Exploring psychological factors driving resistance to climate action and messaging strategies to overcome them.
Why Is There Resistance to Action?
Parallels between resistance in the context of climate change action and in the context of engineering and construction change management exist, and they can display some of the resistive actions to engaging about climate change on a macro-level.
Research by Lines, Sullivan, Smithwick, and Mischung (2014) into means of overcoming resistance to change in engineering and construction revealed several resistive behaviors that can be seen in the global community. Namely, reluctant compliance, delaying, restricting education, arguing and open criticism, obstructing and subverting, and spreading negative word. The global community has displayed non-compliance in the face of UN agreements and has delayed meaningful action. Restricting education about climate change, arguing, criticizing, obstructing, subverting, and spreading negativity about the need to respond to global warming are tactics employed by a “denial industry.”
Despite the severity and significant onset of the events of climate change influenced events, there is insufficient action being taken by the global community on all levels. On an individual level, the causes for this lack of action are diverse and varies between individuals. One cause is the denial of the existence, severity, or reasons for climate change. Although there is a plethora of authoritative research linking human activity to climate change and the severe consequences of inaction, many deny these reports (Oreskes, 2004).
In human psychology, denial is a defense mechanism that makes people feel safer in the short-term, when faced the reality of a problem (McLeod, 2019). By denying the reality of the problem, one can feel momentarily safer while continuing to operate in an unsafe manner. As a species, climate change poses an existential risk, so denial is a natural response to such hazards based on our psychology. However, denial does not work as a defense mechanism long-term, as the issue will not go away, and problems will compound until it cannot be denied any longer. If a person has a money problem, and should begin budgeting and spending within constrains, they may deny the issue all together and continue spending extravagantly. This may work in the short-term while their debts begin to rise and accumulate, however there will be a point where they will run out of money and lose the ability to pay off their debts altogether. The defense mechanism worked in protecting the person in the short-term, but it caused more harm in the long -term by preventing action that could have mitigated their financial issue. Similarly, for climate change, we have been “spending” our ecological resources beyond what the budget of our biosphere allows since the Industrial Revolution.
This paper will discuss four additional reasons for the prevalence of climate change denial: a denial industry, ideology & personality, and a lack of knowledge. The denial industry is a coordinated effort to spread misinformation about climate change, so people feel justified in ignoring the link between human activities and climate change. There is a significant profit motive to reduce the importance of climate change action in the voting public, as many of the necessary actions come from industries like oil and gas and the meat industry, which emit large amounts of greenhouse gases through their processes (Grasso, 2019). Political ideology presents another significant predictor of climate change denial (Drummond & Fischhoff, 2017). As political arenas become more polarized, the information each side disseminates becomes critical to their members’ personal ideology. By identifying with a given political party, the facts those party’s spread also become important to people.
What is denial?
Denial can work as a short-term defensive mechanism to allow people to feel safe and secure in the face of adversity.
As time progresses, the benefits of denial turn into the drawbacks. This sense of safety and security is a delusion which does not stop the adverse situation from going away or improving. It lulls people into avoidance or inaction and thus the problem they are facing will still be present and might get worse for them.
Specific to climate change, the drawbacks of denial from significant groups of people are burdensome to the biosphere. A lack of action to stop a lifestyle of high-mass consumption that has been promoted for several decades acts to exacerbate the issue further by providing a profit motive for companies to make “more, better, faster, and cheaper.”
Furthermore, a lack of political action from people translates to governments playing to denial demographics to gain election or re-election. Once in power, they can refuse to enact legislation and regulations that can curb carbon emissions or incentivize sustainable practices. Finally, the scientific community is affected by denial due to the backlash they often face from groups who deny the existence, magnitude, or cause of climate change. Research from Lewandowsky, Oreskes, Risbey, Newell, and Smithson suggests that this translates into scientists conceding positions they may not normally take (2015). This trend could further expand the effects of denial in a negative feedback loop.
Why is there climate change denial?
For the purpose of this paper, climate denialism will be defined as Lavik (2016) suggests, as an automatic dismissal of anthropogenic climate change when faced with evidence of its existence. The causes of climate change denial vary and influence each other. There is a “denial industry” pushing out misinformation to facilitate denial. Additionally, many who deny climate change lack knowledge about the science behind climate change.
Research by Häkkinen & Akrami suggests that the personality trait, Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a stronger predictor of climate denial than political ideology (2014). However, political ideology is still a significant factor in climate denialism as research from Drummond and Fischhoff (2017) confirms that personality and ideology can influence the likelihood of someone denying climate change as well.
Understanding the ideological and personal characteristics which drive climate denial can benefit efforts to facilitate more constructive engagement with such people. It is critical to overcome and understand ideologically driven climate deniers because these voices can also influence the broader publics opinions and beliefs about climate science (Lewandowsky, Pilditch, Madsen, Oreskes, & Risby, 2019).
“Denial Industry”
Despite a plethora of consensus data and agreement from the overwhelming majority of the climate science community, misinformation and doubt is sown from a “denial industry” which works to the benefit of corporations that profit from the status quo. The scientific consensus shared by the scientific community supports the fact that the Earth is warming at unprecedented rates due to human activity (Oreskes, 2004).
The human activity in question are the actions which emit greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Similar to the manner in which the tobacco industry pushed back against the legitimate claims of the medical community, the oil and gas industry is pushing out doubt to maintain their profitable position in the energy sector (Grasso, 2019).
Some members of the denial industry go as far as to suggest climate change is a hoax. The viability of this assertion was tested by Grimes (2016) in his simulations of various conspiracy theories. He found that 405 000 people would need to be in on a climate change conspiracy, and it would likely be leaked (fail) within 26.77 years of onset when limiting “conspirators” to only scientists, but 3.7 years when factoring in scientific bodies. Given that concerns about climate change has been expressed by the scientific community for well over 30 years, a conspiracy is highly unlikely.
Carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are a critical part of the process of extracting and refining oil and gas, as well as the power-generating applications of the oil and gas. Many corporations fund think tanks and research aimed at sowing discontent about the scientific consensus which exists (Grasso, 2019).
Although the number of people involved in the blatant denial of any scientific facts that suggest anthropogenic climate change is small, their effect can be voluminous. Lewandowsky et al. (2019) suggests that public opinion can be swayed, and scientific belief formation can be delayed by a minority of 10%. Adams (2016) reports on NASA’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, who testified to the United States Congress that special interests are impeding the path to a renewable future in the face of a global emergency.
Ideology and personality
Research from Drummond and Fischoff suggests that people who identify as more politically liberal are more likely to accept the scientific consensus on the issue of climate change (2017). Their research also suggests that an increase in scientific literacy increases the polarization on climate change based on political identity.
Häkkinen and Akrami found that Social Dominance Orientation, which is they define as “a predisposition to support group-based social hierarchies and intergroup dominance”, is an even stronger predictor of climate denial than political identity (2014). They suggest anti-environmental attitudes from high SDO individuals are rooted in a desire to dominate the environment around them. A key finding from their research is that despite ideology, people are receptive to communication about climate change.
The link between SDO and environmentalism was also suggested by Milfont, Richter, Sibley, Wilson, and Fischer (2013). Milfont et al. suggests individuals who are high in SDO can be influenced to engage in climate action by shifting the focus of the issue on “protecting the country” rather than suggesting major shifts to their current socioeconomic reality (2013).
Lack of knowledge
Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole, and Whitmarsh’s findings suggest that a lack of knowledge is one of the major individual barriers to people engaging in climate change action (2007). They found respondents did not know about the link between human activity and climate change and did not have the desire of tools to find this information. These respondents also reported confusion about the links between climate change and the solutions to climate change as well as conflicting information and partial evidence. Researchers also found they harbored a distrust in the sources of climate information, like the media. A failure to connect them to impacts that affected their localities was also reported. Additionally, the format of information was found to be difficult to process by people who were not experts in climate science. Finally, people ignored information that conflicted with their values or personal experience.
How do you overcome resistance to action?
Appealing to fear can be counterintuitive to increase meaningful climate action (O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009). One such issue is the different ways people respond to external threats. When it becomes difficult to imagine controlling an external threat, people may turn to controlling their internal environment through apathy or denial. Although fear-evoking images are effective in generating concern, these concerns do not translate into action. The emotional reactions to fear act as barriers to action. Research by O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole (2009) suggests one such barrier is a paralysis to action due to the problem seeming too large for people to do anything about it. Images produced by researchers that garnered the highest rates of people feeling that they were unable to act to help with climate change were apocalyptic in nature. Conversely, images which were more solution- based and smaller scale left people feeling that they were empowered to help with the problem Examples of these include thermostats, energy efficient bulbs, cycles, wind turbines, and solar panels.
Connecting people with tangible solutions which clearly demonstrate a link to the problem are effective in generating action. Stevenson, Peterson, Bondell, Moore, Carrier, and Stevenson suggest education efforts in adolescents is effective in shifting worldviews to accept Anthropogenic Global Warming (2014). However, they note for adults, this method is not as effective because their values and world-views are more entrenched. Literature by Whitmarsh, O’Neil, and Lorenzoni (2013) and Aragón, Buxton and Infield (2019), suggests that public engagement is an effective means of communicating about climate change to the general public. Whitmarsh et al. expands, stating that community-based engagement efforts are more effective than engagement coming from larger government organizations.
Public engagement works because people feel that they are a part of the process rather than subjects of enforcement according to a thematic analysis of town hall data conducted by Smith, Bensimon, Perez, Sahni, and Upshur (2012). By connecting the conversation to a local level, it connects the people to a more personal place (their home) rather than distant lands.
What are some recommendations based on this research?
A lack of public information is not what is holding back climate action. There is an overwhelming consensus on the reality of anthropogenic global warming as well as the catastrophic implications of not keeping this warming below 2 degrees Celsius. Rather, the issue at hand is one based around communication. The message from the scientific community is not resonating with the public, nor is it translating into action and political will.
Increasing and enhancing public engagement with respect to climate change can be accomplished by focusing on community-based engagement and implications. Additionally, prioritizing communication of a link between what sort of actions that are required and how those actions link to the problem at hand will improve the public engagement process. Utilizing Fischhoff’s model of risk communication, as Johnson (2012) suggests could make engagement more effective to a wider audience. As Johnson (2012) suggests, explaining the implications of the climate data while showing the public they have rejected similar risks in the past while accepting similar restrictive measures in the past could garner more support for climate action. Additionally, emphasizing the benefits of climate action that goes beyond the environmental and ideological, while involving the public in the deliberation process will enhance the engagement effort further (Johnson, 2012).
The use of visual tools will also enhance the impact of public engagement and communication (Farver, 2008). In addition to maximizing the use of visuals in reports or text-based communication with the public, these visuals should also incorporate a connection to the specific communities that are being engaged. Moser’s (2014) literary review of climate change adaptation communication suggests the effectiveness of place attachment and identity in improving engagement. Developing tools like Duclic, Angel, and Sheppard’s (2016) interactive 3D environment of a real coastal town that improved public climate engagement will be an effective means of connecting people to personal places in an immersive way. By using technology to simulate the effects of climate change and possible mitigation measures, the impacts and implications become more “real” to the eyes of the audience.
Providing a diverse set of solutions and framing the issue as a collaborative and “voluntary” effort also impacts the public more positively than communicating with an authoritative tone (Smith et al, 2012). Appealing to multiple angles with respect to the implications and solutions to climate change will ensure more people are engaged. Research by Farver (2008) suggest that shifting focus to the benefits of energy efficiency and sustainable sources of energy as an economic decision can garner support from individuals who do not care about the state of the environment or the implications for future generations. Farver’s research also indicates that connecting climate change to social norms and leveraging the strength of social pressure to induce action can also be effective.
The solution to overcoming resistance to climate change action involves using diverse engagement methods (Whitmarsh et al., 2013). Multiple messages and strategies must be employed to induce action from as wide a group as possible. This occurs by segmenting the population based on their values and connecting climate change and the actions required to slow it down, to those values.