Kansas, Missouri farmers avoid discussing climate change regardless of opinions, study finds

LAWRENCE — We have all avoided having conversations if the topic is controversial or may lead to an argument. Farmers, who are on the front lines of climate change, avoid talking about it with their neighbors, community members, elected officials and even their own families because of potential conflict and harm to their livelihood, new research from the University of Kansas has found.

Researchers conducted interviews with more than 20 farmers in Kansas and Missouri to understand their communication about climate change. Results showed respondents had a range of views on climate change from being convinced of its effects and taking action in their farming operations to skepticism — but all avoided discussing it to varying extents.

“People were worried about a variety of reactions. Some said they couldn’t even talk about it with their families because they would give them a weird look if they brought it up,” said Hong Tien Vu, associate professor of journalism & mass communications at KU and lead author of the study. “That was a low-level worry, but others said they had heard people laughing at them or were concerned about their neighbors not working with them if they had different opinions.”

The study was born from research Vu and students started during the COVID-19 pandemic. The group received private donor funding to study local climate change effects. Students interviewed scientists on campus and farmers in surrounding communities about climate change, their views on it and how it affects them. Farmers were reluctant to discuss the topic on camera.

“When we talk about climate change, we tend to look at broad effects like sea level rise. It can be difficult for people to find relevance in topics like that in their lives. We wanted to focus on factors that relate to people’s lives here in Kansas,” Vu said. “We wanted to interview farmers specifically because they are on the front lines of climate change impacts, both in terms of contributing to it through factors like emissions and feeling the effects of it.”

Given farmers’ reluctance to discuss the topic on camera, researchers decided to conduct interviews in which they could guarantee anonymity for respondents. Farmers then discussed their opinions on the topic, how it affects their lives and work, and why they avoid discussing it. 

The researchers examined the topic through the lens of spiral of silence theory, which posits that when discussing controversial topics, people judge the prevailing opinion of others before deciding whether to speak. If they feel they are in the minority, people will often choose not to discuss a topic, which can have long-term ramifications, including silencing people and exacerbating problems that people choose not to address.

The results confirmed the prevalence of a spiral of silence among Kansas and Missouri farmers. The respondents were both men and women, ranging in age from their 20s to 70s. When asked their thoughts on climate change, responses ranged from believing it is real, scientifically proven and having effects now, to being skeptical both of its prevalence and whether it is caused by humans. But across the board, respondents indicated they generally avoid discussing the topic.

The farmers gave a range of reasons why they avoid it. Many simply did not want a conflict that could result in violence or an argument with neighbors or community members. Some feared it could damage their business, as neighbors might be less likely to work with them and share equipment or people might give them a negative online review and tell people not to buy their products at farmers' markets and other locales if they disagreed with their views.

Farmers said they also tried to gauge a person’s opinions based on interpersonal cues before deciding whether to discuss climate change. For example, the type of vehicle a person drives, whether a large pickup or hybrid car, can provide clues about their opinions on the matter.

Spiral of silence theory holds that people traditionally used news media to gauge political opinion on a potentially controversial topic. However, respondents in the study indicated they felt news media only politicized the topic and therefore was not a trustworthy way of determining how people felt. Instead, many turned to social media where they could see if people posted on the topic or to find others to discuss it with, without fear of arguments or contentious conversations.

“The algorithm can allow you to choose who to talk to or who to exclude,” Vu said of social media. “People also often feel masked on social media. To me, that is a way of losing conversations and can give you a false sense of prevalence of opinions by eliminating cross examples.”

The study, co-written with Nhung Nguyen, lecturer; Nazra Izhar, doctoral candidate; and Vaibhav Diwanji, assistant professor of journalism and mass communications, all at KU, was published in the journal Environmental Communication.

When asked how they deal with the effects of climate change, several farmers reported taking measures such as switching to organic methods, fallowing fields to counter overuse of land and seeking information on more sustainable practices. Several also reported feeling isolated in general and given that they felt they could not discuss climate change, took to journaling as a way to process their thoughts.

Vu and colleagues, who have studied how climate change is viewed and reported globally, said understanding how the issue is viewed and discussed in more local settings is also important because people need to work together in day-to-day operations like farming as well as for policy solutions. If pressing issues are not discussed, it can negatively affect how they are dealt with on interpersonal levels and at local levels of government, they argue. 

As part of the larger research project, the group plans to use journalistic storytelling techniques to document how people are dealing with climate change locally and their opinions on the topic. They also plan to test the effects of different content elements such as psychological distance and modalities like text, video, podcast or virtual reality on public perceptions of and behaviors toward sustainability.

“In our conversations with farmers, we found they often felt excluded from other conversations on climate change,” Vu said. “It felt like they were picking their battles with everyone, because they are often blamed for things like emissions, while working on adjusting their farming practices for mitigation and adaptation purpose. We think not talking about climate change is a serious issue.”