• Energy Research

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.

Most people believe in human-caused climate change, yet this public consensus can be collectively underestimated ( pluralistic ignorance ). Across two studies using primary data ( n = 3,653 adult participants; 11 countries) and secondary data ( n s = 60,230 and 22,496 adult participants; 55 countries), we tested (a) the generalizability of pluralistic ignorance about climate-change beliefs, (b) the effects of a public-consensus intervention on climate action, and (c) the possibility that cultural tightness-looseness might serve as a country-level predictor of pluralistic ignorance. In Study 1, people across 11 countries underestimated the prevalence of proclimate views by at least 7.5% in Indonesia (90% credible interval, or CrI = [5.0, 10.1]), and up to 20.8% in Brazil (90% CrI = [18.2, 23.4]. Providing information about the actual public consensus on climate change was largely ineffective, except for a slight increase in willingness to express one’s proclimate opinion, δ = 0.05 (90% CrI = [−0.02, 0.11]). In Study 2, pluralistic ignorance about willingness to contribute financially to fight climate change was slightly more pronounced in looser than tighter cultures, highlighting the particular need for pluralistic-ignorance research in these countries.

Abstract The #FridaysForFuture movement has attracted young activists around the world. In the present mixed-method, socio-cultural psychological research, we investigate people's motivations for joining the movement in the privileged yet paradoxical context of Norway – a country that has gathered most of its wealth through oil production (i.e., the Norwegian Paradox). In Study 1, from a thematic analysis of in-depth ethnographic fieldwork from a series of major strikes and interviews with protestors (N = 93) it emerged that attributing responsibility for climate change, a necessity for shared action to mitigate the effects of climate change, and a shared sense of collective identity, helped to galvanize the prolonged social movement. These inductive and ecologically valid findings, combined with existing theory, in Study 2, partially confirmed and extended the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA; van Zomeren et al., 2008) with survey data from high school students (N = 362). Collective guilt, environmental threat, past protest participation, organized environmentalism, political orientation, and social capital predicted future protest intentions, whereas activist identification and group efficacy mediated these effects. We discuss how the understanding of global environmental movements from the perspective of participants, who are both structurally responsible for the crisis and will experience most of its consequences themselves, can contribute to the broader discussion on facilitating climate action within privileged contexts.

AbstractClimate change is currently one of humanity’s greatest threats. To help scholars understand the psychology of climate change, we conducted an online quasi-experimental survey on 59,508 participants from 63 countries (collected between July 2022 and July 2023). In a between-subjects design, we tested 11 interventions designed to promote climate change mitigation across four outcomes: climate change belief, support for climate policies, willingness to share information on social media, and performance on an effortful pro-environmental behavioural task. Participants also reported their demographic information (e.g., age, gender) and several other independent variables (e.g., political orientation, perceptions about the scientific consensus). In the no-intervention control group, we also measured important additional variables, such as environmentalist identity and trust in climate science. We report the collaboration procedure, study design, raw and cleaned data, all survey materials, relevant analysis scripts, and data visualisations. This dataset can be used to further the understanding of psychological, demographic, and national-level factors related to individual-level climate action and how these differ across countries.