The Psychological Distance of Climate Change
Corresponding Author
Alexa Spence
Horizon Digital Economy Research/School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Alexa Spence, Horizon Digital Economy Research, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, UK N67 2TU; alexa.spence@nottingham.ac.uk.Search for more papers by this authorWouter Poortinga
Welsh School of Architecture/School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Search for more papers by this authorNick Pidgeon
Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Alexa Spence
Horizon Digital Economy Research/School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Alexa Spence, Horizon Digital Economy Research, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, UK N67 2TU; alexa.spence@nottingham.ac.uk.Search for more papers by this authorWouter Poortinga
Welsh School of Architecture/School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Search for more papers by this authorNick Pidgeon
Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Avoiding dangerous climate change is one of the most urgent social risk issues we face today and understanding related public perceptions is critical to engaging the public with the major societal transformations required to combat climate change. Analyses of public perceptions have indicated that climate change is perceived as distant on a number of different dimensions. However, to date there has been no in-depth exploration of the psychological distance of climate change. This study uses a nationally representative British sample in order to systematically explore and characterize each of the four theorized dimensions of psychological distance—temporal, social, and geographical distance, and uncertainty—in relation to climate change. We examine how each of these different aspects of psychological distance relate to each other as well as to concerns about climate change and sustainable behavior intentions. Results indicate that climate change is both psychologically distant and proximal in relation to different dimensions. Lower psychological distance was generally associated with higher levels of concern, although perceived impacts on developing countries, as an indicator of social distance, was also significantly related to preparedness to act on climate change. Our findings clearly point to the utility of risk communication techniques designed to reduce psychological distance. However, highlighting the potentially very serious distant impacts of climate change may also be useful in promoting sustainable behavior, even among those already concerned.
REFERENCES
- 1 Brechin SR. Public opinion: A cross-national view. In C Lever-Tracy (ed). The Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. London : Routledge, 2010.
- 2 Spence A, Pidgeon NF. Psychology, climate change and sustainable behaviour. Environment, 2009; 51(6): 8–18.
- 3 American Psychological Association. Psychology and Global Climate Change. APA, 2010.
- 4 Liberman N, Trope Y. The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 2008; 322: 1201–1205.
- 5 Milfont TL. Global warming, climate change and human psychology. In V Corral-Verdugo, CH Garcia-Cadana, M Frias-Arment (eds). Psychological Approaches to Sustainability: Current Trends in Theory, Research and Practice. New York : Nova Science, 2010.
- 6 Rayner S, Malone EL. Zen and the art of climate maintenance. Nature, 1997; 390: 332–334.
- 7 Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon N. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 2006; 77: 73–95.
- 8 Spence A, Poortinga W, Butler C, Pidgeon N. Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature Climate Change, 2011; 1: 46–49.
- 9 Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). Attitudes to Climate Change—Wave 3. UK : HM Government, 2006.
- 10 Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF, Lorenzoni I. Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted During October and November 2005. Technical Report (Understanding Risk Working Paper 06–02). Norwich : Centre for Environmental Risk, 2006.
- 11 Pidgeon NF, Lorenzoni I, Poortinga W. Climate change or nuclear power—No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 2008; 18: 69–85.
- 12 Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N. Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in January 2010. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven , CT : Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2010.
- 13 Department for Transport. Public Attitudes Towards Climate Change and the Impact of Transport: 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (January 2010 report), 2010. Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/trsnstatsatt/climatechngeandtranport1, Accessed on 13th May, 2010.
- 14 Eurobarometer. Europeans attitudes towards climate change (Special Eurobarometer 332). Europe : European Commission, 2009. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_322_en.pdf, Accessed on July, 2010.
- 15 BBC News. UN body wants probe of climate e-mail row, 2009. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8394483.stm, Accessed on 12th May, 2010.
- 16 BBC News. Himalayan glaciers melting deadline “a mistake,” 2009. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387737.stm. Accessed on 12th May, 2010.
- 17 EDF/YouGov. YouGov/EDF energy survey results, 2010. Available at: http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-EDF-energy-130510.pdf. Accessed on 4th June, 2010.
- 18 Energy Saving Trust. Green barometer: Measuring environmental attitudes. London : Energy Saving Trust, 2007. Available at: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/aboutest/Green-Barometer-Web(spread).pdf, Accessed on 14th September, 2011.
- 19 Bord RJ, Fisher A, O’Connor RE. Public perceptions of global warming: United States and international perspectives. Climate Research, 1998; 11: 75–84.
- 20 Bar-Anan Y, Liberman N, Trope Y, Algom D. Automatic processing of psychological distance: Evidence from a stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2007; 136: 610–622.
- 21 Förster J, Friedman R, Liberman N. Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004; 87: 177–189.
- 22 Wakslak CJ, Trope Y, Liberman N, Alone R. Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2006; 135: 641–653.
- 23 Smith PK, Trope Y. You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006; 90: 578–596.
- 24 Liberman N, Trope Y, McCrae SM, Sherman SJ. The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2007; 43: 143–149.
- 25 Liberman MD, Gaunt R, Gilbert DT, Trope Y. Reflexion and reflection: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference. Pp. 199–249 in MP Zanna (ed). Vol. 34. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York : Academic Press, 2002.
- 26 Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 2002; 57: 705–717.
- 27 Locke EA, Latham GP. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs , NJ : Prentice Hall, 1990.
- 28 Locke EA, Chah D, Harrison S, Lustgarten, N. Separating the effects of goal specificity from goal level. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 1989; 43: 270–287.
- 29 Rothkopf E, Billington M. Goal-guided learning from text: Inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979; 71: 310–327.
- 30 Bryan J, Locke E. Goal setting as a means of increasing motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967; 51: 274–277.
- 31 Sales M. Some effects of role overload and role underload. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 1970; 5: 592–608.
- 32 Wood R, Locke E. Goal setting and strategy effects on complex tasks. Pp. 73–109 in B Staw, L Cummings (eds). Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 12. Greenwich , CT : JAI Press, 1990.
- 33
Gollwitzer PM.
Goal achievement: The role of intentions. Pp.
141–185
in
W Stroebe,
M Hewstone (eds). European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 4.
Chicester
: Wiley, 1993.
10.1080/14792779343000059 Google Scholar
- 34 Rabinovich A, Morton TA, Postmes T, Verplanken, B. Think global, act local: The effect of goal and mindset specificity on willingness to donate to an environmental organisation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2009; 29: 391–399.
- 35 Spence A, Pidgeon NF. Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 2010; 20: 656–667.
- 36 Confalonieri UB, Menne R, Akhtar KL, Ebi M, Hauengue RS, Kovats B, Revich , Woodward A. Human health. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In ML Parry, OF Canziani, JP Palutikof, PJ van der Linden, CE Hanson (eds). Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge , UK : Cambridge University Press, 2007.
- 37 Dunlap RE, Gallup GH, Gallup AM. “Of global concern”: Results of the health of the planet survey. Environment, 1993; 35: 7–15.
- 38 Gifford R, Scannell L, Lormos C, Smolova L, Uzzell D. Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: An 18-nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2009; 29: 1–12.
- 39 Uzzell D. The psycho-spatial dimension to global environmental problems. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2000; 20(4): 307–318.
- 40 Rathzel N, Uzzell D. Changing relations in global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 2009; 19: 326–335.
- 41 Weber EU. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 2006; 77: 103–120.
- 42 Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 2007; 17: 445–459.
- 43 Sagristano M, Trope Y, Liberman J. Time-dependent gambling: Odds now, money later. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2002; 131: 364.
- 44 Ainslie G. Specious reward: A behavioural theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 1975; 82: 463–496.
- 45 Loewenstein G, Elster J (eds). Choice Over Time. New York : Russell Sage, 1992.
- 46 Weber E. What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change, 2010; 1: 332–342.
- 47 Weber EU, Johnson EJ, Milch K, Chang H, Brodscholl J, Goldstein D. Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice: A query theory account. Psychological Science, 2007; 18: 516–523.
- 48 Rabinovich A, Morton T, Postmes T. Time perspective and attitude-behaviour consistency in future-oriented behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2010; 49: 69–89.
- 49 Poortinga W, Spence A, Whitmarsh L, Capstick S, Pidgeon NF. Uncertain climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Global Environmental Change, 2011; 21: 1015–1024.
- 50 MORI. Social Marketing and Climate Change: Tipping Point or Turning point? Ipsos MORI, UK , 2007.
- 51 Langer G. ABC News/Planet Green/Stanford Poll: Environment/Energy, 2008. Available at http://woods.stanford.edu/research/surveys.html, Accessed 4 November, 2009.
- 52 Patt A, Dessai S. Communicating uncertainty: Lessons learned and suggestions for climate change assessment. Geoscience, 2005; 337: 425–441.
- 53 Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 1979; 47: 263–292.
- 54 Stoll-Kleemann S, O’Riordan T, Jaeger CC. The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: Evidence from Swiss focus groups. Global Environmental Change, 2001; 11: 107–18.
- 55 Kortenkamp KV, Moore CF. Time, uncertainty, and individual differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2006; 32: 603–615.
- 56 Spence A, Venables D, Pidgeon N, Poortinga W, Demski C. Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January–March 2010. Technical Report (Understanding Risk Working Paper 10–01). Cardiff : School of Psychology, 2010.
- 57
Ferguson E,
Cox T.
Exploratory factor analysis: A users guide.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1993; 1: 84–94.
10.1111/j.1468-2389.1993.tb00092.x Google Scholar
- 58 Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 1992; 112: 155–159.
- 59 Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS macro for multiple mediation, 2008. Available at http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes, Accessed on 3 March, 2010.
- 60 Weber EU, Stern PC. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 2011; 66: 315–328.
- 61 Pidgeon NF, Fischhoff B. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Climate Change, 2011; 1: 35–41.
- 62 Pidgeon NF, Butler C. Risk analysis and climate change. Environmental Politics, 2009; 18: 670–688.
- 63 DEFRA. Adapting to Climate Change: UK Climate Projections. London , UK : DEFRA, 2009.
- 64 Somerville RCJ. How much should the public know about climate science? Climatic Change, 2011; 104: 509–514.