‍Have you ever wondered why there are so many climate change deniers, despite compelling evidence from scientists? Certain psychological barriers play a role in the process of denial and can make it difficult for people to realise the emergency of the situation. What are these psychological barriers and how are they manifested in daily life? Furthermore, is it possible to promote pro-environmental behaviours in climate change deniers through politics? How so?

This article will cover:

• Introduction

• Psychological biases
• Depoliticizing climate change discourse: a solution?

Introduction

Despite scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change, and efforts by individuals and communities to reduce the impact of human activities on the environment, many choose to deny this impact. Personally, I had a difficult time understanding why exactly climate change deniers think this way, given the evidence. However, being a psychology student, I acknowledge that humans aren’t perfect. As we’ve mentioned many time already, our actions and thoughts are easily influenced by our own psychological biases.

Learning about these biases are a first step in designing successful behavioural change interventions. What is interesting is that people who believe in climate change can also have these biases in regard to inaction. Identifying and understanding these biases can be helpful in bettering ourselves to make more rational decisions, as well as understand where the beliefs of climate change deniers come from. Perhaps even better, we can discuss these biases with them.

Psychological biases

Psychological bias, also known as cognitive bias, refers to unconscious errors in thinking that arise from problems related to memory, attention, and other mental mistakes[7]. Rather than looking at objective evidence, individuals construct their own subjective reality from their perception of the evidence, and this can dictate their behavior[6,7]. Psychological bias is often a result of our attempts to simplify information processing[5,6].

Robert Gifford described in his article “The Dragons of Inaction”, seven psychological biases in people who reject the idea of climate change, and also people who believe in it but are not actively attempting to make changes[3]. According to him, aside from structural barriers in our society, psychological biases also impede behavioural choices that would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental sustainability. Below we discuss these seven biases[3].

1.   Limited cognition about the problem - Research suggests that people are more likely to take a problem seriously when it is immediate, but are less likely to do so when the problems appear in the future[3,6]. People cling onto the idea that their environment consists of too many elements and they are unable to monitor them. Therefore, they only attend to things causing immediate problems, which climate-change-deniers believe climate change doesn’t do. Media descriptions of climate change may also contribute to this bias by not directly showing humans as a receiver of its consequences. Instead, the many pictures of damaged environment suggests that we are not directly threatened[2,6].

2.    Ideologies - many climate change deniers believe that humans should not interfere with “the natural change in the world” due to religious beliefs[3]. Another belief is the ideology of system justification, which refers to the defence and justification of the status quo, so as to not interfere with their comfortable lifestyle[3].

3.    Comparison with others - we have a natural tendency to compare our behaviours and situations with others[9]. For example, the norms and beliefs we were raised with have a significant influence on ours. When one is raised in a community in which anti-climate beliefs and behaviour patterns dominate, they are more likely to adapt to those norms[3]. Furthermore, another classic example of this bias is the “why should I change if they won’t?” argument[3]. Usually, famous politicians or other nations are quoted as not cooperating, which serves as a justification for nonaction.

4.    Sunk costs - If people change their behaviours very often, their lives would be more disordered than they wished and less time and effort would be available to pursue goals deemed valuable[3,6]. Pro-environmental behaviours are not on the agenda of climate change deniers, therefore, investments in it are believed to be useless and not goal fulfilling[3].

5.    Discredence - When individuals view others negatively, they are unlikely to take advice from them[3,6,8]. These negative views manifest themselves in many ways, such as a lack of trust in others without regard to evidence, believing what others offer is inadequate, and a complete denial of the problem[3]. An example is someone that downright rejects evidence from research because they view scientists as “annoying, misleading authority figures”.

6.    Perceived risk - One’s perception of risk is important in deciding to reject climate change altogether to avoid potential risks completely[3]. For example, consider social risk. If one considers to openly support climate change in their community that is dominated by climate-change-deniers, will they do it?  If one decides to take the bicycle to school everyday, while their peers use private cars, will they be worried about being laughed at or ridiculed? If the individual is more strongly aversive to the idea of negative judgement from peers rather than a damaged environment, they might not perform the pro-environmental action[3].

7.    Limited behaviour - One popular type of limited behavior is tokenism, in which after completing one small task, the individual feels that they have done their part to mitigate climate change[3]. The rest of the work is the responsibility of others. In reality, they could be doing much more to help. In climate-change-deniers, individuals may simply believe that their action is not enough to combat[1,6].

Depoliticising climate change discourse: a solution?

Now that we’ve discussed seven common biases often seen in climate change deniers, we wonder whether pro-environmental behaviours can be promoted in climate-change-deniers. While it sounds impossible, it is not necessarily true! Social and cognitive psychologists have been doing research on how to do this[2].

An interesting idea is that the ways in which discourse around climate change is done influences one’s views of it. Climate change discourse is usually tied to politics[6]. In the US, climate change discourse is associated with the liberal Democrats. In a research study, people who identify as right-wing were less likely to believe in the anthropogenic cause of climate change and less likely to support climate change policies, ONLY when their political ideology was made salient, not when they were asked without context[10]. This is interesting because it suggests that social identity is important in influencing one’s beliefs. The Social Identity Theory suggests that this is so because our social identity is an important source of pride and self-esteem and fulfils our sense of belongingness in the world[4,9]. Essentially, there is a sense of loyalty towards the Democratic community, just as Republicans feel loyal towards their Republican community too.

To promote pro-environmental behaviours in climate change deniers, many political scientists and psychologists support “depoliticizing” discourse around climate change[2,8]. This simply means to make the term more inclusive amongst both republicans and democrats, or right-wing and left-wing supporters. Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker suggests reframing climate change around topics that interest both communities[8]. For example, climate change issues can be reframed as economic development, sustainability, resource management, or public health initiatives[8]. Reframing climate change into these terms focuses on the impact of climate change solutions on human society rather than on the environment, as a focus on helping the environment are seen as a political issue by republicans[2,8].

In a research study, climate change deniers were more likely to act pro-environmentally when they thought climate change action would create a society where people are more considerate and caring, and where there is greater economic and technological development. Furthermore, the study found that framing climate change action as increasing consideration for others, or improving economic/ technological development led to greater pro-environmental actions in deniers rather than framing climate change action as avoiding the risks of climate change[2].

‍

In conclusion…

Many psychological biases influence the beliefs of climate change deniers. Social identity/affiliation interacts with these psychological biases. Research has also been investigating ways to promote pro-environmental behaviours in climate change deniers. One interesting area of exploration is depoliticizing climate change discourse so that people of different political affiliations are motivated to engage in the action.

‍

What do you think? Might depoliticizing climate change discourse be an option to promote pro-environmental behaviours? Or do you have other ideas in mind?

‍

Bibliography

‍

1. Allen, M. S., Robson, D. A., Martin, L. J., & Laborde, S. (2019). Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Self-Serving Attribution Biases in the Competitive Context of Organized Sport. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(7), 1027–1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219893995
2. Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R., & Jeffries, C. (2012). Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change, 2(8), 603. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1636
3. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
4. Mcleod, S. (2008). Social Identity Theory | Simply Psychology. Simplypsychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html
5. Orzan, G., Zara, I. A., & Purcarea, V. L. (2012). Neuromarketing techniques in pharmaceutical drugs advertising. A discussion and agenda for future research. Journal of Medicine and Life, 5(4), 428.
6. Public understandings of climate change | APS. (n.d.). Australian Psychological Society. https://psychology.org.au/community/advocacy-social-issues/environment-climate-change-psychology/resources-for-psychologists-and-others-advocating/public-understanding-of-climate-change
7. Ruhl, C. (2021, May 4). What Is Cognitive Bias? | Simply Psychology. Simplypsychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-bias.html
8. Sreedhar, P. (2019, September 30). Depoliticizing Climate Change to Find a Solution. COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW. http://www.cpreview.org/blog/2019/10/depoliticizing-climate-change-to-find-a-solution
9. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1170-96
10. Unsworth, K. L., & Fielding, K. S. (2014). It’s political: How the salience of one’s political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Global Environmental Change, 27, 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.002

‍