Search for: All records

Abstract Why do (or do not) people encourage others in their social networks to adopt climate-friendly behaviors? Encouragement like this has been referred to as “relational organizing,” and can help scale up climate action across communities. Since relational organizing is a social behavior, it likely has its own specific barriers and motivations beyond what affects personal climate action. Food is a big part of our day-to-day lives and our relationships with people we care about. It also impacts the climate, ecosystems, animal welfare, and our own health. As such, people’s climate-friendly food choices provide an ideal case study to explore drivers of relational organizing. Using an online survey with two North American samples of motivated audiences (one US-wide animal advocacy community,N = 1166, and one environmentally focused community in Boulder, Colorado,N = 363), we sought to identify and categorize the social–psychological barriers to and drivers of relational organizing for climate-friendly food choices. Using exploratory factor analysis and predictive models, we found that self-efficacy in carrying out the personal behavior, response efficacy beliefs, supportive social norms, and personal aptitude in relational organizing (e.g., personal norms) predicted relational organizing action after the survey. People’s sense of personal obligation to engage in relational organizing (i.e., personal norms), beliefs that would make a difference to important causes (i.e. response efficacy), and social identity beliefs around activism were particularly important. We discuss how these findings can help inform interventions related to climate-friendly diets, and what this means more broadly for how relational organizing can support climate action. 

Abstract Pluralistic ignorance—a shared misperception of how others think or behave—poses a challenge to collective action on problems like climate change. Using a representative sample of Americans (N = 6119), we examine whether Americans accurately perceive national concern about climate change and support for mitigating policies. We find a form of pluralistic ignorance that we describe as afalse social reality: a near universal perception of public opinion that is the opposite of true public sentiment. Specifically, 80–90% of Americans underestimate the prevalence of support for major climate change mitigation policies and climate concern. While 66–80% Americans support these policies, Americans estimate the prevalence to only be between 37–43% on average. Thus, supporters of climate policies outnumber opponents two to one, while Americans falsely perceive nearly the opposite to be true. Further, Americans in every state and every assessed demographic underestimate support across all polices tested. Preliminary evidence suggests three sources of these misperceptions: (i) consistent with a false consensus effect, respondents who support these policies less (conservatives) underestimate support by a greater degree; controlling for one’s own personal politics, (ii) exposure to more conservative local norms and (iii) consuming conservative news correspond to greater misperceptions.