Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This research aims to analyze the chain-mediated effect of the different types of psychological distances (social, temporal, spatial, and probability) and the variables of the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA) on the relationship between the use of social media and violent environmental collective action. The study sample consisted of 650 university students (M = 20.8, SD = 2.74) aged 18–35 years from Lima. Analyses were conducted by means of structural equation modeling (SEM) using the AMOS SPSS software, where a statistical model was performed for each type of psychological distance. The findings revealed two statistically significant paths that go from social media to violent environmental collective action, mediated, first, by each of the psychological distances and, second, by social identity and negative emotions (anger and fear). In addition, it was observed that only probability distance on its own acted as a mediator in the relationship between social media and violent environmental collective action. It was also observed that a path from social media to violent environmental collective action was mediated, first, by three types of distances (probability, spatial, and temporal) and, second, by participative efficacy.

Keywords

social media psychological distance SIMCA variables violent collective action Peru

Introduction

Climate change, a result of increased environmental temperature due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, impacts different regions of the world, resulting in rising sea levels, forest fires, and excessive rainfall (Gates, 2021). However, evidence suggests that people perceive climate change as distant in time and/or as a problem specific to developing countries, which may affect their intention to participate in actions to mitigate this phenomenon (Jones et al., 2017). This inconsideration toward one of the greatest threats faced by humanity can be explained by the concept of psychological distance, which is based on the premise that people tend to pay more attention to events that are perceived as close in time or space, more likely to occur, and affecting people with whom we identify (Brügger et al., 2020).

Regarding its location and diverse ecosystems, Peru is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change (Bergmann et al., 2021; Ministerio del Ambiente del PerúFederal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2019). Potential environmental hazards include the increase of infectious diseases, flash flooding, landslides, the loss of the Amazon rainforest, and the melting of the glaciers in the Andes (Magalhães et al., 2019). In the last 20 years, Peru has experienced a series of environmental disasters such as oil spills, river contamination, landslides, and flooding of cities (Carey, 2014; León & Zuñiga, 2020; Pinto Herrera, 2010). In 2017, heavy rains, severe flooding, and landslides (known as “huaicos”) displaced nearly 300,000 people along the coast of Peru (Berdejo, 2021). These disasters were triggered by a high-level “El Niño” phenomenon associated with climate change, which causes the Pacific Ocean to warm and alter rainfall patterns. Over the last decade, deforestation in Peru’s Amazon region has increased, leading to significant environmental impacts (Luque Bustamante, 2020). Another pressing issue is the rapid retreat of glaciers in the Andes, which could lead to the migration of 28% of the highland population and threaten freshwater supplies. Peru also faces risks of drought, riverbank collapse, erosion, and extreme heat stress, particularly in the Amazon rainforest region (Berdejo, 2021).

Several studies have shown that a lower level of psychological distance is connected to actions to mitigate climate change and support for climate policies (Guillard et al., 2021; Sacchi et al., 2016; Singh, Zwinckle et al., 2017). However, these findings coexist with research that contradicts an alleged effect of psychological distance on supportive behaviors toward the fight against climate change (Chu & Yang, 2018; Rickard et al., 2016; S. Wang et al., 2019).

Given that reversing or mitigating climate change requires collective actions (Brechin, 2016), it is crucial to consider theories that explain coordinated group behavior. One of these theories is the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA), whose variables have proven to be good predictors of massive environmental initiatives (Furlong & Vignoles, 2021; van Zomeren et al., 2019). In this regard, it is necessary to differentiate between normative and violent collective action. The former is framed within established social norms and involves actions through legal channels (e.g., signing petitions, peaceful protests, and voting), while the latter involves behaviors that disrupt social order (e.g., seizure of premises, damage to public/private property, and road blockades; Bamberg et al., 2015; Moskalenko & McCauley, 2009; Sabucedo & Arce, 1991; Thomas et al., 2012; Wright et al., 1990).

Considering the expansion of social media, many studies can be mentioned regarding the relationship between the use of social media and normative collective actions, both virtual and in-person (Alberici & Milesi, 2018; Gerbaudo, 2016; Halpern et al., 2017). Concerning climate change, it has been concluded that these platforms raise awareness on environmental issues and enable the realization of collective actions, facilitating their sustainability and validity over time (A. A. Anderson, 2017; Ballew et al., 2015; Liu, 2016; Şen & Şen, 2016; Wamuyu, 2018). One of the groups most likely to use these platforms is university students (Basauri Delgado, 2023), who leverage them to organize and advocate for collective goals, such as reducing global warming (Meng et al., 2023)

Most of the research on environmental collective actions focuses on the normative type (Matthews et al., 2023). However, due to the imminence of climate change, violent initiatives are becoming more frequent, attracting greater public attention, and raising awareness of the seriousness of the issue (BBC, 2019; Bugden, 2020); yet, few studies analyze violent environmental collective action (Pauls et al., 2021). Landman and Naumann (2023) found that when peaceful normative collective action fails to produce results, people turn to the violent one, which is predicted by low collective efficacy and perception of injustice. Likewise, when there is a lack of government support for environmental care, individuals tend to turn to violent collective action and identification with activists (Duit, 2010).

This can be seen in the Peruvian context in what happened in the spill of nearly 12,000 oil barrels due to a failure during an unloading operation at La Pampilla refinery in the province of El Callao by the energy enterprise Repsol, contaminating several beaches in Lima (Paucar, 2023; Toledo-Leyva, 2022). This event caused the death of 1,852 coastal fauna and endangered the health of 198 species (El Peruano, 2023). As a result of this event, several normative and violent protests took place, and this was probably due to the exposure on social media of the event (Infobae, 2022). Among the violent protests, those affected vandalized the facade of the Spanish embassy because Repsol is a Spanish company (Valdivia Blume, 2023). Also, several roads were blocked by the protesters (Gestión, 2023).

However, other events far away from Lima do not receive the same media coverage nor do they promote similar protests. An emblematic case is that of the oil spills which occur weekly in the Peruvian Amazon. Between 2000 and 2019, there have been a total of 474 oil spills, of which 65% are due to pipeline corrosion and operational failures; however, this has low media coverage (Kámiche, 2023; León & Zuñiga, 2020). This brings harmful consequences to the environment due to the degradation and deforestation of the biodiversity of the rainforest. One example of this is the reduction of chlorophyll due to oil spills, which leads to dryness and ultimately the death of plants (Arellano et al., 2017; De Oliveira et al., 2020). Besides, oil contamination in marine ecosystems damages mangrove forest and marsh plants, the former stores carbon while the latter prevents shoreline erosion (Rapp, 2023; Wong, 2024).

As mentioned above, violent collective action is promoted through social media, and psychological distance has proven to be a good predictor of pro-environmental behaviors (Guillard et al., 2021; Sacchi et al., 2016). With the increase in violent environmental actions in recent years and the urgency of climate change, we find it necessary to create a model explaining how the use of social media can lead to environmental collective actions. This model will also clarify the relationship between psychological distance and participation in violent environmental initiatives.

Theoretical Framework

Social Media and Collective Action

There is research that associates the use of social media with collective actions through the variables of the SIMCA. It was found that if there are thought-provoking discussions, political identity can mediate between moral obligation and taking part in collective action (Alberici & Milesi, 2018). Furthermore, various studies demonstrate how different forms of efficacy (e.g., self-efficacy for using virtual platforms and political efficacy) mediate between digital activism and political collective action; Halpern et al., 2017; Ruiz-Dodobara et al., 2021). In this sense, anger resulting from the perception of injustice and identification with activists have also proven to be good mediators between virtual platforms and collective initiatives (Chan, 2017; Odağ et al., 2016).

Regarding the use of social media to combat climate change, some research associating these variables can be described. Wamuyu (2018) found that the use of a Facebook page to protect the environment in poor neighborhoods (e.g., reporting a pipe burst and illegal littering) engaged residents in a pro-environmental use of this platform (e.g., sharing the page with friends) and influenced the intention to continue using social media to support environmental initiatives. Liu (2016) described how several online resources (Sina Weibo, QQ, WeChat, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) enabled Chinese citizens to protest against petrochemical projects in the 2007–2014 period. It was found that virtual spaces enabled the exchange of information (about past demonstrations and mistakes) and promoted participation in collective actions, allowing for rapid public involvement. Another example of online environmental activism is the “Right to Water” website, which opposes water privatization in Turkey. This platform allows the organization of several local campaigns across Turkey under one single movement and promotes in-person collective actions, such as protests (Şen & Şen, 2016). It is worth mentioning that in addition to promoting environmental actions, social media allow these actions to remain in force and continue over time (A. A. Anderson, 2017; Ballew et al., 2015).

Psychological Distance and Support of Actions Against Climate Change

The construal level theory holds that the representation of future objects and events depends on their degree of abstraction. The level of abstraction is represented by the so-called psychological distance: objects and events that are distant in time and space are perceived as more abstract and require a higher level of interpretation in contrast to their psychologically close peers, which are perceived as more concrete and with detailed characteristics (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Psychological distance is measured based on four dimensions: spatial, referring to the physical distance between the perceiver and an event; temporal, referring to how much time separates the perceiver from an event; social, referring to the similarity between the perceiver and the individual(s) experiencing an event; and probability, referring to the likelihood of occurrence of an event (Spence et al., 2012). Psychological distance impacts our perception of risk concerning climate change and, therefore, our behaviors. For example, the risk of running out of gasoline in the distant future requires a higher level of abstraction than the concrete possibility of running out of gas in a low-traffic area (Zwickle & Wilson, 2013). Therefore, individuals may be more willing to promote gasoline consumption instead of supporting the search for alternative means of transportation.

Psychological distance is described as a predictor of environmental actions in different studies. Sacchi et al. (2016) found that commitment to the environment, pro-environmental attitudes, and the intention to develop climate-friendly behavior were negatively related to psychological distance. Jones et al. (2017) found that when comparing a group exposed to a video describing climate impacts at distant locations and a group exposed to a video describing climate impacts at nearby locations, the latter had lower scores on psychological distance, higher levels of concern about climate change, and greater intention to engage in climate change–mitigation actions. Singh et al. (2017) observed that the lower the psychological distance, the higher the concern and support for adaptation policies in the face of climate change. These authors also found that concern about climate change fully mediated the relationship between psychological distance and support of adaptation policies; in addition, they proposed that the more effective adaptation policies were perceived to be, the less concern there was about the impact of climate change and the weaker the effect of psychological distance was (Singh et al., 2017).

However, other studies have shown no effect of psychological distance on environmental behavior. Based on responses from university students in the United States and Singapore, Rickard et al. (2016) found that the manipulation of spatial and temporal distance did not affect the support of policies against climate change (e.g., regulating carbon dioxide). Yet, a moderating effect of political orientation was observed. For example, conservatives in the United States expressed more support for policies against climate change when they were informed that climate change impacts would occur close to where they lived. S. Wang et al. (2019) found that spatial proximity to climate change predicts intention to engage in environmentally friendly behavior. Despite this, manipulation of psychological distance did not increase pro-environmental behavior. Schuldt et al. (2018) found that manipulating the perceived geographic proximity of the Maldives (closer or farther from where participants were) influenced the description (concrete vs. abstract) of a video about the climate change impact on those islands, but that this manipulation of distance (close vs. distant) did not influence support for anti-climate change policies.

Social Media and Psychological Distance

Research on social media and psychological distance has focused on the commercial sector. Kim et al. (2016) found that U.S. participants exposed to Facebook pages characterized by high psychological distance (News Feed) responded better to advertisements requiring a high level of interpretation than those exposed to more concrete advertisements. On the contrary, individuals who watched advertisements on the Timeline, a Facebook page, perceived as more proximate (low psychological distance), had more positive attitudes toward advertisements with a high amount of information, that is, requiring a low level of interpretation. Sung et al. (2020) replicated the study with a sample of Korean and U.S. citizens to check for cultural differences. It was found that the results for U.S. participants were identical to those of the study carried out by Kim et al. (2016). However, Korean participants preferred messages requiring high levels of interpretation, regardless of the page (e.g., TimeLine or News Feed). Lee et al. (2018) analyzed whether psychological distance was a good predictor of the intention to support a Facebook initiative related to child welfare in Africa. These authors concluded that cognitive proximity (based on the prominence, relevance, and knowledge of an issue) and emotional proximity (including empathy and connection) were associated with supporting the virtual campaign (Lee et al., 2018).

Based on these observations, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1. Social media use, different types of psychological distances, moral convictions, social identity with activists, negative emotions (anger and fear), and group and participative efficacy predict violent environmental collective action.

H2. The relationship between social media use and the SIMCA variables (moral convictions, social identity with activists, negative emotions, and the two types of efficacy) is mediated by the different types of psychological distances.

H3. The relationship between the different types of psychological distances and violent environmental collective action is mediated by SIMCA variables (moral convictions, social identity with activists, negative emotions, and the two types of efficacy)

Method

Design

The study presents a multivariate cross-sectional design to create a model based on structural equation modeling (SEM; Preacher et al., 2007). The model is classified as multivariate because it presents latent and observed variables. Likewise, the research is cross-sectional, given that the variables were measured at a single point in time. In the proposed model, social media would predict violent collective action through chain mediation of the different types of psychological distances and the SIMCA variables.

Participants and Procedures

The services of the Analytical Unit of the Instituto de Investigación Científica of the Universidad de Lima (IDIC) were used to obtain the sample. The sample was of the non-probabilistic purposive type and comprised 650 (M = 20.8, SD = 2.74, 50% from private universities) undergraduate university students between 18 and 35 years of age from Lima, Peru, who use social media platforms. They were contacted at the exit of the universities where they were invited to participate in the survey. They were verified to ensure that they met the inclusion criteria: (1) they were undergraduate university students of public or private institutions, (2) they were in the 18–35 years age group, and (3) they used social media more than three times a week. In addition, the project that frames this article was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology of the Universidad de Lima.

The Monte Carlo Power Analysis for Indirect Effects tool developed by Schoemann et al. (2017) was used to calculate the required sample size for the analysis. This approach was selected because it is considered the most appropriate to avoid underestimating the sample size needed to examine the indirect effect. The effect size was determined following Ferguson’s (2009) suggestion of a minimum association of .20. In addition, as recommended by Field (2009), a significance level of .05 was established, and statistical power of .80 was ensured, obtaining a minimum sample size of 600 participants, which was exceeded.

Measurements

The scales were developed in Spanish by the authors and provided content-based validity testing. A panel of reviewers was engaged to rate the representativeness of each item’s target dimension and clarity in wording (Sireci & Faulkner-Bond, 2014). The reviewers had a profile of academics with previous work on topics related to social psychology and/or scale construction. To this end, individual suggestions for changes in the wording of the items were considered for possible modifications.

Thereafter, a pilot test with 50 participants was carried out to ensure an adequate level of understanding. This demonstrated that the target population adequately understood the instruments. The test lasted 8–10 minutes, and these participants were not included in the final sample count.

McDonald’s omega coefficient was used to assess the reliability of the scales due to the Likert-type nature of the items of the instruments used, following the recommendation of Viladrich et al. (2017) and Hayes & Coutts (2020), who point out that such a coefficient would be less biased with the assumption of tau-equivalence.

The following variables were assessed in the research survey:

Social media use (M = 12.14; SD = 3.54; ω = .801) (Adapted from the study by Ruiz-Dodobara et al., 2023): To examine the social media use concerning climate change, three items were developed, one for each type of use: informative (“I use social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and/or Instagram, to be informed about climate change”), expressive (“I use social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, and/or Instagram, to share news and opinions on environmental issues”), and participative (“I participate in online initiatives against climate change, for example, signing petitions, discussions of events, participation in forums, and energy saving actions”). The response format was a 5-point Likert-type items scale (from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), with a minimum score of 3 and a maximum of 15. Even if this scale was used to measure different uses of social media, the confirmatory factor analysis showed that the scale behaves as unidimensional, having a good fit index with this structure (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .986, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = .091, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] = .018), and the factor loadings ranged from .622 to .770.

Moral convictions (M = 15.53; SD = 2.75; ω = .845) (Adapted from the study by Ruiz-Dodobara et al., 2023): Moral convictions, understood as absolute stances on moral issues, were examined with a four-item scale (i.e., “My opinion on climate change is an important part of my moral standards and values”). The response format was a 5-point Likert-type items scale (from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), with a minimum score of 4 and a maximum of 20.

Psychological distance regarding climate change: Psychological distance refers to how closely climate change is perceived in terms of time, space, likelihood of occurrence, and impact on individuals. To measure this construct, four subscales were created for each type of distance with 5-point Likert-type items. The spatial distance scale (M = 6.88; SD = 2.23; ω = .634) consisted of three items (e.g., “The area in which I live will NOT suffer the effects of climate change.”); the social distance scale (M = 9.52; SD = 2.97; ω = .791) consisted of four items (e.g., “I identify with people who are affected by climate change.”); the probability distance scale (M = 5.95; SD = 2.18; ω = .836) consisted of three items (e.g., “The severity of climate change is being exaggerated.”); and the temporal distance scale (M = 3.79; SD = 1.50; ω = .684) consisted of two items (e.g., “The consequences of climate change will be mainly felt in the future.”). The spatial distance and probability distance subscales had score ranges from 5 to 15, the social distance subscale had a score range from 5 to 20, and the temporal distance subscale had a score range from 2 to 10. Higher values on these scales indicate a greater psychological distance.

Social identity with activists (M = 9.75; SD = 2.41; ω = .849) (Adapted from the study by Ruiz-Dodobara et al., 2023): This scale assessed identification with environmental activists and consisted of three items (e.g., “I have a lot in common with people involved in different types of climate change protests.”) with a 5-point Likert-type response format (from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), with a minimum score of 3 and a maximum of 15.

Negative emotions (M = 29.74; SD = 5.62; ω = .881) (Adapted from the study by Ruiz-Dodobara et al., 2023): The scale of negative emotions comprised anger and fear, and eight items were used, with a 5-point Likert-type response format (from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) (Anger: e.g., “I feel outraged by the lack of support to fight climate change.”; Fear: e.g., “It scares me to think about climate change.”), and with a minimum score of 8 and a maximum of 40.

Participative efficacy (M = 11.30; SD = 2.14; ω = .847) (Adapted from the study by Ruiz-Dodobara et al., 2023): For this variable, three items were used, with a 5-point Likert-type response format (from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), to examine the perception of the importance of individual contributions to achieving environmental goals (e.g., “I believe I can make a significant contribution to controlling climate change through joint actions.”). The scale had a minimum score of 3 and a maximum of 15.

Group efficacy (M = 11.85; SD = 2.13; ω = .828) (Adapted from the study by Ruiz-Dodobara et al., 2023): Group efficacy was understood as the respondents’ perception of group efficacy toward actions to mitigate the effects of climate change (e.g., “I believe that we citizens, collectively, can fight climate change.”). For this variable, three items were used, with a 5-point Likert-type response format (from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), with a minimum score of 3 and a maximum of 15.

Violent environmental collective action (M = 7.41; SD = 3.00; ω = .810): This scale was developed by authors based on the work of Barth et al. (2015) and Landman and Rothman (2020). The scale consisted of three 5-point Likert-type items (from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) describing environmental actions that defy established norms. The items were (1) “I would participate in blocking roads to protest against climate change,” (2) “I would be willing to participate in damaging public or private property to protest climate change,” and (3) “I would take part in the seizure of premises to protest against climate change.”

Analysis Plan

An analysis of the correlation matrix among the variables of interest was carried out, followed by the implementation of a multiple linear regression model, using as predictor variables social media use, the different types of psychological distances, moral convictions, negative emotions, social identity with activists, participative efficacy, and group efficacy. The outcome variable in this analysis was violent environmental collective action.

The inferential analyses were carried out with SEM analysis using the SPSS Amos IBM software, which allows plotting the model to be tested, establishing the relationships between the variables. First, to calculate multiple chain mediations, social media use was taken as a predictor variable, and the SIMCA variables were taken as outcome variables, with the different types of psychological distances as mediating variables. Subsequently, a chain mediation was proposed, where the predictor variables were the different types of distances, and the outcome variable was violent environmental collective action. This relationship was mediated by the SIMCA variables.

Given their adequate number of response options, the ordinal variables were treated as intervals using a Maximum-Likelihood approach (Suh, 2015). This approach was also combined with a 500-sample nonparametric bootstrapping approach given that it is not sensitive to sample size and normality distribution (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The fit indexes CFI ⩾ .90, RMSEA ⩽ .08, and SRMR ⩽ .08 were established as adequate fit indicators (Keith, 2019).

Results

First, the correlation matrix among the variables of interest was analyzed (Table 1). A statistically significant relationship was found among all variables, except probability and temporal distance with violent environmental collective action.

Table 1.

Correlation Matrix.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1	—
2	−.318***	—
3	−.235***	.475***	—
4	−.264***	.539***	.518***	—
5	−.279***	.485***	.581***	.545***	—
6	.331***	−.515***	−.446***	−.452***	−.498***	—
7	.444***	−.471***	−.309***	−.374***	−.358***	.581***	—
8	.341***	−.481***	−.477***	−.446***	−.464***	.568***	.586***	—
9	.312***	−.410***	−.410***	−.401***	−.468***	.524***	.473***	.521***	—
10	.272***	−.389***	−.454***	−.395***	−.489***	.532***	.416***	.525***	.720***	—
11	.222***	−.142***	−.049	−.088*	.003	.166***	.354***	.277***	.170***	.084*	—

Note. 1 = Social media use; 2 = Social distance; 3 = Temporal distance; 4 = Spatial distance; 5 = Probability distance; 6 = Moral convictions; 7 = Social identity; 8 = Negative emotions; 9 = Participative efficacy; 10 = Group efficacy; 11 = Violent environmental collective action.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Furthermore, to verify the assumption of non-multicollinearity, the authors determined the variance inflation factor (VIF) index, which in no case reached a value close to or higher than 5, indicating that there is no evidence of endogeneity (Heiberger & Holland, 2015; Kline, 1998). The VIF statistic of the independent variables ranged from 1.03 to 2.38.

Likewise, a multiple regression model was carried out with violent environmental collective action as the outcome variable. It was noted that social identity, negative emotions (fear and anger), social media use, probability distance, and group efficacy were successful predictors of violent environmental collective action. Social identity and negative emotions were found to have the greatest effect.

An acceptable fit was obtained for the model including social distance (x²/df = 3.791, CFI = .870, RMSEA = .066, SRMR = .059). Likewise, it was noted that only social distance mediated the relationship between social media use and violent collective action in the presence of negative emotions, β = .080, b (SE) = .085 (.069), 95% CI [.066, .238], p = .026; and social identity, β = .144, b (SE) = .150 (.063), 95% CI [.065, .304], p = .004.

An acceptable fit was obtained for the model incorporating probability distance (x²/df = 3.807, CFI = .875, RMSEA = .066, SRMR = .061). It was observed that probability distance, β = −.266, b (SE) = −.281 (.157), 95% CI [−.685, −.089], p = .004, as the sole mediator, as well as accompanied by the negative emotions, β = .091, b (SE) = .095 (.044), 95% CI [.028, .207], p = .004, social identity, β = .090, b (SE) = .091 (.037), 95% CI [.033, .177], p = .011, or participative efficacy, β = .090, b (SE) = .092 (.062), 95% CI [.018, .246], p = .007, mediated the relationship between the use of social media and violent environmental collective action.

Concerning spatial distance, an acceptable fit was obtained (x²/df = 3.338, CFI = .892, RMSEA = .060, SRMR = .055). It was found that spatial distance mediated the relationship between social media use and violent environmental collective action through on negative emotions, β = .117, b (SE) = .125 (.062), 95% CI [.032,.269], p = .009; social identity, β = .127, b (SE) = .135 (.057), 95% CI [.060, .287], p = .004; or participative efficacy, β = .141, b (SE) = .150 (.093), 95% CI [.012, .432], p = .018.

Finally, for the temporal distance model, an acceptable fit was obtained (x²/df = 3.341, CFI = .898, RMSEA = .060, SRMR = .055). It was found that temporal distance mediated the relationship between social media use and violent environmental collective action, only in the presence of negative emotions, β = .110, b (SE) = .116 (.057), 95% CI [.031, .263], p = .010; social identity, β = .111, b (SE) = .116 (.044), 95% CI [.054, .233], p = .004; or participative efficacy, β = .127, b (SE) = .135 (.119), 95% CI [.016, .463], p = .010.

Discussion

Despite the existence of research affirming that digital activism on platforms such as Twitter can generate changes in public attitudes and promote collective actions (Nucci & Hibberd, 2021; Suitner et al., 2023), it was found that even though social media use is a statistically significant predictor of violent collective action against climate change, its effect is weak (see Table 2). This finding is consistent with the concept of “slacktivism” proposed by Morozov (2009), who affirms that social media use would be limited to the virtual sphere, making people feel good about themselves, but these actions alone would not transpire into initiatives with a real impact on climate change. This is evidenced by the lack of statistical significance of the direct path of social media on violent environmental collective action.

Table 2.

Multiple Regression Model.

	Violent environmental collective action
Independent variable	b (SE)	β
Social media use	.082 (.035)	.096	*
Social distance	−.005 (.049)	−.005
Temporal distance	.040 (.097)	.020
Spatial distance	−.006 (.064)	−.005
Probability distance	.255 (.069)	.185	***
Moral convictions	−.046 (.056)	−.042
Social identity	.368 (.063)	.295	***
Negative emotions	.109 (.028)	.203	***
Participative efficacy	.138 (.077)	.098
Group efficacy	−.167 (.078)	−.119	*
R²		.185

Note. N = 650. Control variables: Sex and age.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Climate change probability distance alone was found to be a statistically significant mediator of the relationship between social media use and violent environmental collective action with a medium negative effect size (see Figure 2). However, the multiple linear regression results (see Table 2) showed that the probability distance positively predicted the outcome variable; hence, when people see climate change as imminent, their intention of violent collective action decreased. This may be because as climate change is seen as an event that is bound to happen, people do not see the value of taking risks that could endanger them (Corcoran et al., 2015).

It was also found that both spatial distance and temporal distance had a medium negative indirect effect near the statistical significance level of p < .05 in the relationship between social media use and violent environmental collective action, which may reflect a lack of statistical power for such effects. A possible explanation for these findings is that social media use related to environmental issues (e.g., news sharing and diffusion of events) would make the conception of climate threat less abstract and influence our risk perception (Maiella et al., 2020; Zwickle & Wilson, 2013), thereby reducing skepticism about the effects of climate change (Diehl et al., 2021). Therefore, if climate change is perceived as proximate, our need for extreme behavior outside the established order (violent collective action) would increase.

Concerning the chain mediation analyses, all models (Figures 1 –4) showed that the SIMCA variables “Social Identity with Activists” and “Negative Emotions” enabled a path from social media use to violent environmental collective action, going through the four different types of psychological distances.

Figure 1.

SEM model—Social distance and violent collective action.

Figure 2.

SEM model—Probability distance and violent collective action.

Figure 3.

SEM model—Spatial distance and violent collective action.

Figure 4.

SEM model—Temporal distance and violent collective action.

Concerning the proposed paths, risk perception would increase through exposure to social media, leading to a greater need to act against climate change. An example of the influence of social media became clear in the context of COVID-19: Zhu and Liu (2021) found a bidirectional effect between media publications and risk perception, as well as the presence of a unidirectional effect from other users’ publications toward threat perception. Regarding emotions, several studies suggest that higher risk perception is related to fear and anger, which motivate normative and violent collective action against climate change (Gregersen et al., 2023; van Valkengoed et al., 2023). This perception of imminent risk associated with climate change would generate outrage toward individuals involved in environmental damage, such as political leaders favoring climate-damaging projects (Gregersen et al., 2023; Stanley et al., 2021). This way, emotions such as fear and anger may be related to aggression toward those who are considered responsible for environmental damage, which would lead to violent collective action (Bohannon, 2013; Böhm et al., 2023; Harth et al., 2013; Musher-Eizenman et al., 2004).

Furthermore, Alberici and Milesi (2018) found that the use of online platforms for sharing information, discussing, and other activities can influence the political identity of users, which in turn affects their willingness to engage in collective action. Based on the results and the connection of climate change with the political sphere, using social media would strengthen users’ identification with individuals who share similar political orientations, such as environmental activists, potentially leading to a radicalization of opinions (Chan, 2017). This way, the polarization found in virtual spaces such as echo chambers (Törnberg, 2018; Yarchi et al., 2021), along with a decrease in psychological distance, would allow for greater identification with activists and consideration of climate change as a proximal situation that affects the in-group (Tajfel, 1974). Furthermore, according to the literature, the path toward participation in environmental initiatives could be explained by the fact that identification with activists leads to the promotion of collective ecological actions (Brügger et al., 2020; Ruiz-Dodobara et al., 2023; van Zomeren et al., 2019; Wallis & Loy, 2021). In the violent sphere, it was found that identification with pro-environmental activism can predict violent environmental collective action, such as seizure of premises and property damage (Furlong & Vignoles, 2021; Schmitt et al., 2019).

Regarding the indirect path that includes participative efficacy, this research showed that the use of social media could decrease probability, spatial, and temporal distance. This reduction positively predicts the perception of participative efficacy, potentially promoting violent environmental collective action. These findings are consistent with recent literature, which has shown that the association between identification with activists and the intention of collective action was partially mediated by the perception of individual benefits and efficacy (Besta & Zawadzka, 2019; Blackwood & Louis, 2012). The empowering effect of social media could be a tentative explanation for the path found: Conversations occurring through social media would increase the notion of urgency of an event (Zwickle & Wilson, 2013) that is perceived as probable and close in time (Ge et al., 2021; Guo & Hou, 2023; Zhu & Liu, 2021). Besides, the persuasive support (Bandura, 2003) that a person could receive for their opinions and intentions through these virtual spaces would reinforce their perception of participative efficacy, leading them to engage in higher-risk environmental actions (Chu & Yang, 2020; Saab et al., 2016). Therefore, increased risk perception, due to an event’s perceived immediacy and certainty of occurrence, would strengthen the individuals’ sense of self-efficacy and their willingness to act (Choi et al., 2017), in this case, toward environmental protection.

It was found that at a lower psychological distance, regardless of its type, there is a greater moral conviction about the need to address climate change (Table 1). However, in this study, higher moral conviction does not transpire into violent actions challenging the status quo of individuals. This finding is in line with previous works, which suggests that the mere violation of individual moral convictions alone is not sufficient to motivate actions that challenge social norms, thus explaining the lack of a mediating effect in this sense (Pauls et al., 2021; Tausch et al., 2011). This is consistent with the literature given that engagement in violent actions may be against moral conventions (Galvin & Harris, 2019). Therefore, if the outcome variable consisted of normative environmental collective actions, perhaps moral convictions would have played a predictive role in the tendency to participate in these actions (Becker & Tausch, 2015).

No statistically significant indirect chain effect, including psychological distances and group efficacy, was found. A possible explanation for these findings is that violent actions are more related to the individual than to the group, as they depend more on individual decisions (Neyra, 2023).

Regarding the practical meaning of our findings, since the study identifies the variables that promote violent environmental collective action, social media communicators should propose messages that increase climate change consciousness with less abstract language, thereby decreasing psychological distance (Kim et al., 2016). At the same time, to promote normative environmental collective action, communicators should seek to increase group efficacy. This could be achieved by showing messages that demonstrate large-scale initiatives already being taken by activists or other groups to mitigate climate damage. These actions would promote an alternative way that could avoid the activation of negative emotions and participative efficacy, both connected to violent behaviors.

With respect to future research, it is important to note that in the context of social media, psychological distance (except for probability distance) by itself does not predict violent environmental collective action, so in further work on the impact of this variable, we recommend integrating emotions, such as anger and fear and identification with activists.

As for limitations, this study is based on a non-experimental cross-sectional design, which does not allow for the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between variables and limits the conclusions to the specific population selected. Likewise, given that the instruments collected were self-administered, social desirability may have been a factor involved, even if measures were taken to avoid this. Besides, the study was focused on university students, which restricts the extrapolation of the results in different populations. It is important to note that university students have a strong tendency to use social media. Therefore, the effect of these platforms on psychological distance could be enhanced in this individual in contrast to other age groups. We, therefore, suggest that future studies should explore the relationships between these variables in different samples.

In conclusion, the study gives insights about the relationship between social media and violent environmental collective action, through psychological distance and the SIMCA variables. The research highlights the importance of emotions, identity with activists, and participative efficacy in understanding the relationship between the predictive and outcome variables.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article was developed as part of the research project “Social media, psychological distance and collective action against climate change” of the Instituto de Investigación Científica (IDIC) of the Universidad de Lima. Project code: PI.50.001.2023

ORCID iD

Fernando Ruiz-Dodobara

Author Biographies

Fernando Ruiz-Dodobara (PhD in Psychology from the Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia) is Associate Professor and researcher at the Faculty of Psychology of the Universidad de Lima. His research interests include collective action, social media, climate change, and political culture.

Karla A. Uribe-Bravo (BS in Psychology from the Universidad de Lima) is a researcher at the Faculty of Psychology of the Universidad de Lima. Her research interests include mental health, social media, life satisfaction, and collective action.

Luis Miguel Escurra Mayaute (MSc in Psychology from the Universidad Ricardo Palma) is Associate Professor at the Universidad de Lima. His research interests include psychometrics, mental health, learning disabilities, and collective action.

References

Alberici

A. I.

Milesi

(2018). Online discussion and the moral pathway to identity politicization and collective action. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i1.1507

Anderson

A. A.

(2017). Effects of social media use on climate change opinion, knowledge, and behavior. In Oxford research Encyclopedia of Climate Science (pp. 1–20). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.369

Arellano

Tansey

Balzter

Boyd

D. S.

(2017). Field spectroscopy and radiative transfer modelling to assess impacts of petroleum pollution on biophysical and biochemical parameters of the Amazon rainforest. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76(5), 217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6536-6

Ballew

Omoto

Winter

(2015). Using Web 2.0 and social media technologies to foster proenvironmental action. Sustainability, 7(8), 10620–10648. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70810620

Bamberg

Rees

Seebauer

(2015). Collective climate action: Determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.006

Bandura

(2003). Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling media. In Entertainment-education and social change (pp. 97–118). Routledge.

Barth

Jugert

Wutzler

Fritsche

(2015). Absolute moral standards and global identity as independent predictors of collective action against global injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(7), 918–930. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.216

Basauri Delgado

M. Ángel

. (2023). Factores asociados a la adicción a redes sociales en universitarios: una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis [Factors associated with social media addiction in college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis]. Persona, 26(1), 11–56. https://doi.org/10.26439/persona2023.n26(1).6189

BBC. (2019, October 8). Exctinction Rebellion: ¿Quiénes forman parte del movimiento ecologista mundial y qué reclaman? [Extinction Rebellion: Who are part of the global environmental movement and what are their demands?]. BBC News Mundo. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-47978984

10.

Becker

J. C.

Tausch

(2015). A dynamic model of engagement in normative and non-normative collective action: Psychological antecedents, consequences, and barriers. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 43–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1094265

11.

Berdejo

(2021, September 21). Peru faces a surge of climate migrants. UNESCO. https://courier.unesco.org/en/articles/peru-faces-surge-climate-migrants

12.

Bergmann

Vinke

Fernández

C.A.

Palomino Gornott

Gleixner

Laudien

Lobanova

Ludescher

Schellnhuber

H.J.

(2021). Assessing the Evidence: Climate Change and Migration in Peru. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, and International Organization for Migration (IOM), Genev

13.

Besta

Zawadzka

A. M.

(2019). Expansion of the self of activists and nonactivists involved in mass gatherings for collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(2), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217735903

14.

Blackwood

L. M.

Louis

W. R.

(2012). If it matters for the group, then it matters to me: Collective action outcomes for seasoned activists. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02001.x

15.

Bohannon

(2013). Study links climate change and violence, battle ensues. Science, 341(6145), 444–445. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.341.6145.444

16.

Böhm

Pfister

H.-R.

Doran

Ogunbode

C. A.

Poortinga

Tvinnereim

Steentjes

Mays

Bertoldo

Sonnberger

Pidgeon

(2023). Emotional reactions to climate change: A comparison across France, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1139133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1139133

17.

Brechin

S. R.

(2016). Climate change mitigation and the collective action problem: Exploring country differences in greenhouse gas contributions. Sociological Forum, 31(Suppl. 1), 846–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12276

18.

Brügger

Gubler

Steentjes

Capstick

S. B.

(2020). Social Identity and risk perception explain participation in the Swiss youth climate strikes. Sustainability, 12(24), 10605–10605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410605

19.

Bugden

(2020). Does climate protest work? Partisanship, protest, and sentiment pools. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 6, 237802312092594. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120925949

20.

Carey

(2014). Glaciares, cambio climatico y desastres naturales. [Glaciers, climate change and natural disasters]. Ciencia y Sociedad en el Perú. IEP.

21.

Chan

(2017). Media use and the social identity model of collective action: Examining the roles of online alternative news and social media news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(3), 663–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016638837

22.

Choi

D.-H.

Yoo

Noh

G.-Y.

Park

(2017). The impact of social media on risk perceptions during the MERS outbreak in South Korea. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.004

23.

Chu

Yang

J. Z.

(2018). Taking climate change here and now–mitigating ideological polarization with psychological distance. Global Environmental Change, 53, 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.013

24.

Chu

Yang

J. 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

25.

Corcoran

K. E.

Pettinicchio

Young

J. T. N.

(2015). Perceptions of Structural Injustice and Efficacy: Participation in Low/Moderate/High-Cost Forms of Collective Action. Sociological Inquiry, 85(3), 429–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12082

26.

De Oliveira

V. H.

Ullah

Dunwell

J. M

Tibbett

(2020). Mycorrhizal symbiosis induces divergent patterns of transport and partitioning of Cd and Zn in Populus trichocarpa. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 171, 103925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2019.103925

27.

Diehl

Huber

Gil

Zúñiga

Liu

(2021a). Social media and beliefs about climate change: A cross-national analysis of news use, political ideology, and trust in science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 33(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz040

28.

Duit

(2010). Institutional quality, trust, and free-riding norms in 68 countries. Department of Political Science, University of Stockholm.

29.

El Peruano. (2023, January 15). A un año de la catástrofe ambiental [One year after the environmental catastrophe]. https://www.elperuano.pe/noticia/202197-a-un-ano-de-la-catastrofe-ambiental

30.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808

31.

Field

(2009). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics(5th ed). Sage

32.

Furlong

Vignoles

V. L.

(2021). Social identification in collective climate activism: Predicting participation in the environmental movement, extinction rebellion. Identity, 21(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2020.1856664

33.

Galvin

Harris

(2019). Collective action problems and the ethics of virtue. Southwest Philosophy Review, 35(1), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.5840/swphilreview201935114

34.

Gates

(2021). Cómo evitar un desastre climático: Las soluciones que ya tenemos y los avances que aún necesitamos [How to avoid a climate disaster: The solutions we already have and the advances we still need] (001 ed.). Plaza & Janés.

35.

Yang

Wang

Dou

Mao

(2021). Understanding risk perception from floods: A case study from China. Natural Hazards, 105(3), 3119–3140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04458-y

36.

Gerbaudo

(2016). From data analytics to data hermeneutics. Online political discussions, digital methods and the continuing relevance of interpretive approaches. Digital Culture & Society, 2(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2016-0207

37.

Gestión . (2023, September 19). Pescadores artesanales bloquean Panamericana Norte y piden diálogo con Repsol [Artisanal fishermen blockade Panamericana Norte and request dialogue with Repsol]. https://gestion.pe/peru/derrame-de-petroleo-pescadores-artesanales-bloquean-panamericana-norte-y-piden-dialogo-con-repsol-ventanilla-noticia/

38.

Gregersen

Andersen

Tvinnereim

(2023). The strength and content of climate anger. Global Environmental Change, 82, 102738–102738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102738

39.

Guillard

Fleury-Bahi

Navarro

(2021). Encouraging individuals to adapt to climate change: Relations between coping strategies and psychological distance. Sustainability, 13(2), 992–992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020992

40.

Guo

Hou

(2023). COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity or challenge: Applying psychological distance theory and the co-benefit frame to promote public support for climate change mitigation on social media. Environmental Communication, 18, 550–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2205038

41.

Halpern

Valenzuela

Katz

J. E.

(2017). We face, I Tweet: How different social media influence political participation through collective and internal efficacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(6), 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12198

42.

Harth

N. S.

Leach

C. W.

Kessler

(2013). Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.005

43.

Hayes

A. F.

Coutts

J. J.

(2020). Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629

44.

Heiberger

R. M.

Holland

(2015). Statistical Analysis and data display. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2122-5

45.

Infobae. (2022, January 19). Derrame de petróleo: Reacciones en redes sociales tras declaraciones de la gerente de comunicaciones de Repsol [Oil spill: Reactions in social networks after statements by Repsol’s communications manager]. https://www.infobae.com/america/peru/2022/01/20/derrame-de-petroleo-en-peru-reacciones-en-redes-sociales-tras-declaraciones-de-la-gerente-de-comunicaciones-de-repsol/

46.

Jones

Hine

D. W.

Marks

A. D. G.

(2017). The future is now: Reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Analysis, 37(2), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12601

47.

Kámiche

(2023, March 1). Derrames de petróleo en la Amazonía, ¿por qué nos cuesta tanto “verlos”? [Oil spills in the Amazon, why is it so hard for us to “see” them?] Centro de Investigación de la Universidad del Pacífico. https://ciup.up.edu.pe/analisis/derrames-de-petroleo-en-la-amazonia-por-que-nos-cuesta-tanto-verlos/

48.

Keith

T. Z.

(2019). Multiple Regression and Beyond: An Introduction to Multiple Regression and Structural Equation Modeling. Routledge.

49.

Kim

D. H.

Sung

Y. H.

Lee

S. Y.

Choi

Sung

(2016). Are you on timeline or news feed? The roles of Facebook pages and construal level in increasing ad effectiveness. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.031

50.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.

51.

Landmann

Naumann

(2023). Being positively moved by climate protest predicts peaceful collective action. Global Environmental Psychology, 2. https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.11113

52.

Landmann

Rohmann

(2020). Being moved by protest: Collective efficacy beliefs and injustice appraisals enhance collective action intentions for forest protection via positive and negative emotions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101491

53.

Lee

A. R.

Hon

Won

(2018). Psychological proximity as a predictor of participation in a social media issue campaign. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.006

54.

León

Zuñiga

(2020). The shadow of oil: Report on oil spills in the Peruvian Amazon between 2000 and 2019 [La sombra del petróleo: Informe de los derrames petroleros en la Amazonía peruana entre el 2000 y el 2019]. Oxfam América Inc.

55.

Liu

(2016). Digital media, cycle of contention, and sustainability of environmental activism: The case of anti-PX protests in China. Mass Communication and Society, 19(5), 604–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1203954

56.

Luque Bustamante

. (2020). Coastal floods and mudslides risk in Peru. Emergency and Disaster Reports, 7(3), 3–43. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7912325

57.

Maiella

La Malva

Marchetti

Pomarico

Di Crosta

Palumbo

Cetara

Di Domenico

Verrocchio

M. C.

(2020). The psychological distance and climate change: A systematic review on the mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 568899. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568899

58.

Magalhães

de Evangelista

Condom

Rabatel

Ginot

(2019). Amazonian Biomass Burning Enhances Tropical Andean Glaciers Melting. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 16914. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53284-

59.

Matthews

H. D.

Zickfeld

Koch

Luers

(2023). Accounting for the climate benefit of temporary carbon storage in nature. Nature Communications, 14(1), 5485–5485. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41242-5

60.

Meng

Chung

Zhang

(2023). The effect of social media environmental information exposure on the intention to participate in pro-environmental behavior. PLOS ONE, 18(11), Article e0294577. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294577

61.

Ministerio del Ambiente del Perú (2019). Infographic: Nationally Determined Contributions. https://www.gob.pe/institucion/minam/informes-publicaciones/305984-infographic-nationally-determined-contributions

62.

Morozov

(2009). Iran: Downside to the “Twitter revolution.” Dissent, 56(4), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1353/dss.0.0092

63.

Moskalenko

McCauley

(2009). Measuring political mobilization: The distinction between activism and radicalism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 21(2), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550902765508

64.

Musher-Eizenman

D. R.

Boxer

Danner

Dubow

E. F.

Goldstein

S. E.

Heretick

D. M. L.

(2004). Social-cognitive mediators of the relation of environmental and emotion regulation factors to children’s aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 30(5), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20078

65.

Neyra

(2023). Environmental conflicts and violence in Latin America: Experiences from Peru. In Bustos

Engel-Di Mauro

García-Lopez

Milanez

Diana

Ojeda

(Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Latin America and the Environment. Routledge.

66.

Nucci

Hibberd

(2021). Eco-activism, Human-Computer Interaction and Fast Fashion (pp. 519–530). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78224-5_36

67.

Odağ

Ö.

Melis Uluğ

Ö.

Solak

. (2016). Everyday I’m çapuling. Journal of Media Psychology, 28(3), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000202

68.

Paucar

(2023, January 15). Derrame de petróleo de Repsol: a un año de la catástrofe ambiental, los daños y las pérdidas que afectaron a miles de pescadores en Ancón [Repsol oil spill: one year after the environmental catastrophe, damages and losses affecting thousands of fishermen in Ancón]. Infobae. https://www.infobae.com/america/peru/2023/01/07/derrame-de-petroleo-de-repsol-a-un-ano-de-la-castastrofe-ambiental-los-danos-y-las-cuantiosas-perdidas-que-afecto-a-miles-de-pescadores-y-comerciantes-en-ancon/

69.

Pauls

I. L.

Shuman

van Zomeren

Saguy

Halperin

(2021). Does crossing a moral line justify collective means? Explaining how a perceived moral violation triggers normative and nonnormative forms of collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2818

70.

Pinto Herrera

. (2010). Desastre ecológico y ambiental en Huancavelica. Investigaciones Sociales, 14(25), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.15381/is.v14i25.7321

71.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

72.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

73.

Rapp

(2023, March 5). The Deepwater Horizon oil spill ruined long-term shore stability. ScienceNews. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-louisiana-shoreline-stability

74.

Rickard

L. N.

Yang

Z. J.

Schuldt

J. P.

(2016). Here and now, there and then: How “departure dates” influence climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change, 38, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.003

75.

Ruiz-Dodobara

Escurra Mayaute

L. M.

Angeletti

A. A.

(2021, June 23–26). Cyberactivism, Facebook self-efficacy and collective action among Peruvian students. In 2021 16th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI52073.2021.9476355

76.

Ruiz-Dodobara

Villanueva Moran

A. R.

Escurra Mayaute

L. M.

(2023). Redes sociales y acción colectiva contra el cambio climático en estudiantes universitarios peruanos [Social networks and collective action against climate change among Peruvian university students]. Comunicación y Sociedad. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.32870/cys.v2023.8413

77.

Saab

Spears

Tausch

Sasse

(2016). Predicting aggressive collective action based on the efficacy of peaceful and aggressive actions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(5), 529–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2193

78.

Sabucedo

J. M.

Arce

(1991). Types of political participation: A multidimensional analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 20(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1991.tb00257.x

79.

Sacchi

Riva

Aceto

(2016). Myopic about climate change: Cognitive style, psychological distance, and environmentalism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.006

80.

Schmitt

M. T.

Mackay

C. M. L.

Droogendyk

L. M.

Payne

(2019). What predicts environmental activism? The roles of identification with nature and politicized environmental identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.11.003

81.

Schoemann

A. M.

Boulton

A. J.

Short

S. D.

(2017). Determining Power and Sample Size for Simple and Complex Mediation Models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068

82.

Schuldt

J. P.

Rickard

L. N.

Yang

Z. J.

(2018). Does reduced psychological distance increase climate engagement? On the limits of localizing climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.001

83.

Şen

A. F.

Şen

Y. F.

(2016). Online environmental activism in Turkey: The case study of “The Right to Water.” Global Bioethics, 27(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2015.1137184

84.

Singh

A. S.

Zwickle

Bruskotter

J. T.

Wilson

(2017). The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 73, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.011

85.

Singh

Deshpande

Basu

(2017). How do we assess vulnerability to climate change in India? A systematic review of literature. Regional Environmental Change, 17(2), 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1043-y

86.

Sireci

Faulkner-Bond

(2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema, 26(1), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.256

87.

Spence

Poortinga

Pidgeon

(2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x

88.

Stanley

S. K.

Ng Tseung-Wong

Leviston

Walker

(2021). Acceptance of climate change and climate refugee policy in Australia and New Zealand: The case against political polarisation. Climatic Change, 169(3–4), 26–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03278-8

89.

Suh

(2015). The Performance of Maximum Likelihood and Weighted Least Square Mean and Variance Adjusted Estimators in Testing Differential Item Functioning With Nonnormal Trait Distributions. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(4), 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.937669

90.

Suitner

Badia

Clementel

Iacovissi

Migliorini

Salvador Casara

B. G.

Solimini

Formanowicz

Erseghe

(2023). The rise of #climateaction in the time of the FridaysForFuture movement: A semantic network analysis. Social Media, 75, 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2022.06.003

91.

Sung

Y. H.

Kim

D. H.

Choi

Lee

S. Y.

(2020). Facebook ads not working in the same way: The effect of cultural orientation and message construals on consumer response to social media ads. Telematics and Informatics, 52, 101427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101427

92.

Tajfel

(1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13, 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204

93.

Tausch

Becker

J. C.

Spears

Christ

Saab

Singh

Siddiqui

R. N.

(2011). Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022728

94.

Thomas

E. F.

Mavor

K. I.

McGarty

(2012). Social identities facilitate and encapsulate action-relevant constructs. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211413619

95.

Toledo-Leyva

(2022, January 21). Derrame de petróleo en Perú: “La culpa es de Repsol [Oil spill in Peru: “It’s Repsol’s fault].” DW. https://www.dw.com/es/derrame-de-petr%C3%B3leo-en-la-costa-de-per%C3%BA-la-culpa-es-de-repsol/a-60503000

96.

Törnberg

(2018). Echo chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex contagion. PLOS ONE, 13(9), Article e0203958. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203958

97.

Trope

Liberman

(2010). “Construal-level theory of psychological distance”: Correction to Trope and Liberman (2010). Psychological Review, 117(3), 1024–1024. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020319

98.

Valdivia Blume

. (2023, October 24). Derrame de petróleo: Cientos de pescadores artesanales continúan sin acceder al registro de afectados por el desastre ambiental [Oil spill: Hundreds of artisanal fishermen still not registered as affected by the environmental disaster]. Infobae. https://www.infobae.com/peru/2023/10/24/derrame-de-petroleo-cientos-de-pescadores-artesanales-continuan-sin-acceder-al-registro-de-afectados-por-el-desastre-ambiental/

99.

van Valkengoed

A. M.

Steg

de Jonge

. (2023). Climate anxiety: A research agenda inspired by emotion research. Emotion Review, 15(4), 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739231193752

100.

van Zomeren

Pauls

I. L.

Cohen-Chen

. (2019). Is hope good for motivating collective action in the context of climate change? Differentiating hope’s emotion- and problem-focused coping functions. Global Environmental Change, 58, 101915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.04.003

101.

Wallis

Loy

L. S.

(2021). What drives pro-environmental activism of young people? A survey study on the Fridays For Future movement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101581

102.

Wamuyu

P. K.

(2018). Leveraging Web 2.0 technologies to foster collective civic environmental initiatives among low-income urban communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.029

103.

Wang

Hurlstone

M. J.

Leviston

Walker

Lawrence

(2019). Climate change from a distance: An analysis of construal level and psychological distance from climate change. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 230. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00230

104.

Viladrich

Angulo-Brunet

Doval

(2017). A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401

105.

Wong

(2024, June 18). How do oil spills affect the environment? Earth Org. https://earth.org/how-do-oil-spills-affect-the-environment/

106.

Wright

S. C.

Taylor

D. M.

Moghaddam

F. M.

(1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.994

107.

Yarchi

Baden

Kligler-Vilenchik

(2021). Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1–2), 98–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067

108.

Zhu

Liu

(2021). Capturing the interplay between risk perception and social media posting to support risk response and decision making. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5220–5220. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105220

109.

Zwickle

Wilson

R. S.

(2013). Construing risk: Implications for risk communication. In Arvai

Rivers III

(Eds.), Effective risk communication (1st ed., pp. 190–203). Routledge.

Social Media,Psychological Distance,and Environmental Collective Action in Peru

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Framework

Social Media and Collective Action

Psychological Distance and Support of Actions Against Climate Change

Social Media and Psychological Distance

Method

Design

Participants and Procedures

Measurements

Analysis Plan

Results

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References