Several experimental studies have attempted to change people’s attitude about climate change. A new systematic analysis of such intervention studies has found that it is easier to induce skepticism about climate change than bolster belief in it.
In a report released recently, WHO called climate change the “single biggest health threat facing humanity”. At an open debate held at the UN’s security council earlier this year, David Attenborough called it the “the biggest threat to security that modern humans have ever faced”. The evidence regarding human-caused climate and its effect on human health and security has been clear for decades now. However, current policies are considered grossly inadequate to deal with its fallout.
What keeps us from committing to more effective policies? Researchers have identified at least two major hurdles. One – public consensus does not mirror consensus among scientists regarding the cause, scope and effects of climate change.
“Whereas 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused global warming is occurring, a recent poll found that only 62% of the American sample reported that they believe global warming is human-caused.”
Two – greater acceptance of the facts of climate change does not automatically translate to bigger policy commitments. For instance, people maybe less motivated to support new climate change mitigation policies that require allocation of significant money (tax) and other resources.
“Research finds that policies framed as taxes are especially disliked, highlighting that cost may play a role in policy support”
Researchers have tested several intervention strategies designed to positively influence people’s attitudes in this regard. Such interventions involve providing general information about the effects of climate change (on health, economy, national security etc.), messaging about the agreement among climate scientists, highlighting urgency of climate action, appealing to emotions (fears of climate catastrophes), appealing to morality or even religious feelings.
A new meta-analysis by Jacob Rode et al. reviewed the results of 76 independent experiments (N = 76,033 participants) to determine how effective interventions were in changing people’s attitude about climate change. They found that interventions, in general had a positive effect on people’s attitude. However, the effect size is very small.
The study did not identify any strategy as particularly effective, but found that interventions that invoked emotion, decreased psychological distance (instilled a sense of urgency), and involved religion did better than other strategies. Perhaps the most damning finding of the study is that interventions aimed at reducing belief in climate change (by presenting misinformation or anti-climate change arguments), were significantly more effective.
The meta-analysis also suggests that it is significantly easier to influence people’s belief in climate change than their attitude about climate change policy. The study found that among all attitude “types”, attitudes regarding climate change policy is the most resistant to interventions.
“it is more difficult to influence people’s attitudes about supporting a climate change policy than to persuade them that climate change exists.”
Researchers did not find significant differences in the effectiveness of interventions among conservatives and liberals. They however note the possibility that this might not be because interventions have the same effect on both groups. Instead, they suggest that “conservatives may have been dismissive of positive interventions on average (leading to low effectiveness) and liberals may have exhibited a ceiling effect (with strong climate change attitudes even before interventions)”.
The meta-analysis was restricted to studies based in the United States. It was also restricted to interventions in the form of one-time messages. Read more about the study by Jacob Rode, Amy Dent, Caitlin Benedict, Daniel Brosnahan, Ramona Martinez, and Peter Ditto here.
