Psychology of Climate Change
This research paper will present psychological research into the study of climate change (including, but not limited to : impacts of climate change on mental health, psychological barriers to action, and proposed strategies to transform attitudes) and will attempt to glean suggestions from psychological research for positive, effective teaching strategies to improve conservation outcomes and increase public support for both mitigation-oriented and preventative planning strategies which the majority of scientists now agree we desperately need to develop as an international community. Human behaviour and human ecology are important drivers in the uncontrolled spread of sickness and disease along with many other negative side effects associated with global climate change. Through understanding human behaviour, psychologists have the ability to offer insight into opportunities for solutions or, at the very least, offer some psychological therapeutic coping strategies for the resulting effects of the predicted global warming trends.
Spence and Pidgeon discuss the “obvious human, social, and cultural drivers of climate change – including household energy use; transportation; unsustainable food; manufacturing, and consumption patterns; and population growth” (10) in their article Psychology, Climate Change, & Sustainable Behaviour. This article argues that “of all the human sciences with a potential to contribute to the key task of understanding and informing behaviour change in the environmental domain, psychology, broadly defined as the study of human beliefs and behaviour, has been particularly underused” (Spence and Pidgeon 10). According to Spence and Pidgeon, designing “effective communication [strategies and delivery methods needed for climate change related issues] depends on a range of complex and often subtle factors” (10) and “by understanding this complexity, communications and policy developments can be better tailored” (Spence and Pidgeon 10) for successful outcomes. What these researchers also insist is that “there is a clear need…for psychologists and policy makers to work together when making judgments on the behaviours and technologies on which to focus national and community efforts. In this way, communications can be designed to focus on behaviours that are most important in the sense of maximizing carbon reductions, as well as those that have the greatest chance of uptake and maintenance” (Spence and Pidgeon 11). Psychology, as a discipline, has a great deal to offer, in terms of existing data and prospective research topics, in regards to addressing climate change related issues facing people, both in anticipation of the effects and as a result.
In Mental health effects of climate change, Padhy, Sarkar, Panigrahi, and Paul discuss the “expected mental health issues consequent to climate change” (3). This article predicts that “the impact of global climate change on health is likely to be substantial” (Padhy et. al 3) and lists predicted impacts of climate change on mental health including: increased rates of violence, aggression, and suicides associated with ambient temperatures, various “psychological consequence[s related to] climate related disasters” (Padhy et. al 4), the positive relationship between “drought and farmer suicide” (Padhy et. al 4), negative outcomes of “economic changes” (4), and “migration and acculturation stress” (Padhy et. al 5). The “association [between mental health and] physical illness” (Padhy et. al 5) is also noted.
According to Bourque and Willow “a wide range of climate-related mental health outcomes have already been documented as a result of both acute and longer term climate and environmental changes; elevated rates of anxiety and mood disorders, higher frequency of violence and conflicts, increased drug and alcohol abuse, strong emotional reactions such as despair, fear, helplessness, and suidicial ideation, decreased sense of self and identity from loss of place and grief reactions” (416) and these researchers assert that the “evidence for psychological and mental health impacts of climate change is drawn from various populations in diverse geographical areas, from rural Australia to Northern Canada.” (Bourque and Willow 416) This article goes on to announce that “scholars increasingly expect that many adverse outcomes from climate change will be psychological and that mental health impacts from climate change will be widespread, profound, and cumulative” (Bourque and Willow 416). According to these researchers, “climate change is likely to affect individual mental health and community well-being through both direct and indirect pathways stemming from acute or sub-acute weather events as well as from longer term or chronic environmental changes” (Bourque and Willow 418).
Unfortunately, despite the strong, almost unequivocal, evidence to support the reality of impending dramatic shifts in climate and unprecedented global warming trends, according to Ross et. al, “when it comes to confronting environmental perils that lie in the future and unfold gradually, our species generally has failed to exercise foresight intelligence – that is, to recognize, diagnose, plan, and act to address those perils before it is too late to do so” (363). Many find themselves feeling frustrated and hopeless, upon learning of the gravity of climate change, because it can often appear to be “difficult to elicit substantive actions to alleviate…climate disruption[s]” (Ross et. al 363). According to Ross et. al, “psychological barriers to the exercise of foresight intelligence in addressing the climate change challenge” (364) include: “the noisy-signal problem” (364), metaphorically describing the way in which climate change “does not reveal itself with a clear signal” (364), “time-frame, beneficial, and end-point problems” (364), which raise the conflict between people’s short-term needs and desires and our species’ long-term survival, “the absence of payoffs for ‘communities of cooperators’” (364), “the ‘drop in the bucket’ problem” (364), which admits that most “people are all too aware that their own efforts, and those of their communities, will not really make a difference(364), and finally; “the temptations of denial and rationalization” (364) which the researchers described as “perhaps the most difficult problem to overcome in mobilizing efforts” (364).
Swim et. al, recognize that “future generations may find it incomprehensible that people, particularly in industrialized countries, continued well into the 21st century to engage in behaviour that seriously compromised the habitability of their own countries and the planet” (123). Why “people do not respond more strongly [to] the risks of climate change by changing the[ir] behaviours that drive climate change” (Swim et. al 123) is an area of great interest and speculation in Psychology as well as other disciplines. According to Swim et. al the “obstacles need[ing] to be removed for significant behavioural change to occur” (124) include structural barriers as well as “barriers that are completely or largely psychological” (124). The “general sequence of psychological barriers” the researchers put forth in this report are as follows: ignorance, uncertainty, “mistrust and reaction” (Swim et. al 126), denial, “judgement and discounting” (Swim et. al 128), place attachment, habit, “perceived behavioural control” (Swim et. al 130), “perceived risks from behavioural change” (Swim et. al 130), “tokenism and the rebound effect” (Swim et. al 131), “social comparison, norms, conformity, and perceived equity” (Swim et. al 131), “conflicting goals and aspirations” (Swim et. al 132), and “belief in solutions outside of human control” (Swim et. al 132). After listing potential barriers to action, the report shifts focus from potential psychological “barriers to change” (Swim et. al 134). According to Swim et al., “although…extensive structural and psychological barriers to change [exist], psychologist[s], sometimes alone but often and in collaboration with others, have done much research and participated in many interventions designed to encourage environmentally significant and responsible behaviours” (134).
Psychologists have conducted empirical research to better understanding How Framing Climate Change Influences Citizen Scientists’ Intentions to Do Something About It. Dickinson et. all claim that “how we communicate the dangers of climate change may influence attitudes, intentions, and behaviours” (145) and that the “significant effort [being] directed at discovering new ways to convey scientific information as a means for supporting climate-friendly behaviours” (Dickinson et. al 146) is worthwhile. Not unlike numerous other scholars, Dickinson et. al. also identify the fact that “understanding the science does not necessarily translate into accepting that climate change is happening or interest in taking personal action” (Dickenson et. al 146). The article explains that “this resistance has been attributed to sensory, behavioral, psychological, organizational, and political biases, as well as to insufficient risk perception and overriding concerns about direct economic impacts” (Dickenson et. al 146). The online surveys gathered for this research project provided data which suggests that “while some dire messages [used to promote action in response to climate change information provision] are ineffective, those evoking concern for target species of significance to the learners may be as successful as positive messages” (Dickenson et. al 145). These researchers speculated that “thinking of other organisms, perhaps especially those about which one cares, can elicit a very powerful set of emotional responses, including empathy, compassion, a sense of potential loss, and a desire to protect, which may be strong motivators of environmental stewardship and may also lead to authentic emotional confrontation with the problem of climate change, especially when combined with a sense of collective efficacy” (Dickenson et. al 156).
Empirical research also provided Scannell and Gifford with some additional clarity on “barriers to climate change action” (60) and the “predictors of climate change engagement” (60), including “place attachment, receiving the local message and gender” (60), which have the potential to increase the potential success of proposed response initiatives. Survey responses suggested that in addition to incorporating novelty, appeal, personal relevance, appeals to rational thought and emotion, and clearly outlined plans of action into communication strategies for engaging people in the so-called “climate change challenge”, other important variables to consider are : socially normative messaging, personally relevant and locally framing of messages, and place attachment, the “formation of emotional and cognitive bonds with a particular place” (Scannell and Gifford 66) which could “change attitudes and behaviours [by] engender[ing] place-protective intentions” (Scannell and Gifford 66). Not unlike the other aspects and impacts of climate change, place attachment is a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon and “does not unequivocally lead to place protection,…it may even underlie actions that are harmful to one’s place…That is, the physical aspects of the place may suffer as people cling to certain place meanings incompatible with place preservation” (Scannell and Gifford 66). The theme of complexity endures when addressing the challenge of climate change and its effects on human psychology.
Unfortunately, according to Bigelow, Kelly, and Mckenna, “despite imaginative teaching on the climate change throughout the United States and Canada, the official (and often corporate-sponsored) curriculum is mostly silent on the topic and often misleading in important ways” (36). This gap in instruction could easily lead to those youth whose task it will be to cope with the effects of climate change and to design mitigation strategies being both undereducated and under engaged in the struggle to halt and reverse the devastating global warming trends which are predicted to alter the globe irrevocably in the next 100 years. In a reflection on a radical teaching retreat on Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything and “the gap between… students’ lived experience and [their] curricular reality” (Bigelow et. al 36). What the teachers concluded was that teaching climate change can be both daunting and necessary, but can be done “in ways that are playful, participatory, and not the least bit preachy” (Bigelow et. al 41). In fact, they found that “students can explore the dynamics of capitalism – and challenges to capitalism- not through dry economics texts, or abstract discussion about capitalism vs. socialism, but through classroom activities that bring these dynamics to life” (Bigelow et. al 41). While systemic and sociopolitical policies “may discourage some teachers from attempting this kind of teaching [there is a current] revival of teachers insisting that [they] have the right to teach about what matters in the world and in [their] students’ lives” (Bigelow et. al 41). Furthermore, the instructors reflecting upon the retreat collectively argue that “if the role of education-especially radical education- is to get to root causes of problems, and the use that inquiry to reflect on genuine and fundamental solutions, then we are led inexorably to the nature of our economic system” (Bigelow et. al 41). This article points to the critical role that teachers have to play in the resistance movement against climate change. They can “help… young people to understand the basics of environmental science well enough to see the links among air and water temperature, glacial melting, sea-level rises, the greater frequency of severe storms, and other aspects of the climate change threat” (Ross 368) and provide a safe environment to discuss and react to the “complex and contested systems” (Bigelow et. al 40) of climate change and capitalism.
While the majority of analysis and empirical research lies in the domain of decarbonization technologies, other coping and mitigation efforts, and physiological health impacts related to climate change (both observed and expected), these areas of research overlook and “ignore… the human and societal dimensions of the diffusion, acceptance, and uptake of technology” (Spence and Pidgeon 14) and information. A more comprehensive and effective plan to address climate change would include the viewpoints of the many stakeholders involved and would “amalgamate the best from different solutions to provide a coherent, implementable, and effective response to the concerns raised by climate change” (Padhy 6). According to Spence and Pidgeon, “addressing human behaviour and climate change requires interdisciplinary and integrated approaches that draw on diverse disciplines, including psychology, behavioural economics, environmental sciences and geography, sociology, and politics” (16). By “drawing on expertise from all relevant disciplines” (Spence and Pidgeon 16) and working hard to increase quality of climate change education and communications intended to stimulate involvement , citizens of the world can better equip themselves for this unprecedented and daunting task which threatens to pose serious and unprecedented medical and public health challenges in the impending future. While all the article reviewed for the purposes of this research paper agreed that this topic is a daunting one for people to process and engage with, there was complete agreement that the task of facing climate change head on is “nowhere near as daunting as the prospects for civilization if it is not accomplished” (Ross 369) and therefor, as much scholarly attention directed towards this issue as possible is warranted.
Works Cited
Bigelow, Bill, et al. “Bringing Climate into the Classroom: Inside a Teaching Retreat around Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything.” Radical Teacher, vol. 102, Summer2015, pp. 35-42. EBSCOhost, doi:10.5195/rt.2015.208.
Bourque, François and Ashlee Cunsolo Willox. “Climate Change: The Next Challenge for Public Mental Health?.” International Review of Psychiatry, vol. 26, no. 4, Aug. 2014, pp. 415-422. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3109/09540261.2014.925851.
Dickinson, Janis L., et al. “How Framing Climate Change Influences Citizen Scientists’ Intentions to Do Something about It.” Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 44, no. 3, July 2013, pp. 145-158. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00958964.2012.742032.
Padhy, Susanta Kumar, et al. “Mental Health Effects of Climate Change.” Indian Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, vol. 19, no. 1, Jan-Apr2015, pp. 3-7. EBSCOhost, doi:10.4103/0019-5278.156997.
ROSS, LEE, et al. “The Climate Change Challenge and Barriers to the Exercise of Foresight Intelligence.” Bioscience, vol. 66, no. 5, 5/1/2016, pp. 363-370. EBSCOhost, doi: 10.1093/biosci/biw025.
Scannell, Leila and Robert Gifford. “Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local Versus Global Message Framing in Engagement.” Environment & Behavior, vol. 45, no. 1, Jan. 2013, pp. 60-85. EBSCOhost, doi: 10.1177/0013916511421196.
Spence, Alexa and Nick Pidgeon. “Psychology, Climate Change & Sustainable Behaviour.” Environment, vol. 51, no. 6, Nov/Dec2009, pp. 8-18. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.capilanou.ca/ login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/login.aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=45581653&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Swim, Janet, et. al. “Psychology & Global Climate Change : Addressing a multifaceted phenomenon and set of challenges”. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association 2009. http://www.apa.org/science/climate-change