A sizable minority of people doubt that climate change is primarily caused by human activity (“attribution skeptics”). Consequently, it is important to examine the psychological drivers of pro-environmental intentions among attribution skeptics and the extent to which they are more or less influenced by traditional climate change messages. Study 1 (N = 4,345) examined the psychological correlates of motivation to engage in pro-environmental behaviors among people at various points of the spectrum of belief in anthropogenic climate change. As expected, motivation to engage in pro-environmental behaviors is related to risk perceptions and concern about the consequences of climate change. Interestingly, however, these links were stronger the more participants reported being skeptical that climate change is anthropogenic. This suggests that climate change interventions might be especially successful in changing pro-environmental motivation among attribution skeptics, a prediction supported by an experimental intervention (Study 2; N = 600). Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.
AntonioR. J.BrulleR. J. (2011). The unbearable lightness of politics: Climate change denial and political polarization. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 195-202.
BradleyG. L.ReserJ. P.GlendonA. I.EllulM. C. (2014). Distress and coping in response to climate change. In KaniastyK.BuchwaldP.HowardS.MooreK. (Eds.), Stress and anxiety. Applications to social and environmental threats, psychological wellbeing, occupational challenges, and developmental psychology (pp. 33-42). Berlin, Germany: Logos Verlag.
4.
DingD.MaibachE. W.ZhaoX.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1, 462-466.
5.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative White males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1163-1172.
6.
FeinbergM.WillerR. (2011). Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychological Science, 22, 34-38.
7.
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.
8.
FieldingK. S.HornseyM. J.SwimJ. (2014). Developing a social psychology of climate change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 413-420.
9.
FisherD. R.WaggleJ.LeifieldP. (2013). Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the U.S. climate change debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 70-92.
10.
GiffordR.ComeauL. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1301-1307.
11.
HamiltonL. C. (2008). Who cares about polar regions? Results from a survey of U.S. public opinion. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 40, 671-678.
12.
HamiltonL. C. (2011). Education, politics, and opinions about climate change: Evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change, 104, 231-242.
13.
HamiltonL. C. (2012). Did the Arctic ice recover? Demographics of true and false climate facts. Weather, Climate, and Society, 4, 236-249.
14.
HamiltonL. C.StamponeM. D. (2014). Arctic warming and your weather: Public belief in the connection. International Journal of Climatology, 34, 1723-1728.
15.
HartP. S. (2011). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication, 33, 28-51.
16.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646
17.
HayesA. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
18.
HoffmanA. J. (2011). The growing climate divide. Nature Climate Change, 1, 195-196.
19.
KellstedtP. M.ZahranS.VedlitzA. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28, 113-126.
20.
KerrR. A. (2007). Pushing the scary side of global warming. Science, 316, 1412-1415.
21.
KlöcknerC. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1028-1038.
22.
KundaZ. (1987). Motivation and inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636-647.
23.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
24.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.Roser-RenoufC.HmielowskiJ. (2012). Global warming’s six Americans March 2012 & November 2011. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change.
25.
LevistonZ.LeitchA.GreenhillM.LeonardR.WalkerI. (2011). Australians’ views of climate change. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
26.
LevistonZ.WalkerI. (2012). Beliefs and denials about climate change: An Australian perspective. Ecopsychology, 4, 277-285.
27.
LevistonZ.WalkerI.MorwinskiS. (2013). Your opinion on climate change might not be as common as you think. Nature Climate Change, 3, 334-337.
28.
LewandowskyS.GignacG.VaughanS. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3, 399-404.
29.
LewandowskyS.OberauerK.GignacG. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing: Therefore (climate)science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24, 622-633.
30.
LoA. Y. (2013). The role of social norms in climate adaptation: Mediating risk perception and flood insurance purchase. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1249-1257.
31.
LockwoodM. (2011). Does the framing of climate policies make a difference to public support? Evidence from UK marginal constituencies. Climate Policy, 11, 1097-1112.
32.
MalkaA.KrosnickJ. A.LangerG. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29, 633-647.
33.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E.XiaoC. (2013). Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Climatic Change, 119, 511-518.
34.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E.XiaoC. (2014). Increasing influence of party identification on perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA, 2006-2012. Weather, Climate, and Society, 6, 194-201.
35.
MortonT.RabinovichA.MarshallD.BretschneiderP. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21, 103-109.
36.
MyersT. A.NisbetM. C.MaibachE. W.LeiserowitzA. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113, 1105-1112.
37.
NolanJ. M.SchultzP. W.CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J.GriskeviciusV. (2008). Normative social influence is undetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913-923.
38.
PoortingaW.SpenceA.WhitmarshL.CapstickS.PidgeonN. F. (2011). Uncertain climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1015-1024.
39.
PyszczynskiT.GreenbergJ.HoltK. (1985). Maintaining consistency between self-serving beliefs and available data: A bias in information evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 179-190.
40.
RahmstorfS. (2004). The climate sceptics. In Weather catastrophes and climate change (pp. 76-83). Munich Re, Germany: PG-Verlag.
41.
ReserJ. P.BradleyG. L.EllulC. (2014). Encountering climate change: “Seeing” is more than “believing.”Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5, 521-537.
42.
ReserJ. P.BradleyG. L.GlendonA. I.EllulM. C.CallaghanR. (2012a). Public risk perceptions, understandings, and responses to climate change and natural disasters in Australia and Great Britain. Gold Coast, Queensland: Griffith University, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.
43.
ReserJ. P.BradleyG. L.GlendonA. I.EllulM. C.CallaghanR. (2012b). Public risk perceptions, understandings and responses to climate change and natural disasters in Australia: 2010-2011 national survey findings. Gold Coast, Queensland: National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.
44.
ReserJ. P.SwimJ. K. (2011). Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts of climate change. American Psychologist, 66, 277-289.
45.
ScruggsL.BenegalS. (2012). Declining public concern about climate change: Can we blame the great recession?Global Environmental Change, 22, 505-515.
46.
ShwartzM. (2010). Majority of Americans continue to believe that global warming is real. Stanford, CA: Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University.
47.
SpenceA.PidgeonN. F. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20, 656-667.
48.
SpenceA.PoortingaW.PidgeonN. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32, 957-972.
49.
van ZomerenM.SpearsR.LeachC. W. (2010). Experimental evidence for a dual pathway model analysis of coping with the climate crisis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 339-346.
50.
WhitmarshL. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21, 690-700.
51.
WyerR. S.FreyD. (1983). The effects of feedback about self and others on the recall and judgments of feedback-relevant information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 540-559.
52.
XiaoX.LeiserowitzA. A.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC. (2011). Attention to science/environment news positively predicts and attention to political news negatively predicts global warming risk perceptions and policy support. Journal of Communication, 61, 713-731.
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.
