Abstract
Despite the serious threat of climate change to sustainability, people in the United States feel little urgency to address the issue. The goal of this research project was to use psychological methods to better understand why Americans respond to climate change the way they do, and to assess strategies to spur a stronger action-oriented response. Using Construal Level Theory as a foundation, three psychological studies explored the perceived psychological distance of climate change, empathy toward victims of climate change, and people’s willingness to take action. Past research suggests that perceptions of low psychological distance toward climate change are associated with higher concern and willingness to take action. In the current research, participants read short scenarios about climate change and how it impacts specific victims, such as geographically and socially similar people (low psychological distance) or a geographically and socially dissimilar social agent such as an animal (high psychological distance). Using both self-report surveys and implicit methods, our studies examined the relationship between psychological distance and response to climate change. Consistent with other research, we found that psychologically closer framings of climate change do not always effectively ameliorate psychological distance, nor result in greater intention to act. Our results further suggest that people may engage in psychological distancing when faced with climate change suffering. These findings provide important insights for effective communication about challenging sustainability issues.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an Implicit Association Test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 609–622. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.609.
Berenguer, J. (2007). The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 39, 269–283. doi:10.1177/0013916506292937.
Brügger, A., Morton, T. A., & Dessai, S. (2016). “Proximizing” climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 125–142. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.004.
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2009). The biological basis of empathy. In J. T. Cacioppo & G. G. Bernston (Eds.), Handbook of neuroscience for the behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley.
Gattig, A., & Hendrickx, L. (2007). Judgmental discounting and environmental risk perception: Dimensional similarities, domain differences, and implications for sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 1, 21–39. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00494.x.
Gifford, R., & Comeau, L. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1301–1307. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.004.
Greenwald, A., & Banaji, M. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4.
Jones, C., Hine, D. W., & Marks, A. D. G. (2016). The future is now: Reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Analysis. doi:10.1111/risa.12601.
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2010). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246.
Leiserowitz, A. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1433–1442. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N. (2011). Global Warming’s Six Americas, May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
Leviston, Z., Price, J., & Bishop, B. (2014). Imagining climate change: The role of implicit associations and affective psychological distancing in climate change responses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 441–454. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2050.
Lu, H., & Schuldt, J. (2016). Compassion for climate change victims and support for mitigation policy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 192–200. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.007.
Marx, S. M., Weber, E. U., Orlove, B. S., Leiserowitz, A., Krantz, D. H., Roncoli, C., et al. (2007). Communication and mental processes: Experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Uncertainty and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, 17(1), 47–58. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.10.004.
McDonald, R. I., Chai, H. Y., & Newell, B. R. (2015). Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: An integrative review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 109–118. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003.
Milfont, T. L. (2010). Global warming, climate change and human psychology. In V. Corral-Verdugo, C. H. García-Cadena, & M. Frías-Arment (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability: Current trends in theory, research and practice. New York: Nova Science.
Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The Go/No-Go Association Task. Social Cognition, 19(6), 625–664.
Pahl, S., & Bauer, J. (2013). Overcoming the distance: Perspective taking with future humans improves environmental engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45, 155–169. doi:10.1177/0013916511417618.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2011). Personally relevant climate change. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60–85. doi:10.1177/0013916511421196.
Schultz, P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391–406. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00174.
Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957–972. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. doi:10.1037/a0018963.
Weber, E. U. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77, 103–120. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Manning, C. et al. (2018). Psychological Distance and Response to Human Versus Non-Human Victims of Climate Change. In: Leal Filho, W., Marans, R., Callewaert, J. (eds) Handbook of Sustainability and Social Science Research. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67122-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67122-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67121-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67122-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)