Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-8
Stand out of my sunlight: The mediating role of climate change conspiracy beliefs in the relationship between national collective narcissism and acceptance of climate science
Despite the scientific consensus about the anthropogenic nature of climate change, there are still obstacles hindering society from acknowledging the severity of the situation. Notably, previous research suggests that climate change threats can cause people to display ethnocentric reactions to preserve the ingroup’s interests. In this research, we investigate the relation between collective narcissism and attitudes towards climate science. We argue that national collective narcissism is negatively associated with the acceptance of climate science. We further hypothesized that this relation might be mediated by conspiracy beliefs about climate change, because narcissistic identifiers are prone to hold conspiracy beliefs. In a pilot study (N = 409), we found that national collective narcissism was significantly associated with climate change conspiracy beliefs. In Study 1 (N = 295), climate change conspiracy beliefs mediated the negative relation between national collective narcissism and acceptance of climate science. In Study 2 (N = 375), this mediation was replicated when controlling for other forms of climate skepticism. Lastly, general conspiracy mentality did not mediate this relation, which emphasizes the importance of considering the specificity of climate change conspiracy theories (rather than generic propensity to believe in conspiracy theories) in understanding distrust of climate science.
AnvariF.LakensD. (2018). The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3, 266–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822
2.
BambergS. (2013). Changing environmentally harmful behaviors: A stage model of self- regulated behavioral change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.002
3.
BauerP. C.BarberaP.AckermannK.VenetzA. (2017). Is the left-right scale a valid measure of ideology? Individual-level variation in associations with “left” and “right” and left-right self-placement. Political Behavior, 39, 553–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9368-2
4.
BergmanJ. Z.WestermanJ. W.BergmanS. M.WestermanJ.DalyJ. P. (2014). Narcissism, materialism, and environmental ethics in business students. Journal of Management Education, 38, 489–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913488108
5.
BertinP.NeraK.DelouvéeS. (2020). Conspiracy beliefs, rejection of vaccination, and support for hydroxychloroquine: A conceptual replication-extension in the COVID-19 pandemic context. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 2471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.565128
6.
BjörnbergK. E.KarlssonM.GilekM.HanssonS. O. (2017). Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.066
7.
BliucA.-M.McGartyC.ThomasE. F.LalaG.BerndsenM.MisajonR. (2015). Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nature Climate Change, 5, 226–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2507
8.
BruderM.HaffkeP.NeaveN.NouripanahN.ImhoffR. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 225. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225
9.
CichockaA. (2016). Understanding defensive and secure in-group positivity: The role of collective narcissism. European Review of Social Psychology, 27, 283–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2016.1252530
10.
CichockaA.GolecdeZavalaA.MarchlewskaM.OlechowskiM. (2015). Grandiose delusions: Collective narcissism, secure in-group identification, and belief in conspiracies. In BilewiczM.CichockaA.SoralW. (Eds.), The psychology of conspiracy (pp. 42–61). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315746838-9
11.
CichockaA.MarchlewskaM.Golec de ZavalaA.OlechowskiM. (2016). “They will not control us”: Ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12158
12.
CislakA.WojcikA. D.CichockaA. (2018). Cutting the forest down to save your face: Narcissistic national identification predicts support for anti-conservation policies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 59, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.08.009
13.
ColognaV.SiegristM. (2020). The role of trust for climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, Article 101428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101428
CookJ.NuccitelliD.GreenS. A.RichardsonM.WinklerB.PaintingR.WayR.JacobsP.SkuceA. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8, Article 024024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
16.
CookJ.OreskesN.DoranP. T.AndereggW. R. L.VerheggenB.MaibachE. W.CarltonJ. S.LewandowskyS.SkuceA. G.GreenS. A.NuccitelliD.JacobsP.RichardsonM.WinklerB.PaintingR.RiceK. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11, Article 048002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
17.
DiethelmP.McKeeM. (2009). Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?European Journal of Public Health, 19, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139
18.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2015). Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 71, 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340215571908
19.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2018). Why conspiracy theories matter: A social psychological analysis. European Review of Social Psychology, 29, 256–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1537428
DunnT. J.BaguleyT.BrunsdenV. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
22.
EcklundE. H.ScheitleC. P.PeiferJ.BolgerD. (2017). Examining links between religion, evolution views, and climate change skepticism. Environment and Behavior, 49, 985–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516674246
23.
EinsteinK. L.GlickD. M. (2013, August). Scandals, conspiracies and the vicious cycle of cynicism. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
24.
FeyginaI. (2012). The challenge of system justification for acknowledging and responding to environmental dilemmas and climate change (Publication No. 3546399) [Doctoral dissertation, New York University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
25.
FrantzC.MayerF. S.NortonC.RockM. (2005). There is no “I” in nature: The influence of self-awareness on connectedness to nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.10.002
26.
FritscheI.BarthM.JugertP.MassonT.ReeseG. (2018). A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review, 125, 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000090
27.
FritscheI.CohrsJ. C.KesslerT.BauerJ. (2012). Global warming is breeding social conflict: The subtle impact of climate change threat on authoritarian tendencies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.10.002
28.
FritscheI.JonasE.KesslerT. (2011). Collective reactions to threat: Implications for intergroup conflict and for solving societal crises. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5, 101–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01027.x
29.
GallifordN.FurnhamA. (2017). Individual difference factors and beliefs in medical and political conspiracy theories. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58, 422–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12382
GoertzelT. (2010). Conspiracy theories in science: Conspiracy theories that target specific research can have serious consequences for public health and environmental policies. EMBO Reports, 11, 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2010.84
32.
GoldsbyM.KoolageW. J. (2015). Climate modeling: Comments on coincidence, conspiracy, and climate change denial. Environmental Philosophy, 12, 221–252. https://doi.org/10.5840/envirophil2015102625
33.
Golec de. ZavalaA. (2021). Why is populism so robustly associated with conspiratorial thinking?Collective narcissism and the meaning maintenance model. In SinnottJ. D.RabinJ. S. (Eds.), The psychology of political behaviour in a time of change (pp. 277–290). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38270-4_12
34.
Golec de. ZavalaA.CichockaA.EidelsonR.JayawickremeN. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1074–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016904
35.
Golec de ZavalaA.CichockaA.Iskra-GolecI. (2013). Collective narcissism moderates the effect of in-group image threat on intergroup hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 1019–1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032215
36.
Golecde.ZavalaA.Dyduch-HazarK.LantosD. (2019). Collective narcissism: Political consequences of investing self-worth in the ingroup’s image. Political Psychology, 40, 37–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12569
37.
Golecde.ZavalaA.FedericoC. M. (2018). Collective narcissism and the growth of conspiracy thinking over the course of the 2016 United States presidential election: A longitudinal analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2496
38.
Golecde.ZavalaA.LantosD. (2020). Collective narcissism and its social consequences: The bad and the ugly. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29, 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420917703
39.
Golecde.ZavalaA.PekerM.GuerraR.BaranT. (2016). Collective narcissism predicts hypersensitivity to in-group insult and direct and indirect retaliatory intergroup hostility. European Journal of Personality, 30, 532–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2067
40.
HaltinnerK.SarathchandraD. (2018). Climate change skepticism as a psychological coping strategy. Sociology Compass, 12, Article e12586. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12586
41.
HamerK.PenczekM.BilewiczM. (2018). Between universalistic and defensive forms of group attachment. The indirect effects of national identification on intergroup forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.052
42.
HamerK.PenczekM.McFarlandS.WlodarczykA.Łużniak-PiechaM.GolińskaA.CadenaL. M.IbarraM.BertinP.DelouvéeS. (2020). Identification with all humanity—A test of the factorial structure and measurement invariance of the scale in five countries. International Journal of Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12678
43.
HanssonS. O. (2017). Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science: Part A, 63, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002
44.
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.FieldingK. S. (2018). Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nature Climate Change, 8, 614–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2
JacquesP. J.DunlapR. E.FreemanM. (2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17, 349–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802055576
48.
JolleyD.DouglasK. M. (2014a). The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLoS ONE, 9, Article e89177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089177
49.
JolleyD.DouglasK. M. (2014b). The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases intentions to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12018
50.
JolleyD.MeleadyR.DouglasK. M. (2019). Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups. British Journal of Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12385
51.
JolleyD.PatersonJ. L. (2020). Pylons ablaze: Examining the role of 5G COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and support for violence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59, 628–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12394
52.
JonasE.McGregorI.KlacklJ.AgroskinD.FritscheI.HolbrookC.NashK.ProulxT.QuirinM. (2014). Threat and defense. In ZannaM.OlsonJ. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 219–286). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800052-6.00004-4
53.
KruegerJ. (2001). Null hypothesis significance testing: On the survival of a flawed method. American Psychologist, 56, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.1.16
54.
LantianA.MullerD.NurraC.DouglasK. M. (2016). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: Validation of a French and English single-item scale. International Review of Social Psychology, 29, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.8
55.
LarkinB.FinkJ. S. (2019). Toward a better understanding of fan aggression and dysfunction: The moderating role of collective narcissism. Journal of Sport Management, 33, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0012
56.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.OberauerK. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS ONE, 8, Article e75637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
57.
LewandowskyS.OberauerK. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436
58.
LewandowskyS.OberauerK.GignacG. E. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457686
59.
MalkaA.SotoC. J.InzlichtM.LelkesY. (2014). Do needs for security and certainty predict cultural and economic conservatism? A cross-national analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 1031–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036170
60.
MarchlewskaM.CichockaA.ŁozowskiF.GórskaP.WiniewskiM. (2019). In search of an imaginary enemy: Catholic collective narcissism and the endorsement of gender conspiracy beliefs. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159, 766–779. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1586637
61.
MarchlewskaM.CichockaA.PanayiotouO.CastellanosK.BataynehJ. (2018). Populism as identity politics: Perceived in-group disadvantage, collective narcissism, and support for populism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732393
62.
MarintheG.BrownG.DelouvéeS.JolleyD. (2020). Looking out for myself: Exploring the relationship between conspiracy mentality, perceived personal risk and COVID-19 prevention measures. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cm9st
63.
McFarlandS.HackettJ.HamerK.Katzarska-MillerI.MalschA.ReeseG.ReysenS. (2019). Global human identification and citizenship: A review of psychological studies. Political Psychology, 40, 141–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12572
64.
McFarlandS.WebbM.BrownD. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 830–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028724
65.
MoscoviciS. (1987). The conspiracy mentality. In GraumannC. F.MoscoviciS. (Eds.), Changing conceptions of conspiracy (pp. 151–169). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4618-3_9
66.
NaderiI.StruttonD. (2014). Can normal narcissism be managed to promote green product purchases? Investigating a counterintuitive proposition. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12230
67.
PoortingaW.SpenceA.WhitmarshL.CapstickS.PidgeonN. F. (2011). Uncertain climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1015–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.001
68.
RahmstorfS. (2004). The climate sceptics. In ReMunich (Ed.) Weather catastrophes and climate change – Is there still hope for us? (pp. 76–83). verlag: Munich.
69.
RohrerJ. M. (2018). Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917745629
70.
RutjensB. T.SuttonR. M.van der LeeR. (2018). Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741314
71.
SchönbrodtF. D.PeruginiM. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
72.
SterniskoA.CichockaA.van BavelJ. J. (2020). The dark side of social movements: Social identity, non-conformity, and the lure of conspiracy theories. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.02.007
73.
Stoll-KleemannS.SchmidtU. J. (2017). Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: A review of influence factors. Regional Environmental Change, 17, 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1057-5
74.
SwamiV.BarronD.WeisL.VoracekM.StiegerS.FurnhamA. (2017). An examination of the factorial and convergent validity of four measures of conspiracist ideation, with recommendations for researchers. PLoS ONE, 12, Article e0172617. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172617
UhlI.JonasE.KlacklJ. (2016). When climate change information causes undesirable side effects: The influence of environmental self-identity and biospheric values on threat responses/Cuando la información sobre el cambio climático tiene efectos indeseados: La influencia de la identidad ambiental y de los valores biosféricos en la respuesta ante una amenaza. Psyecology, 7, 307–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2016.1242228
77.
UhlI.KlacklJ.HansenN.JonasE. (2018). Undesirable effects of threatening climate change information: A cross-cultural study. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21, 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217735577
78.
UscinskiJ. E.DouglasK.LewandowskyS. (2017). Climate change conspiracy theories. In UscinskiJ. E.DouglasK.LewandowskyS. (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.328
79.
Van der LindenS. (2015). The conspiracy-effect: Exposure to conspiracy theories (about global warming) decreases pro-social behavior and science acceptance. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 171–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.045
80.
Van der LindenS. L.LeiserowitzA. A.FeinbergG. D.MaibachE. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE, 10, Article e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
81.
Van der LindenS.PanagopoulosC.AzevedoF.JostJ. T. (2020). The paranoid style in American politics revisited: An ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking. Political Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12681
82.
Van der LindenS.RosenthalS. A. (2016). Measuring narcissism with a single question? A replication and extension of the Single-Item Narcissism Scale (SINS). Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 238–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.050
83.
WashburnA. N.SkitkaL. J. (2018). Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 972–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731500
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.
