Prior research has shown a tendency for environmental problems to be rated as more severe at the global level than at the local level. The present article reports reanalyses of a large cross-cultural data set (Study 1: k = 22, N = 3,277) and new cross-cultural data (Study 2: k = 8, N = 1,131) examining the prevalence of this spatial bias in the rated severity of environmental problems Article 268 Environment and Behavior 46(3)along with analyses of individual and country-level predictors of this bias. Results from multilevel modeling analyses showed that spatial bias was greater for happier and younger individuals and for those from smaller communities. We interpret these results as evidence for self-serving and "place-serving" biases in which the bias tempers the severity of environmental problems in one's local area. Considering the large cross-cultural evidence, we argue that spatial bias is a plausible candidate of a psychological universal identified by research in environmental psychology.

Is it all about awareness? The normalization of coastal riskCoastal risk is already high in several parts of the world and is expected to be amplified by climate change, which makes it necessary to outline effective risk management strategies. Risk managers assume that increasing awareness of coastal risk is the key to public support and endorsement of risk management strategies -an assumption that underlies a common worldview on the public understanding of science, which has been named the deficit model. We argue that the effects of awareness are not as straightforward. In particular, awareness of coastal hazards might not lead to more technically-accurate risk perceptions.Based on research on risk perception normalization, we explored the hypothesis that coastal risk awareness reduces coastal risk perception -in particular the perceived likelihood of occurrence of coastal hazards-through its effect on reliance on protective measures to prevent risk. Individuals can rely on protective measures, even when those are not effective, as a positive illusion to reduce risk perception. This effect might be stronger for higher-probability hazards and for permanent residents of costal zones. Data from 410 individuals living in coastal zones corroborated most of our expectations. Global results demonstrated a risk normalization effect mediated by reliance on current measures. Additional analyses made clear that this effect occurred in 2 of the 5 high-probability hazards (flood and storm), and not in the low-probability hazard (tsunami).Normalization might be more likely among high-probability hazards which entail catastrophic and immediate impacts. This effect was also found among permanent residents, but not among temporary residents. Results imply that coastal risk management might benefit from a) taking risk perception normalization effects into account, b) tailoring strategies for permanent and temporary residents, and c) promoting a higher public engagement, which would facilitate a more adaptive and effective coping with coastal risk than the use of positive illusions.

Raising awareness of climate change causes? Cross-national evidence for the normalization of societal risk perception of climate change Increasing the awareness of climate change causes is often considered the key to public support of mitigation and adaptation policies. However, higher awareness might not always relate to higher risk perceptions. Previous research suggests that a process of risk normalization might occur, wherein individuals more exposed and aware of hazards minimize their risk perception to psychologically cope with hazards. This study elaborates on and expands this research, by conducting multilevel analyses on more recent data from the International Social Survey Programme from 33 countries (N = 46,221). Results show that in countries with higher carbon dioxide emissions, where people are more exposed to the activities and technologies related to climate change, individuals tend to have lower societal risk perceptions of climate change due to their higher awareness of climate change causes. New insight is provided, as results confirm this effect of risk normalization after controlling for the country socioeconomic context and individual-level covariates (gender, age, education, political orientation, place of living). Of most relevance, results further illustrate that this effect is moderated by individuals´ environmental concern.

Stakeholder engagement in the processes of planning local adaptation to climate change faces many challenges. The goal of this work was to explore whether or not the intention of engaging could be understood (Study 1) and promoted (Study 2), by using an extension of the theory of planned behaviour. In Study 1, stakeholders from three European Mediterranean case studies were surveyed: Baixo Vouga Lagunar (Portugal), SCOT Provence Méditerranée (France), and the island of Crete (Greece) (N = 115). Stakeholders' intention of engaging was significantly predicted by subjective norm (which was predicted by injunctive normative beliefs towards policy-makers and stakeholders) and by perceived behavioural control (which was predicted by knowledge of policy and instruments). Study 2 was conducted in the Baixo Vouga Lagunar case study and consisted of a two-workshop intervention where issues on local and regional adaptation, policies, and engagement were presented and discussed. A within-participants comparison of initial survey results with results following the workshops (N = 12, N = 15, N = 12) indicated that these were successful in increasing stakeholders' intention of engaging. This increase was paired with a) an increase in injunctive normative beliefs towards policy-makers and consequently in subjective norm, and to b) a decrease in perceived complexity of planning local adaptation and an increase in knowledge regarding adaptation to climate change.

(2015): Consumers' avoidance of information on red meat risks: information exposure effects on attitudes and perceived knowledge, Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2014 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.1003318 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLETaylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. In accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, individuals generally avoid information that is not consistent with their cognitions, to avoid psychological discomfort associated with tensions arising from contradictory beliefs. Information avoidance may thus make risk communication less successful. To address this, we presented information on red meat risks to red meat consumers. To explore information exposure effects, attitudes toward red meat and perceived knowledge of red meat risks were measured before, immediately after, and two weeks after exposure. We expected information avoidance of red meat risks to be: positively related to (1) study discontentment; and (2) positive attitudes toward red meat; and negatively related to (3) information seeking on red meat risks; and (4) systematic and heuristic processing of information. In addition, following exposure to the risk information, we expected that (5) individuals who scored high in avoidance of red meat risks information to change their attitudes and perceived risk knowledge less than individuals who scored low in avoidance. Results were in line with the first three expectations. Support for the fourth was partial insofar as this was only confirmed regarding systematic processing. The final prediction was not confirmed; individuals who scored high in avoidance decreased the positivity of their attitudes and increased their perceived knowledge in a similar fashion to those who scored low in avoidance. These changes stood over the two-week follow-up period. Results are discussed in accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, with the possible use of su...