• 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.

Despite growing scientific alarm about anthropogenic climate change, the world is not on track to solve the crisis. Inaction may be partially explained by skepticism about climate change and resistance to proenvironmental policies from people who are motivated to maintain the status quo (i.e., conservative-rightists). Therefore, practical interventions are needed. In the present research program, we tested an experimental manipulation derived from system justification theory in which proenvironmental initiatives were framed as patriotic and necessary to maintain the American “way of life.” In a large, nationally representative U.S. sample, we found that the system-sanctioned change intervention successfully increased liberal-leftists’ as well as conservative-rightists’ belief in climate change; support for proenvironmental policies; and willingness to share climate information on social media. Similar messages were effective in an aggregated analysis involving 63 countries, although the overall effect sizes were small. More granular exploratory analyses at the country level revealed that while the intervention was moderately successful in some countries (e.g., Brazil, France, Israel), it backfired in others (Germany, Belgium, Russia). Across the three outcome variables, the effects of the intervention were consistent and pronounced in the United States, in support of the hypothesis that system justification motivation can be harnessed on behalf of social change. Potential explanations for divergent country-level effects are discussed. The system-sanctioned change intervention holds considerable promise for policymakers and communicators seeking to increase climate awareness and action.

AbstractIn the U.S. and other Western nations, one demographic group is most likely to downplay anthropogenic climate change and its consequences, to embrace the “discourse of delay,” and to resist pro‐environmental policies: conservative white men. In this article, we bring together critical, feminist perspectives on masculinity and environmental dominance and social psychological insights from system justification theory to hypothesize that identity‐protective cognition, material interests, and ideological legitimation processes combine and reinforce one another to motivate obstructionism when it comes to taking climate action. Our hope is that by integrating critical and empirical approaches to social science—and illuminating individual and group psychological factors that are embedded in specific historical and political settings—it will be possible to increase solidarity among environmental scholars and activists and forge a shared vision of climate justice across disciplines.

The contemporary political landscape is characterized by numerous divisive issues. Unlike many other issues, however, much of the disagreement about climate change centers not on how best to take action to address the problem, but on whether the problem exists at all. Psychological studies indicate that, to the extent that sustainability initiatives are seen as threatening to the socioeconomic system, individuals may downplay environmental problems in order to defend and protect the status quo. In the current research, participants were presented with scientific information about climate change and later asked to recall details of what they had learned. Individuals who were experimentally induced (Study 1) or dispositionally inclined (Studies 2 and 3) to justify the economic system misremembered the evidence to be less serious, and this was associated with increased skepticism. However, when high system justifiers were led to believe that the economy was in a recovery, they recalled climate change information to be more serious than did those assigned to a control condition. When low system justifiers were led to believe that the economy was in recession, they recalled the information to be less serious (Study 3). These findings suggest that because system justification can impact information processing, simply providing the public with scientific evidence may be insufficient to inspire action to mitigate climate change. However, linking environmental information to statements about the strength of the economic system may satiate system justification needs and break the psychological link between proenvironmental initiatives and economic risk. (PsycINFO Database Record