Understanding (and Reducing) Inaction on Climate Change

• DOI: 10.1111/sipr.12058
• Publication Date: 2019-09-05T10:55:58Z
• Authors: Matthew J. Hornsey; Kelly S. Fielding
• Keywords: 3207 Social Psychology; Sociology and Political Science; Social Psychology; 3301 Social Sciences (miscellaneous); 05 social sciences; 7. Clean energy; 3202 Applied Psychology; 300; 3312 Sociology and Political Science; 13. Climate action; 11. Sustainability; 0501 psychology and cognitive sciences; Applied Psychology; Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

AbstractFor over 50 years, scientists have sounded alarms that the burning of fossil fuels is causing changes to the Earth's climate, and that failure to take action on climate change will have devastating consequences. Despite this urgency, CO2 emissions (and global temperatures) continue to climb. Progress on mitigating climate change is slowed by the stubborn persistence of climate skepticism, as well as a failure for nonskeptics to translate their concern about climate change into meaningful action. The goal of this article is to describe and synthesize research on how to understand (and reduce) this public inaction on climate change. In the first half of the article, we examine the question of how to understand (and overcome) climate change skepticism. We review international evidence regarding the role of demographics, ideologies, and conspiracist worldviews in shaping people's willingness to believe in the reality of human‐caused climate change. We then review theory and research on how to successfully capture the attention of—and change the behavior of—people who traditionally resist climate change messages, such as those high in conservatism and free‐market beliefs. In the second half of the article, we examine how to promote more climate‐friendly behaviors among people who believe in the reality of climate change. Evidence will be reviewed suggesting that many people agree that climate change is caused by humans, but are not yet willing to make the necessary investments and sacrifices to respond to this threat. We then draw on relevant literatures to critically discuss three strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: (i) optimistic versus pessimistic messages; (ii) in‐group versus out‐group messenger effects; and (c) the use of descriptive and injunctive norms.