environ. Commun. 2023; 17(1): 35–50. Publisher Full Text
- 11. Cheney LC, Kohler C, Legge Muilenburg J: A woman in transition: can drama deliver a cancer awareness message?. J. Cancer Educ. 2006; 21(3): 129–132. Publisher Full Text
- 12. Shen F, Sheer VC, Li R: Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. J. Advert. 2015; 44(2): 105–113. Publisher Full Text
- 13. Bandura A: The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry. 1982; 13(3): 195–199. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
- 14. Dioba A, Kroker V, Dewitte S, et al.: Barriers to pro-environmental behavior change: A review of qualitative research. Sustainability. 2024; 16(20): 8776. Publisher Full Text
- 15. Rookes TA, Nimmons D, Frost R, et al.: Effectiveness of complex behaviour change interventions tested in randomised controlled trials for people with multiple long-term conditions (M-LTCs): systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2024; 14(6): e081104. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
- 16. Graaf A, Sanders J, Hoeken H: Characteristics of narrative interventions and health effects: A review of the content, form, and context of narratives in health-related narrative persuasion research. Review of communication research. 2016; 4: 88–131. Publisher Full Text
- 17. Mallika Mannan P, Maheshwari V, Basu S: Effect of a narrative and behavioral science intervention on climate mitigation willingness among young professionals in India: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Dataset. figshare. 2026. Publisher Full Text
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
© 2026 Mallika Mannan P et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Open Peer Review
Reviewer Status
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
Comments on this article
Sign up for content alerts
Browse by related subjects
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Схожие новости
Классификация: . Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 8.77. Источник: f1000research.com.