Psychological, Social, and Cultural Barriers to Public Engagement With Climate Change

Abstract

Given the severity of the threat posed by climate change, why is large-scale societal action to decarbonize our energy systems not more widespread? The present article examines four categories of psychological barriers to accurate risk perceptions and engagement with this topic by the public. First, psychological barriers such as (a) not personally experiencing the threat, (b) not hearing people talk about climate change, (c) being limited by cultural narratives, and (d) not understanding how climate change works can lead to misperception of the threat posed by climate change. Second, individuals may lack knowledge or perceived ability about how to address the threat. Third, social barriers such as social norms not to act and socio-structural barriers can discourage climate change engagement. Finally, worldviews such as neoliberal ideology and conspiratorial worldviews can conflict with climate change engagement.

Country-level conditions like prosperity, democracy, and regulatory culture predict individual climate change belief

“…Moreover, I also estimate the degree to which exposure to climate change impacts [30][31][32] (measured with Global Adaptation Initiative's exposure index 33 ) and fossil fuel dependency 34 (both in terms of per capita emissions 35 and in carbon intensity per GDP 36 ) are associated with individual belief in human-made climate change. Finally, as norms on environmental protection and market regulation may influence individual receptiveness to climate change belief 12,37 , I analyze how well country-level environmental protection (measured with Yale's Environmental Performance Indicator 38 ) and market-liberalism (as in the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index 39 ) predict individual attitudes.…”

Abstract or concrete? The effect of climate change images on people’s estimation of egocentric psychological distance

“…In particular, local portrayal of climate change would encourage people’s concern, fear, and worry about the issue (Bloodhart et al, 2015; Spence et al, 2012). Whereas, construing climate change abstractly may make people view it as a global and distant issue, which might require collective rather than individual-level actions (Geiger et al, 2017).…”

“…Despite the discussion of the potential role that construal level plays in climate change communication (Geiger et al, 2017), past research has not empirically tested the possibly differential effects of abstract and concrete construals on people’s perceptions. Given that the distant and abstract nature of climate change has been a major obstacle to effective communication of the issue, understanding the role of abstraction in influencing one’s perceived egocentric psychological distance of climate change has broad significance for climate change communication and mitigation efforts.…”

The intergroup foundations of climate change justice

“…There are many social and psychological processes that lead to the rejection of the scientific consensus that climate change is a human-caused global problem (for reviews see Frantz & Mayer, 2009; Geiger, Middlewood, & Swim, 2017; Gifford, 2011; Weber & Stern, 2011). We do not attempt to capture all of the influences on perceptions of climate change, but instead focus on psychological intergroup processes relevant to the minimization of prejudice and discrimination as well as climate change as a geophysical and justice problem.…”

“…Thus, individuals from less impacted groups may feel a false sense of optimism because they feel relatively less threatened then people in other places. This optimism bias suggests that people are unlikely to have strong affective responses to climate change, especially relative to other problems that are more readily experienced (e.g., see Geiger, Middlewood, & Swim, 2017; McDonald, 2016; Weber, 2006).…”