Search for: All records

The current study reviews key social psychological mechanisms related to conflict and conflict resolution that manifest within both the coronavirus pandemic and climate change crises. The uncertainty, scale, and nature of both global crises generate various forms of individual‐ and group‐level conflicts that, mediated by psychological and cultural phenomena, impede beneficial action and sustainable adaptation. Specifically, we highlight five social psychological mechanisms (i.e., cognitive dissonance, responsibility diffusion, compassion fatigue, dehumanization, and competitive beliefs) known to interact with, produce, and amplify intrapersonal, interpersonal, and/or intergroup conflicts. We draw attention to how these mechanisms have been activated by the pandemic in ways that share important similarities with climate change and present evidence‐informed approaches to combating their contribution to conflict (i.e., motivating behavior change, implementing accountability mechanisms, creating collective action opportunities, fostering intergroup contact, and promoting perspective‐taking). By engaging social psychological research to better understand both the roots of conflict as well as outline potential individual, community, and societal responses that can help alleviate conflict during these global crises, we can increase our ability to successfully navigate and in some cases avoid future conflicts caused by climate change.

This article is categorized under:

Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Behavior Change and Responses

 

Climate change poses a multifaceted, complex, and existential threat to human health and well-being, but efforts to communicate these threats to the public lag behind what we know how to do in communication research. Effective communication about climate change’s health risks can improve a wide variety of individual and population health-related outcomes by: (1) helping people better make the connection between climate change and health risks and (2) empowering them to act on that newfound knowledge and understanding. The aim of this manuscript is to highlight communication methods that have received empirical support for improving knowledge uptake and/or driving higher-quality decision making and healthier behaviors and to recommend how to apply them at the intersection of climate change and health. This expert consensus about effective communication methods can be used by healthcare professionals, decision makers, governments, the general public, and other stakeholders including sectors outside of health. In particular, we argue for the use of 11 theory-based, evidence-supported communication strategies and practices. These methods range from leveraging social networks to making careful choices about the use of language, narratives, emotions, visual images, and statistics. Message testing with appropriate groups is also key. When implemented properly, these approaches are likely to improve the outcomes of climate change and health communication efforts.

 

This study investigated whether misalignment between an individual and their community in partisan identity predicted psychological and behavioral distancing from local COVID-19 norms. A nationally representative sample of Republicans and Democrats provided longitudinal data in April ( N = 3,492) and June 2020 ( N = 2,649). Democrats in Republican communities reported especially heightened better-than-average estimates, perceiving themselves as more adherent to and approving of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI; e.g., mask wearing) than their community. Democrats’ better-than-average estimates reflected high approval and behavior in Republican communities and substantial norm underestimation. Republicans in Democratic communities did not evidence worse-than-average estimates. In longitudinal models, injunctive norms only predicted NPI behavior when individual and community partisan identity were aligned. The strong personal approval-behavior association did not depend on misalignment; there were no effects of descriptive norms. Normative messages may have limited efficacy for a sizable subpopulation in politically polarized contexts, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

The adoption of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies at a scale sufficient to draw down carbon emissions will require both individual and collective decisions that happen over time in different locations to enable a massive scale-up. Members of the public and other decision-makers have not yet formed strong attitudes, beliefs and preferences about most of the individual CDR technologies or taken positions on policy mechanisms and tax-payer support for CDR. Much of the current discourse among scientists, policy analysts and policy-makers about CDR implicitly assumes that decision-makers will exhibit unbiased, rational behaviour that weighs the costs and benefits of CDR. In this paper, we review behavioural decision theory and discuss how public reactions to CDR will be different from and more complex than that implied by rational choice theory. Given that people do not form attitudes and opinions in a vacuum, we outline how fundamental social normative principles shape important intergroup, intragroup and social network processes that influence support for or opposition to CDR technologies. We also point to key insights that may help stakeholders craft public outreach strategies that anticipate the nuances of how people evaluate the risks and benefits of CDR approaches. Finally, we outline critical research questions to understand the behavioural components of CDR to plan for an emerging public response.