Interpersonal conversation about civic issues lays groundwork for cooperation and collective action, yet such conversation is uncommon. Across three studies (total N = 2,066), we find that (a) hesitation to discuss a civic topic is predicted by forecasted discomfort about such conversations (Study 1), (b) individuals tend to overestimate discomfort in such future civic conversations (Study 1), (c) forecasted discomfort is lower for those with greater experience discussing the topic (Study 2) and after a formal discussion experience, especially for those with little prior experience (Study 3), and (d) this negative relationship between experience and forecasted discomfort can be explained by greater perceived ability to discuss the topic (i.e., self-efficacy; Studies 2 and 3). Collectively, results show that forecasted discomfort is associated with reduced willingness to engage in civic conversation, and topic-relevant discussions can reduce forecasted discomfort by boosting self-efficacy, particularly for those for whom discussing the topic is novel.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
2.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version, 1(7), 1–23.
3.
BehrensF.SnijdewintJ. A.MoulderR. G.ProchazkovaE.Sjak-ShieE. E.BokerS. M.KretM. E. (2020). Physiological synchrony is associated with cooperative success in real-life interactions. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 19609. https://doi.org/10/ghndsj
4.
Bieniek-TobascoA.RimalR. N.McCormickS.HarringtonC. B. (2020). The power of being transported: Efficacy beliefs, risk perceptions, and political affiliation in the context of climate change. Science Communication, 42(6), 776–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020951794
5.
BloomfieldE. F.Van SwolL. M.ChangC.-T.WillesS.AhnP. H. (2020). The effects of establishing intimacy and consubstantiality on group discussions about climate change solutions. Science Communication, 42(3), 369–394. https://doi.org/10/ghp4hz
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
7.
DikötterF. (2015). The discourse of race in modern China. Oxford University Press.
8.
DohertyK. L.WeblerT. N. (2016). Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the Alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions. Nature Climate Change, 6, 879–884. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3025
DunningD.GriffinD. W.MilojkovicJ. D.RossL. (1990). The overconfidence effect in social prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 568–581.
11.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
12.
GeigerN.SwimJ. K. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.002
13.
GeigerN.SwimJ. K.FraserJ. (2017). Creating a climate for change: Interventions, efficacy and public discussion about climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.010
14.
GilbertD. T.PinelE. C.WilsonT. D.BlumbergS. J.WheatleyT. P. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 617–638.
GoldbergM. H.van der LindenS.MaibachE.LeiserowitzA. (2019). Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 14804–14805. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906589116
17.
GriffinD. W.DunningD.RossL. (1990). The role of construal processes in overconfident predictions about the self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1128–1139.
18.
HabermasJ. (1971). Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics. Beacon Press.
19.
HornseyM. J.ChapmanC. M.OelrichsD. M. (2021). Why it is so hard to teach people they can make a difference: Climate change efficacy as a non-analytic form of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 28, 327–345.
20.
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
21.
KimJ.WyattR. O.KatzE. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16(4), 361–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198541
22.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2015). Package “lmerTest” (Version 2.0). R Package.
23.
LaurenN.FieldingK. S.SmithL.LouisW. R. (2016). You did, so you can and you will: Self-efficacy as a mediator of spillover from easy to more difficult pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.10.004
24.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.RosenthalS.KotcherJ.BergquistP.BallewM. T.GoldbergM.GustafsonA.WangX. (2020). Climate change in the American mind: April 2020. Preprint. https://doi.org/10/ghk7tg
LuszczynskaA.TryburcyM.SchwarzerR. (2007). Improving fruit and vegetable consumption: A self-efficacy intervention compared with a combined self-efficacy and planning intervention. Health Education Research, 22(5), 630–638. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyl133
MallettR. K.WilsonT. D. (2010). Increasing positive intergroup contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 382–387.
29.
MallettR. K.WilsonT. D.GilbertD. T. (2008). Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.265
30.
MeyvisT.RatnerR. K.LevavJ. (2010). Why don’t we learn to accurately forecast feelings? How misremembering our predictions blinds us to past forecasting errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020285
31.
MyersC. D.RitterT.RockwayA. (2017). Community deliberation to build local capacity for climate change adaptation: The rural climate dialogues program. In Leal FilhoW.KeenanJ. M. (Eds.), Climate change adaptation in North America (pp. 9–26). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53742-9_2
32.
Noelle-NeumannE. (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion–our social skin. University of Chicago Press.
33.
NovemskyN.RatnerR. K. (2003). The time course and impact of consumers’ erroneous beliefs about hedonic contrast effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 507–516.
SanchezK. L.KalksteinD. A.WaltonG. M. (2021). A threatening opportunity: The prospect of conversations about race-related experiences between Black and White friends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(5), 853–872.
36.
ScheufeleD. A.ShanahanJ.LeeE. (2001). Real talk: Manipulating the dependent variable in spiral of silence research. Communication Research, 28(3), 304–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028003003
37.
SeligJ. P.PreacherK. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. http://quantpsy.org/
38.
SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.91
39.
StephanW. G. (2014). Intergroup anxiety: Theory, research, and practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530518
40.
SueD. W. (2013). Race talk: The psychology of racial dialogues. American Psychologist, 68(8), 663–672. https://doi.org/10/ghppxh
41.
SwimJ. K.GeigerN.SweetlandJ.FraserJ. (2018). Social construction of scientifically grounded climate change discussions. In ClaytonS.ManningC. (Eds.), Psychology and climate change: From denial and depression to adaptation and resilience (pp. 65–93). Elsevier.
42.
TrawalterS.RichesonJ. A. (2008). Let’s talk about race, baby! When Whites’ and Blacks’ interracial contact experiences diverge. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1214–1217.
43.
TrueloveH. B.CarricoA. R.WeberE. U.RaimiK. T.VandenberghM. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004
van SwolL. M.BloomfieldE. F.ChangC.-T.WillesS. (2022). Fostering climate change consensus: The role of intimacy in group discussions. Public Understanding of Science, 31(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211020661
46.
WaltonG. M.WilsonT. D. (2018). Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychological Review, 125(5), 617–655. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000115
WilsonT. D.MeyersJ.GilbertD. T. (2001). Lessons from the past: Do people learn from experience that emotional reactions are short-lived?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(12), 1648–1661. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012712008
50.
WilsonT. D.WheatleyT.MeyersJ. M.GilbertD. T.AxsomD. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 821–836.
51.
ZhangZ.ZyphurM. J.PreacherK. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 695–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108327450
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.
