In this study, we tested the core premise of the risk perception attitude framework—that perceived risk and perceived efficacy jointly affect intention—and identified consideration of future consequences (CFC) as a boundary condition of the premise in the context of mitigating climate change. Our two-wave survey (N = 439) revealed that perceived individual-level efficacy predicted intention to perform individual behavior, whereas perceived societal-level risk predicted intention to engage in collective action. For individuals with low CFC, perceived risk and perceived efficacy’s joint effect was positively associated with intention to engage in individual behavior and collective action against climate change.
AnbumozhiV.BreilingM.PathmarajahS.ReddyV. R. (2012). Climate change in Asia and the Pacific: How can countries adapt?SAGE.
2.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.
3.
BauerD. J.CurranP. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), 373–400. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5
4.
BøS.WolffK. (2020). I can see clearly now: Episodic future thinking and imaginability in perceptions of climate-related risk events. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 218. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00218
5.
BolkanS.GoodboyA. K. (2016). Rhetorical dissent as an adaptive response to classroom problems: A test of protection motivation theory. Communication Education, 65(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1039557
6.
BordR. J.O’ConnorR. E.FisherA. (2000). In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change?Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/301
7.
BradleyG. L.BabutsidzeZ.ChaiA.ReserJ. P. (2020). The role of climate change risk perception, response efficacy, and psychological adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: A two nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101410
8.
BrüggerA.GublerM.SteentjesK.CapstickS. B. (2020). Social identity and risk perception explain participation in the Swiss youth climate strikes. Sustainability, 12(24), 10605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410605
9.
ChenM.-F. (2015). Self-efficacy or collective efficacy within the cognitive theory of stress model: Which more effectively explains people’s self-reported proenvironmental behavior?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.02.002
ChuH. (2022). Construing climate change: Psychological distance, individual difference, and construal level of climate change. Environmental Communication, 16(7), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2061027
12.
ChuH.YangJ. Z. (2020). Risk or efficacy? How psychological distance influences climate change engagement. Risk Analysis, 40(4), 758–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13446
13.
DietzT.GardnerG. T.GilliganJ.SternP. C.VandenberghM. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(44), 18452–18456. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908738106
14.
DormannC.GriffinM. A. (2015). Optimal time lags in panel studies. Psychological Methods, 20(4), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000041
15.
EbreoA.ViningJ. (2001). How similar are recycling and waste reduction? Future orientation and reasons for reducing waste as predictors of self-reported behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 424–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973061
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
18.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
19.
HeathY.GiffordR. (2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505277998
20.
JaccardJ.TurrisiR. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression (2nd ed.). SAGE.
21.
JohnsonP. O.NeymanJ. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.
22.
Johnson-YoungE. A.MageeR. G. (2014). Collective efficacy and the regulatory framing of health messages: Influences on concern for body image. Journal of Health Communication, 19(3), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.821549
23.
JoiremanJ. A.BallietD.SprottD.SpangenbergE.SchultzJ. (2008). Consideration of future consequences, ego-depletion, and self-control: Support for distinguishing between CFC-Immediate and CFC-Future sub-scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.011
24.
JoiremanJ. A.LasaneT. P.BennettJ.RichardsD.SolaimaniS. (2001). Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164731
25.
JoiremanJ. A.ShafferM. J.BallietD.StrathmanA. (2012). Promotion orientation explains why future-oriented people exercise and eat healthy: Evidence from the two-factor consideration of future consequences-14 scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1272–1287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212449362
26.
JoiremanJ. A.Van LangeP. A. M.Van VugtM. (2004). Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503251476
27.
JugertP.GreenawayK. H.BarthM.BüchnerR.EisentrautS.FritscheI. (2016). Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.08.003
28.
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(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x
29.
KimJ.NanX. (2016). Effects of consideration of future consequences and temporal framing on acceptance of the HPV vaccine among young adults. Health Communication, 31(9), 1089–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1038774
30.
KohlP.WardropperC. (2022). Knowledge of majority scientific agreement on anthropogenic climate change predicts perceived global risk better than perceived personal risk. Journal of Risk Research, 25(6), 778–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2028883
31.
LacasseK. (2019). Can’t hurt, might help: Examining the spillover effects from purposefully adopting a new pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 51(3), 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517748164
32.
LamL. W.ChuangA.WongC.-S.ZhuJ. N. Y. (2019). A typology of three-way interaction models: Applications and suggestions for Asian management research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9577-9
33.
LapinskiM. K.RimalR. N.DeVriesR.LeeE. L. (2007). The role of group orientation and descriptive norms on water conservation attitudes and behaviors. Health Communication, 22(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701454049
MillerJ. W.StromeyerW. R.SchwietermanM. A. (2013). Extensions of the Johnson-Neyman technique to linear models with curvilinear effects: Derivations and analytical tools. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48(2), 267–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2013.763567
36.
NanX. (2012). Relative persuasiveness of gain-versus loss-framed human papillomavirus vaccination messages for the present- and future-minded. Human Communication Research, 38(1), 72–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01419.x
37.
O’NeillS.Nicholson-ColeS. (2009). “Fear won’t do it”: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201
38.
PaskE. B.RawlinsS. T. (2016). Men’s intentions to engage in behaviors to protect against human papillomavirus (HPV): Testing the risk perception attitude framework. Health Communication, 31(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.940670
39.
RainearA. M.ChristensenJ. L. (2022). Examining pre-existing environmental beliefs: Using a PSA to investigate the role of self-efficacy and response efficacy on behavioral intentions. Communication Studies, 73(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2022.2026426
40.
ReesJ. H.BambergS. (2014). Climate protection needs societal change: Determinants of intention to participate in collective climate action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 466–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2032
41.
RimalR. N.BöseK.BrownJ.MkandawireG.FoldaL. (2009). Extending the purview of the risk perception attitude framework: Findings from HIV/AIDS prevention research in Malawi. Health Communication, 24(3), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230902804109
42.
RimalR. N.JuonH.-S. (2010). Use of the risk perception attitude framework for promoting breast cancer prevention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(2), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00574.x
43.
RimalR. N.LapinskiM. K. (2021). Attribute-centred theorizing to address behavioural changes. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99(11), 828–833. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.285363
44.
RimalR. N.LapinskiM. K.TurnerM. M.SmithK. (2011). The attribute-centered approach for understanding health behaviors: Initial ideas and future research directions. Studies in Communication Sciences, 11(1), 15–34.
45.
RimalR. N.RealK. (2003). Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change: Use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 370–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00844.x
46.
ShiJ.KimH. K. (2020). Integrating risk perception attitude framework and the theory of planned behavior to predict mental health promotion behaviors among young adults. Health Communication, 35(5), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573298
47.
SmithE. K.MayerA. (2018). A social trap for the climate? Collective action, trust and climate change risk perception in 35 countries. Global Environmental Change, 49, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.014
48.
SmithR. A.FerraraM.WitteK. (2007). Social sides of health risks: Stigma and collective efficacy. Health Communication, 21(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701283389
49.
StrathmanA.GleicherF.BoningerD. S.EdwardsC. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742
50.
SuY.ShiJ. (2023). Extending the risk perception attitude framework to predict individuals’ engagement in collective actions against cancer. Health Communication, 38(1), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1935540
51.
ThakerJ.HoweP.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2019). Perceived collective efficacy and trust in government influence public engagement with climate change-related water conservation policies. Environmental Communication, 13(5), 681–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1438302
52.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
53.
TropeY.LibermanN.WakslakC. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X
54.
TylerT. R.CookF. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.4.693
van der LindenS. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012
57.
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(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.006
58.
VoogdR.de VriesJ. R.BeunenR. (2021). Understanding public trust in water managers: Findings from the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management, 300, 113749. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2021.113749
59.
WangX. (2017). Understanding climate change risk perceptions in China: Media use, personal experience, and cultural worldviews. Science Communication, 39(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017707320
60.
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
61.
WitteK. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communications Monographs, 61(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376328
62.
ZapfD.DormannC.FreseM. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 145–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.2.145
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.
