(Image by Casimiro PT on Shutterstock)
Crisis Wording Fails to Make Americans Care More About Nature
In A Nutshell
- “Biodiversity loss” tied with “biodiversity crisis” for the lowest familiarity and concern among 7,338 U.S. adults.
- “Extinction of plants and animals” generally scored highest, with an estimated 82% familiar with it versus 34% for “biodiversity loss.”
- Adding “crisis” to a term did little to raise concern and sometimes lowered it.
- A short explanation with photos lifted ratings for every term, and “nature loss” then matched “extinction” on concern, urgency, and policy support.
Ask around about “biodiversity loss” and the answer may be a blank stare. A survey of more than 7,000 Americans found the phrase earned some of the lowest marks for familiarity and concern, tied with “biodiversity crisis,” while the plainer “extinction of plants and animals” generally scored highest.
Published in the journal npj Biodiversity, the study randomly showed each participant one of six terms used by scientists and environmental groups, either alone or with a short explanation and photos of plants and animals. Dramatic “crisis” wording, a common tactic, did not fix the problem.
Language has tripped up conservation messaging before. Earlier research cited in the paper found that only 41% of Europeans could define “biodiversity,” and some people in the United Kingdom confused it with laundry detergent. Meanwhile, a United Nations-backed report projects that about one million plant and animal species may face extinction within decades.
Biodiversity Loss Lands Near the Bottom in Survey of 7,338 Americans
Participants came from the Understanding America Study, a research group that recruits people from random home addresses rather than from volunteers who sign up for online surveys, a method the authors say produces better data. Of 10,000 adults invited by email, 7,338 English speakers completed the survey in July and August 2025. Results were weighted so the sample mirrored the U.S. adult population. Democrats made up 37% of participants, Republicans 27%, and independents or others, a group that included Libertarians and Green Party members, 36%.
Each person was randomly assigned one of six terms: “biodiversity loss,” “nature loss,” “extinction of plants and animals,” “biodiversity crisis,” “nature crisis,” or “extinction crisis.” Some saw the phrase alone. Others also read a short explanation written at a seventh- to eighth-grade reading level, including the line “If nature is struggling, it is bad for us too,” next to a collage of photos showing both famous animals and less glamorous plants and creatures. Everyone then rated how familiar the term felt, how concerned they were, how urgent it seemed, and how willing they would be to support policies protecting land and water.
Plain Language Wins, Crisis Framing Flops
Among people who saw each term alone, an estimated 34% were familiar with “biodiversity loss,” compared with 82% for “extinction of plants and animals.” Concern followed the same pattern, with an estimated 84% concerned about “extinction of plants and animals” versus 52% for “biodiversity loss.” The researchers suggest familiarity may explain the gap, since extinction turns up in museums, documentaries, and movies, especially ones about dinosaurs. Elementary school children interviewed about dinosaurs, the paper notes, volunteered the word “extinct” and explained it as “none of them are alive today.”
“Nature loss” fell in the middle when shown alone, but with the explanation and photos it matched “extinction of plants and animals” on concern, urgency, and policy support, though it still felt less familiar. Context lifted ratings for every term and narrowed the gaps between them, yet “biodiversity loss” never outscored another term. Support for protecting land and water stayed high whatever the phrase, so wording mattered least there.
Crisis wording flopped too. Swapping “biodiversity loss” for “biodiversity crisis” changed little without context, and with context it lowered concern and urgency. Calling “extinction of plants and animals” an “extinction crisis” made the phrase feel less familiar and less worrying. The authors suggest crisis language may erode credibility, and that feelings of helplessness could play a role, though the study measured neither.
Political Independents Shift Most With Biodiversity Loss Wording
Politics shaped answers across the board. Democrats gave the most positive responses overall, Republicans the least, and independents fell in between. Independents were generally the group most swayed by which wording they saw. Even so, the same general ranking held for every party, as well as across age, gender, education, and race and ethnicity groups.
A science word may also pick up political baggage. The authors raise the possibility that the “diversity” in biodiversity gets mixed up with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, a politically charged topic. Participants were never asked what each phrase meant to them, so that remains an untested guess.
Familiarity tracked closely with caring, whatever the term. Among people who found a term familiar, an estimated 90% reported concern, compared with 54% among those who did not. That link held whether a term appeared alone or with context, and whatever a person’s party. The survey cannot show whether familiar wording changes minds or whether people who already care simply know the language better. One more caution: “extinction of plants and animals” captures only one extreme piece of biodiversity loss, so the terms are not perfect stand-ins for one another.
Researchers advise communicators to use familiar words, skip crisis language, and add a short explanation with pictures of the plants and animals at stake, though the experiment cannot say whether the explanation or the photos did the work. Science can be accurate and still speak plainly. When it comes to biodiversity, plain language isn’t a compromise. It’s the whole ballgame.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a single published study and is intended for general informational purposes only. Findings reflect one survey of U.S. adults at one point in time and may not apply to other groups or situations.
Paper Notes
Limitations
Authors acknowledge several constraints. The six terms are not true synonyms, so “extinction of plants and animals” covers only one extreme piece of biodiversity loss, which can also include shrinking populations, declining genetic diversity, and disrupted ecological interactions even without extinctions. Participants were not asked how they interpreted each term, leaving unclear whether some partisan differences reflect confusion with unrelated political terms involving diversity. Data came from English-speaking U.S. adults at a single point in time, so results may not carry over to other countries, languages, or professional audiences such as scientists and policymakers. Respondents who completed the survey were less likely to be 44 or younger than invitees who did not (33% versus 48%), although the researchers weighted results to match the U.S. adult population. The study could not separate the effect of the written explanation from the photos, did not measure feelings of helplessness or perceived credibility that might explain why crisis framing backfired, and did not test whether wording affects donations, press coverage, or real conservation outcomes. Because familiarity and concern were measured in the same survey, the familiarity findings show an association, not cause and effect, and all outcomes were self-reported ratings.
Funding and Disclosures
Funding came from the Goldenbelt Community Foundation, with Wändi Bruine de Bruin as principal investigator. The authors declare no competing interests. The paper describes the team as including authors from environmental organizations that use a range of these terms. Listed affiliations include Save the Children International, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (source of the United Nations-backed report cited above), the Local Nature Lab, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Publication Details
Titled “Public responses to biodiversity loss terminology and crisis framing,” the open-access paper was written by Wändi Bruine de Bruin (University of Southern California, Sol Price School of Public Policy and Dornsife Department of Psychology; corresponding author), Monica Dean, Carling Monder, Allison Agsten, Moa Cortobius, Georgia Silvera Seamans, Robert Spaull, and Kimberly Tenggardjaja. It was published online October 21, 2026, in npj Biodiversity, volume 5, article 36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-026-00163-4. Survey data are available from the Understanding America Study (survey #729).
