Psychology and climate – what do they have to do with each other?
This article was originally published in German. The English version is an automatic translation and may contain errors. The German original is authoritative.
97% of all studies on the topic of climate change consistently show that it exists (1). Despite this, an excessive proportion of discussions on this topic appear to be based on the remaining 3% of studies. Climate warming is primarily human-caused (2). Our behaviour influences how quickly climate change progresses; how we perceive climate change, in turn, influences our behaviour. Although psychological research cannot save us from climate warming, it can help us understand the interplay between climate change and human behaviour.
Overall, the question arises as to why more measures are not being taken to counteract climate change. From a psychological perspective, many questions emerge and presumably most of them cannot yet be answered exhaustively: How do we perceive climate change? Do we act based on our knowledge? But also, how does climate change affect our psyche?
Figure 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx
First, it should be addressed to what extent people understand the risk to which they are exposed through climate change. On this, one can summarise: poorly. People in industrialised countries regard climate change as uncertain, situated primarily in the future and geographically distant (3). All of these are factors that lead to viewing climate change as less relevant. This attitude is interpreted as climate change denial, which is logical due to financial and emotional advantages. Various campaigns by oil and coal distributors contribute additionally to this behaviour. Furthermore, negative forecasts lead to more fears, which often trigger or reinforce denying behaviour. For example, residents of the USA express few concerns about extreme weather phenomena, such as droughts. In 2002, only 13% of a group of Americans were concerned about the impact of climate change on themselves and their families (4). Through emotional reactions, such as those triggered by Greta Thunberg, the perception of climate change can be influenced, although this change is often not sustained. This is explained by the perception of climate change as a "natural process", or by the feeling that the individual, as well as the community, but also science and technological development have no decisive influence (3).
Figure 2: https://news.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx
More recent studies show that approximately 75% of Americans now believe that climate change exists, which however also means that every fourth American claims the opposite (5). Furthermore, this proportion of Americans state that they are concerned about their future, the future of their children and their grandchildren. Therefore, the question arises as to how much this perception influences our behaviour. It must be said that those who think about climate change are most likely to experience a sense of helplessness (6). Despite the fact that a large proportion of people in industrialised countries acknowledge the problem of climate change, many individuals are not willing to give up their comfort and their standard of living in order to contribute to an improvement of the situation (7). A model for how environmentally friendly behaviour emerges is explained through a causal chain (8). At the beginning of this is the value altruism, which, together with the belief that nature is fragile and must be protected from humans, leads to viewing protective behaviour as necessary. The resulting norm, together with a specific social and cultural situation, leads to protective behaviours. This situation consists primarily of having the financial means to change behaviour, but for example it also includes how well the public transport system is developed. This behaviour shown can, for example, consist of switching off unnecessary lights, buying energy-efficient cars and voting for politicians who want to counteract climate change. This group of altruistic people with environmentally protective thoughts also assess the risks of climate change as higher. This in turn is independent of what work one pursues. Experts particularly emphasise long-term consequences, whereas the general population tends to focus on short-term consequences. Since behavioural changes in the general population are necessary to bring about change, understanding of long-term consequences should be supported and changed ways of acting should become financially affordable.
To understand long-term consequences, communication is needed as an important tool. Although little research exists on communication specifically about climate change, research on environmental topics shows interesting results. A study examined a park in Arizona where wood was being stolen. This behaviour was to be prevented by placing signs stating that 14 tonnes of wood were stolen every year. However, this did not lead to a reduction, but to an increase in this crime. Possibly, this sent the implicit message: everyone does it anyway, so you can do it too. The same study developed a significantly more effective method, which consisted of focusing within the message on social disapproval of this behaviour. The positive influence of this message on theft shows how much communication influences how we act (9). It can also be useful to name the number of people who show specific behaviour. A study was able to show that the belief about how much neighbours tried to save electricity was the best predictor variable for how much effort the person invested in saving electricity (10). This was found by telling experimental households either that neighbours often tried to save energy, that saving energy was positive for the environment, society or their own wallet. Overall, the message about neighbours had the greatest influence, although the experimental subject themselves saw no influencing factor in it. In some cases, it is also relevant to combine information, which was demonstrated, for example, in a study with hotel guests and their towel usage. When hotel guests were only pointed to social values or only to what other people did, no change in towel usage was shown. However, when both topics were addressed simultaneously, participants used significantly fewer towels (11). This clearly shows that the way in which climate change and the necessary behavioural changes are communicated has an influence on how people ultimately act.
Not only does humans influence climate change, but climate change also has an influence on humans – regardless of their perception. It is to be expected that heat, extreme weather conditions and more pronounced competition for resources, together with the already existing inequality between groups and nations, will lead to more stress and anxieties in general. Following previous heat waves, increased murder and suicide rates were observed, as well as more physical attacks and abuse within marriages (12). Even if people are not directly affected by the consequences, their mental health will be negatively affected by the perception and fear of the changes. However, there will not only be negative consequences. More collective responsibility is predicted (2).
Due to the topicality of the topic, for example emphasised by the FridaysforFuture movement, further declining numbers of climate deniers are to be expected. It should be noted that necessary behaviour is communicated in reference to social norms and the behaviour of others. It is to be hoped that society's understanding is improved through the engagement of young people and that behaviour is thereby indirectly influenced. Nevertheless, it is necessary to create the infrastructural and financial possibilities to enable this behavioural change.
Florentine Klepel
(1) Cook, John, et al. "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming." Environmental Research Letters 11.4 (2016).
(2) https://www.apa.org/research/action/gc-climate-change.pdf
(3) https://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/executive-summary.pdf
(4) Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77, 45-72.
(6) Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., Rosenthal, S., & Marlon, J. (2014). Climate change in the American mind: Americans' global warming beliefs and attitudes in November, 2013. New Haven, CT: Yale. University and George Mason University. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
(7) Stoll-Kleemann, S., O'Riordan, T., & Jaeger, C. C. (2001). The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups. Global Environmental Change, 11(2), 107-117.
(8) Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81-97.
(9) Cialdini, R.B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105-109.
(10) Nolan, J.M., Schultz, P.W., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., & Vladas Griskevicius (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34, 913-923.
(11) Schultz, P.W., Khazian, A.M., & Zaleski, A.C. (2008). Using normative social influence to promote conservation among hotel guests. Social Influence, 3, 4-23.
(12) Doherty, T. J., & Clayton, S. (2011). The psychological impacts of global climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 265.