Psychological distance and efficacy: analyzing the framing of climate change on US agricultural news websites using LLM-assisted content analysis – Frontiers

Report on Climate Change Framing in U.S. Agricultural Media with Emphasis on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Introduction

Agriculture is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 10.5% of total U.S. emissions in 2022, highlighting its critical role in climate change mitigation efforts (USDA Economic Research Service, 2025). The sector is also highly vulnerable to climate variability, affecting water availability, crop yields, and competitiveness. Addressing these challenges requires integrated mitigation and adaptation strategies, aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

U.S. initiatives such as the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (now Advancing Markets for Producers) promote sustainable agricultural practices. However, barriers to adoption persist, including skepticism about anthropogenic climate change among farmers, influenced by political affiliations. Given farmers’ direct exposure to climate variability, access to credible, relevant climate information is essential for effective adaptation and mitigation, supporting SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Media framing significantly shapes public and farmer perceptions of climate change. Agricultural media serve as vital knowledge brokers, translating climate science into actionable information relevant to farming practices. This study examines how U.S. agricultural news websites frame climate change, focusing on threat and efficacy messages and psychological distance, employing Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted content analysis.

Literature Review

Agricultural Media and Climate Change

Agricultural media, including magazines, newspapers, radio, and digital platforms, are primary information sources for farmers, who trust these outlets more than mainstream media. These media play a crucial role in disseminating climate change information tailored to farming communities, thereby supporting SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).

Studies in Europe and North America reveal that agricultural media often frame climate change in economic and agronomic terms, emphasizing practical impacts and actionable responses rather than catastrophic narratives. U.S. agricultural media show similar patterns but with limited explicit attribution of climate change to human activity.

Media Framing, Efficacy, and Psychological Distance

Framing theory explains how media select and emphasize aspects of climate change to influence public understanding. Threat and efficacy are central frames: fear appeals can motivate action if paired with efficacy messages that provide concrete solutions. This aligns with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by promoting adaptive behaviors that reduce health risks from climate change.

Psychological distance—temporal, spatial, social, and hypothetical—affects risk perception and engagement. Reducing psychological distance by emphasizing local, immediate impacts and relatable actors enhances motivation to act, supporting SDG 13 and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Study Objectives

1. Assess the frequency and co-occurrence of threat and efficacy frames in U.S. agricultural news websites.
2. Analyze the types of threat and efficacy messages, hypothesizing a greater emphasis on positive efficacy.
3. Examine psychological distance framing across temporal, spatial, social, and hypothetical dimensions.
4. Investigate trends in framing patterns over a ten-year period (2014–2023).

Methodology

Data Collection

• Sampled 2,662 climate change-related articles from three U.S. agricultural news websites: AGweek, AgUpdate, and AgriNews.
• Articles published between 2014 and 2023, identified using the keyword “climate change.”
• Focus on textual content; multimedia elements excluded.

LLM-Assisted Content Analysis

• Developed a detailed codebook based on prior research, covering threat, efficacy, and psychological distance frames.
• Used GPT-5 for automated coding, validated against human coders to ensure reliability (Cohen’s Kappa > 0.70 for most codes).
• Iterative refinement of coding definitions to enhance accuracy and interpretive depth.

Variables and Measurements

1. Threat Frames: Negative consequences of climate change across economy, environment, public health, and agriculture.
2. Efficacy Frames: Internal efficacy (self-efficacy), response efficacy, external efficacy, action/policy impacts, and types of actions (mitigation/adaptation).
3. Psychological Distance: Temporal (past, present, future), spatial (local, non-local), social (farmer, scientific, government, industry, nonprofit sources), and hypothetical (scientific certainty/uncertainty, anthropogenic cause).

Results

Threat and Efficacy Framing

• Efficacy frames dominated, appearing in 85.76% of articles, while threat frames appeared in 46.28%.
• Articles exclusively emphasizing efficacy were more common than those emphasizing threat alone.
• Positive efficacy frames (78.59%) far outweighed negative efficacy frames (29.86%).
• Positive external efficacy and response efficacy were the most frequent, highlighting confidence in institutional and policy responses.
• Threat frames most frequently addressed environmental (78.90%) and agricultural (70.05%) impacts, with economic (42.61%) and public health (10.88%) less emphasized.

Psychological Distance Framing

• Climate change was framed as psychologically close in terms of scientific certainty (38.88% certainty vs. 8.30% uncertainty), temporal proximity (48.76% present impacts), and spatial proximity (65.36% local impacts).
• Social distance remained greater, with scientific (52.37%) and government (48.01%) sources cited more than farmers (19.80%).
• Anthropogenic causes were explicitly mentioned in only 5.60% of articles.

Trends Over Time

• Threat-related coverage declined significantly, especially regarding economic and environmental impacts.
• Efficacy-related coverage increased, including positive internal and external efficacy and discussions of mitigation and adaptation strategies.
• Use of farmer sources increased, while reliance on scientific, government, and nonprofit sources declined.
• Local framing increased steadily, reinforcing psychological proximity.
• Coverage peaks aligned with major climate policy events and political administrations prioritizing climate action.

Discussion

The findings reveal that U.S. agricultural media prioritize efficacy-oriented and psychologically proximate framing of climate change, supporting SDG 13 (Climate Action) by promoting actionable knowledge and adaptation strategies. This pragmatic approach contrasts with mainstream media’s focus on threats and aligns with farmers’ practical decision-making needs, contributing to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

Positive external and response efficacy frames foster hope and confidence in institutional actions, essential for motivating sustainable agricultural practices. However, the underrepresentation of self-efficacy and farmer voices suggests a gap in empowering individual farmers, which is critical for achieving SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Emphasizing local and present-day impacts reduces psychological distance, enhancing engagement and relevance. The limited explicit discussion of anthropogenic causes reflects the political sensitivity of climate change in the U.S., particularly among the predominantly Republican farming community, highlighting the need for careful communication strategies that maintain inclusivity and avoid polarization.

Limitations

• Inability to distinguish between news and opinion content may affect interpretation.
• Presence-based coding does not assess frame dominance or salience within articles.
• Geographic coding based on place names may misclassify local relevance.
• LLM-assisted coding, while reliable, may still produce occasional errors requiring ongoing refinement.

Conclusion

This study underscores the distinctive role of agricultural media as knowledge brokers in climate change communication, emphasizing efficacy and proximity to engage farming audiences effectively. These framing strategies support multiple SDGs by promoting climate-resilient agricultural practices, informed decision-making, and sustainable development. The application of LLM-assisted content analysis demonstrates a promising methodological advancement for large-scale, theory-driven media research.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): By framing climate change impacts and adaptation strategies relevant to agriculture, the media support food security and sustainable agriculture.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Coverage includes public health implications, albeit limited, linking climate action to health outcomes.
• SDG 4 (Quality Education): Agricultural media function as informal education platforms, enhancing farmers’ knowledge and capacity for climate action.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): Emphasis on sustainable farming practices encourages responsible resource use.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action): The predominant focus on efficacy and local impacts promotes mitigation and adaptation efforts critical for climate resilience.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): Highlighting environmental impacts and adaptation supports ecosystem sustainability and biodiversity conservation.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article discusses agriculture’s role in food production and its vulnerability to climate change impacts such as crop yields and water availability.
   • Focus on sustainable agricultural practices and adaptation to maintain productivity.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article centers on climate change mitigation and adaptation in the agricultural sector.
   • Emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and enhancing resilience to climate variability.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Promotion of climate-smart agriculture and sustainable farming practices.
   • Focus on efficient use of resources and reducing environmental impacts.
4. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Environmental impacts of climate change on agriculture and ecosystems are highlighted.
   • Discussion of adaptation strategies that may benefit land and biodiversity conservation.
5. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Public health impacts of climate change are mentioned, though less emphasized.

2. Specific Targets Under Identified SDGs

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.2: Achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
4. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.3: Combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought, and floods.
5. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.9: Reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture
   • Percentage contribution of agriculture to total greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., 10.5% of US emissions in 2022).
   • Indicators measuring reductions in GHG emissions through mitigation practices.
2. Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices
   • Proportion of farmers adopting climate-smart agriculture practices (mitigation and adaptation strategies).
   • Frequency and coverage of climate-smart practices in agricultural media as a proxy for awareness and knowledge dissemination.
3. Resilience and Adaptation Capacity
   • Measures of farmers’ access to credible climate information and their perceived efficacy in adopting adaptation measures.
   • Indicators of productivity and economic viability under climate variability.
4. Psychological Distance and Awareness
   • Indicators related to public and farmer perceptions of climate change proximity (temporal, spatial, social, and hypothetical distance).
   • Levels of scientific certainty and acceptance of anthropogenic climate change among farmers and the public.
5. Media Coverage and Communication
   • Frequency and framing of climate change topics in agricultural media (threat vs. efficacy frames).
   • Use of sources (scientific, government, farmer) in media coverage as indicators of information flow and trust.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: frontiersin.org