Search for: All records

This research examines the extent to which four anticipatory emotional reactions (hope, anxiety, helplessness, and boredom) that arise when contemplating participating in public-sphere climate action predict intentions to engage in such action. In a large, geographically diverse sample of American adults visiting informal science learning centers (e.g., zoos, aquariums; N = 4964), stronger feelings of hope robustly predicted greater intentions to act (η2p = .22, a large effect); whereas stronger feelings of boredom robustly predicted decreased intention to act (η2p = .09, a medium effect). Both of these feelings had significantly more predictive power than political orientation (η2p = .04, a small-to-medium effect). The extent to which respondents felt anxious or helpless was not strongly correlated with their intentions to take action (η2ps ≈ 0.01, a small effect). These findings highlight the underexplored connection between how people feel when they contemplate taking climate action and their intentions to engage in such action. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic’s wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon—an event that hinges on human-to-human contact—we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger—not weaker—in its wake.