Advertisement

Psychological Distance and Response to Human Versus Non-Human Victims of Climate Change

  • Christie Manning
  • Hannah Mangas
  • Elise Amel
  • Hongyi Tang
  • Laura Humes
  • Rowena Foo
  • Vera Sidlova
  • Kelly Cargos
Chapter
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)

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.

Keywords

Psychological distance Climate change Empathy Sustainability communication Framing 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berenguer, J. (2007). The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 39, 269–283. doi: 10.1177/0013916506292937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The Go/No-Go Association Task. Social Cognition, 19(6), 625–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2011). Personally relevant climate change. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60–85. doi: 10.1177/0013916511421196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christie Manning
    • 1
  • Hannah Mangas
    • 1
  • Elise Amel
    • 2
  • Hongyi Tang
    • 1
  • Laura Humes
    • 1
  • Rowena Foo
    • 1
  • Vera Sidlova
    • 1
  • Kelly Cargos
    • 1
  1. 1.Macalester CollegeSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.University of Saint ThomasSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations