A sizeable portion of populations around the world deny that humans are responsible for climate change despite scientific consensus to the contrary. Decades of psychological theory and research point to people's biased evaluation of information as an underlying mechanism that maintains or further polarizes beliefs. The current studies offer a novel cognitive approach to combat biased evaluation. Asking climate change skeptics to focus on how well a climate change argument explains how the main point leads to the proposed outcome mitigated biased evaluation of scientific climate change explanations (Experiment 1), climate policy arguments (Experiment 2), and proenvironmental behavior messages (Experiment 3). Focusing on a proenvironment argument's explanatory power also promoted proenvironmental behavioral intentions (Experiment 3). The current studies offer guidance to policy makers and climate change communicators: The content of climate change information should (1) consist of brief, mechanistic explanations and (2) draw attention to the information's inherent explanatory power or weakness. Key Words: Climate change skeptics—Explanations—Policy arguments—Cognitive intervention—Motivated reasoning.
BainP. G., MilfontT. L., KashimaY., BilewiczM., DoronG., GardarsdottirR. B. … SaviolidisN. M. (2016). Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Climate Change, 6, 154–157.
3.
BakshyE., MessingS., & AdamicL. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348, 1120–1132.
4.
BolderdijkJ. W., GorsiraM., KeizerK., & StegL. (2013). Values determine (in)effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. PLoS One, 8, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083911
ClaytonS., Devine-WrightP., SternP. S., WhitmarshL., CarricoA., StegL. … BonnesM. (2015). Psychological research and global climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5, 640–646.
7.
CornerA., WhitmarshL., & XeniasD. (2012). Uncertainty, skepticism and attitudes towards climate change: Biased assimilation and attitude polarization. Climatic Change, 114, 463–478.
8.
CrumpM. J. C., McDonnellJ. V., & GureckisT. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS One, 8, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057410
9.
Der-KarabetianA., CaoY., & AlfaroM. (2014). Sustainable behavior, perceived globalization impact, world-mindedness, identity, and perceived risk in college samples from the United States, China, and Taiwan. Ecopsychology, 6, 218–233.
FarrellJ. (2015). Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Climate Change, 6, 370–374.
15.
FeinbergM., & WillerR. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24, 56–62.
16.
FernbachP. M., RogersT., & SlomanS. A. (2013). Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding. Psychological Science, 24, 939–946.
17.
FeyginaI., JostJ. T., & GoldsmithR. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of system-sanctioned change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338.
18.
GrouzetF. M. E., KasserT., AhuviaA., DolsJ. M. F., KimY., KauS. … SheldonK. M. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 800–816.
19.
HahnU. (2011). The problem of circularity in evidence, argument, and explanation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 172–182.
20.
HamiltonL. C., HartterJ., Lemcke-StamponeM., MooreD. W., & SaffordT. G. (2015). Tracking public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLoS One, 19, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138208
21.
HartP. S., NisbetE. C., & MyersT. A. (2015). Public attention to science and political news and support for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 5, 541–545.
22.
HartW., AlbarracinD., EaglyA. H., BrechanI., LindbergM. J., & MerrilL. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555–588.
23.
HauserD. J., & SchwarzN. (2016). Attentive turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavioral Research Methods, 48, 400–407.
24.
HayesA. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
25.
HirtE. R., KardesF. R., & MarkmanK. D. (2004). Activating a mental simulation mind-set through generation of alternatives: Implications for debiasing in related and unrelated domains. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 374–383.
26.
HirtE. R., & MarkmanK. D. (1995). Multiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1069–1086.
HornseyM. J., HarrisE. A., BainP. G., & FieldingK. S. (2016). Meta-analysis of the determinants of and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622–626.
29.
JacobsonS. K., CarltonJ. S., & DevittS. E. C. (2012). Infusing the psychology of climate change into environmental curricula. Ecopsychology, 4, 94–101.
30.
JasnyL., WaggleJ., & FisherD. R. (2015). An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks. Nature Climate Change, 5, 782–786.
31.
JohnsonD. R., MurphyM. P., & MesserR. M. (2016). Reflecting on explanatory ability: A mechanism for detecting gaps in causal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 573–588.
32.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.
33.
KahanD. M., Jenkins-SmithH., TarantolaT., SilvaC. L., & BramanD. (2015). Geoengineering and climate change polarization: Testing a two-channel model of science communications. The Annals of the American Academy, 658, 192–222.
34.
KasserT. (2011). Ecological challenges, materialistic values, and social change. In DienerB. D. (Ed.), Positive psychology as social change (pp. 89–108). New York: Springer Science and Business Media.
35.
KogerS. M., LeslieK. E., & HayesE. D. (2011). Climate change: Psychological solutions and strategies for change. Ecopsychology, 3, 227–235.
36.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
37.
LevayK. E., FreeseJ., & DruckmanJ. N. (2016, January-March). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. Sage Open, doi:10.1177/2158244016636433
38.
LewandowskyS., BallardT., OberauerK., & BenestadR. (2016). A blind expert test of contrarian claims about climate data. Global Environmental Change, 39, 91–97.
39.
LewandowskyS., EckerU., SeifertC. M., SchwarzN., & CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131.
40.
LombrozoT., & VasilyevaN. (2017). Causal explanation. In WaldmannM. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of causal reasoning (pp. 415–432). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41.
LordC. G., LeeR., & LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2090–2109.
42.
MaioG. R., OlsonJ. M., AllenL., & BernardM. M. (2001). Addressing discrepancies between values and behavior: The motivating effect of reasons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 104–117.
43.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2007, August). Policy brief: Climate change policies. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/39111309.pdf
44.
PearsonA., SchuldtJ. P., & Romero-CanyasR. (2016). Social climate science: A new vista for psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 632–650.
45.
RanneyM. A., & ClarkD. (2016). Climate change conceptual change: Scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 49–75.
46.
RossenI. L., DunlopP. D., & LawrenceC. M. (2015). The desire to maintain the social order and the right to economic freedom: Two distinct moral pathways to climate change skepticism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 42–47.
47.
SapiainsR., BeetonR. J. S., & WalkerI. A. (2015). The dissociative experience: Mediating the tension between people's awareness of environmental problems and their inadequate behavioral responses. Ecopsychology, 7, 38–47.
48.
ShermanA. K., RoweA., BirdS., PowersS., & LegaultL. (2016). Motivational orientation explains the link between political ideology and proenvironmental behavior. Ecopsychology, 8, 239–249.
49.
SlusherM. P. & AndersonC. A. (1996). Using causal persuasive arguments to change beliefs and teach new information: The mediating role of explanation availability and evaluation bias in the acceptance of knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 110–122.
50.
StegL., BolderdijkJ. W., KeizerK., & PerlaviciuteG. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behavior: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104–115.
51.
TaberC. S., & LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.
52.
WhitmarshL. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21, 690–700.
53.
WhitmarshL., & CornerA. (2017). Tools for a new climate conversation: A mixed-model study of language for public engagement across the political spectrum. Global Environmental Change, 42, 122–135.
54.
WilsonT. D., KraftD., & DunnD. S. (1989). The disruptive effects of explaining attitudes: The moderating effect of knowledge about the attitude object. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 379–400.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
