by Milagros Ferreira
The paper idea itself is fresh and original combining the themes of the course (Eco-criticism) with her own field of interest (Psychology).
—Sochuiwon Priscilla Khapai, professor
In this essay for ENGL2100, Milagros explores the psychological factors behind many peoples’ refusal to take action to prevent climate change. Using reports, psychological theory, journalism and other sources, Milagros weaves together a complex portrait of climate change inaction, as well as ways people overcome these psychological barriers. This paper represents a well-researched dive into an urgent, necessary topic.
—Joss Lake, editor
We are often warned about the long-lasting effects of climate change on the world; however, the impending doom of the Earth is still not an incentive for citizens and the government to view climate change as a detriment to society. This paper will focus on the interrelation between psychology and climate change, and more specifically, how psychology can influence the willingness of individuals to participate in diminishing the impact of climate change in the United States through the 2000s. Americans’ unwillingness to participate in those efforts will only lead to greater destruction of our planet. Delving deeper into the driving forces of our inaction through a psychological lens will provide a better understanding as to why and how people justify their reluctance to better an issue that may seem irreparable.
Climate inaction worsens the already devastating effects of climate change. The well-known results of climate change include an increase in natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes, droughts, sea level rise, and, of course, temperatures. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration states that global temperatures have risen about 1.98 degrees from 1901 to 2020. The sea level rise has increased from 1.7 millimeters a year to 3.2 millimeters a year since 1993 and the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has risen by 25% since 1958. These devastations will only increase as people continue to disregard such a critical issue. Without the participation and acknowledgment of all citizens, the planet we know and love will cease to exist.
Climate inaction happens not only because of ignorance, though this is a part of the apathy towards climate change, but also due to psychological factors. The environment an individual is surrounded by impacts their thinking, emotions, and psychological biases. In this society, those with access to information and education are generally more aware of the long-term effects of climate change on the Earth due to the influx of information we are subjected to every day. Our access to information raises the question, why is there still such rampant skepticism regarding climate change?1 Psychology can help answer this question. In analyzing scholarly articles, this essay will show how psychologically based factors influence climate inaction in individuals.
Psychological biases plague our understanding of climate change, creating a skewed image of its gravity. Dominic Johnson and Simon Levin’s article, “The tragedy of cognition: psychological biases and environmental inaction” delves into four biases shaping individuals’ perspectives of climate change. According to the authors, we often do not have command over how our brain processes information, particularly in situations where there is an absence of first-hand experience with a specific scenario. Sensory bias addresses the human biological inclination to respond to stimuli perceived by our five senses, while stimuli outside our direct personal experience may not elicit a full reaction from the brain until physically detected (1595). Despite the brain’s ability to generate empathetic responses to distant events, these reactions pale in intensity compared to firsthand experiences, further validating the challenge of grasping the effects of environmental change without emotional and psychological ramifications.
In Jia Tolentino’s New Yorker article, the story of the Tanjutco sisters serves as a pertinent illustration of how first-hand experiences significantly influence an individual’s response to climate change (Tolentino, Newyorker.com). Tolentino’s article explores the aftermath of typhoons in the Philippines, where two sisters, having witnessed horrific images of drownings, founded Kids for Kids to raise funds for typhoon relief with festivals. This emotional engagement serves as a stark contrast to the detached, sensory biases discussed earlier. It emphasizes that real, tangible experiences not only provide a more accurate understanding of the gravity of climate change but also foster a deep emotional connection that transcends statistical knowledge. The Tanjutco sisters had a more proactive response to their people’s suffering, “enlisting their friends and peers to put on festivals that raised money for typhoon relief in minority and Indigenous communities,” while those who have not been affected personally may struggle to comprehend the depth of emotional connection and urgency required for such proactive initiatives. Psychological bias, as discussed by Levin and Johnson, influences judgment by helping people to maintain the norm and rebel against change. Positive illusions enable a way for humans to deal with environmental degradation, leading them to overestimate their capacity to cope, underestimate the likelihood of personal impact, and exaggerate control over events (1596).
Additionally, cognitive dissonance also serves as a psychological defense mechanism wherein individuals unconsciously align contradictory information with existing beliefs and avoid situations that amplify that dissonance, especially regarding unsettling news about climate change and natural disasters (Johnson and Levin 1597). These defense mechanisms provide individuals an opportunity to alleviate feelings of guilt, despair, and hopelessness. Tolentino explored these emotions in her portrayal of Tim Wehage, who personally experienced the environmental impacts of climate change in certain cities. Wehage’s reality surpassed what he had read in the news and online articles, prompting a drastic lifestyle change, leading to isolation and a profound sense of powerlessness. Plagued with anxiety over his indirect contributions to the planet’s issues, Wehage found himself unable to enjoy activities he once loved, consumed by the constant checking of climate issues on platforms like Reddit. Wehage’s story serves as an example of the struggle of awakening to the gruesome product of climate catastrophe. Wehage’s experience provides a possible reason for the subconscious reliance on psychological defense mechanisms discussed by Johnson and Levin. Individuals who neglect to act on climate change might find it more manageable to disregard it, choosing to avoid contemplating its unfathomable consequences.
Anger and fear can impact an individual’s capacity to take action. In a study published by the American Psychological Association, Heather Lench, a professor at Texas A&M University and lead author, concluded that “anger increases effort toward attaining a desired goal, frequently resulting in greater success.” If emotions such as anger can enhance a person’s initiative, conversely, fear has the potential to immobilize them. Lena Maria Schlegel’s paper “Between Climates of Fear and Blind Optimism: The Affective Role of Emotions for Climate (In)Action” delves into the profound impact of emotions, like those experienced by Wehage, on a person’s capability to address and comprehend climate change. Schlegel contends that fear can manifest in various forms, such as anxiety, as Wehage experienced. Climate anxiety is portrayed as a pervasive sense that the ecological foundations of existence are collapsing (425). This realization has the potential to send individuals into a downward spiral that can affect their mental well-being, decision-making, processes, and overall quality of life. Climate anxiety, Schlegel maintains, encompasses not just the fear of ecological loss but also the loss of identity and valued self-conception. She further explains that the narcissistic part of oneself fears non-survival if reality is accepted, and the realistic part worries that the narcissistic part potentially causes harm. The strong desire to “feel good” may create a powerful self-interest, leading to an innate contradiction that results in delayed response or postponement of responsibility to evade the emotional challenge required to solve these conflicting aspects (425). As humans, we often suppress negative emotions due to the expectation of constant happiness. However, embracing and addressing both negative and positive emotions is crucial for achieving a more balanced lifestyle, as emphasized in Lench’s study, which underscores the necessity of all emotions for one’s overall well-being.
Schlegel also delves into the emotions of hope and how it can inspire change. While acknowledging the necessity of hope to prevent a downward spiral, as mentioned earlier, it is important to note that excessive hope might create a perception that the issue is not urgent, as individuals may believe they will ultimately overcome the situation. Schlegel explains that hope is often associated with future redemption, criticized for diverting attention from our moral presence in the present and fostering a form of violence by neglecting the diversity of life now. Being that hope is strongly linked to optimism, it limits possibilities rather than expanding them. To avoid blind optimism, she advises against hastily resorting to positive emotions. Instead, we should engage with a spectrum of emotions, including the painful ones intertwined with environmental loss, searching for hope in practices rather than specific emotions (Schlegel 427).
Processing all emotions, whether perceived as beneficial or detrimental, is essential in relation to climate change. Inaction towards climate change can often be driven by an individual’s hope that things will improve in the future. However, it is crucial to recognize that relying solely on hope might foster complacency, as the belief in improvement alone does not translate into tangible change. Referring back to the Tanjutco sisters in Tolentino’s article, they emphasize the need to act urgently, contrasting with “Westerners” who tend to “figure out how to feel, then figure out how to act, then act” (Newyorker.com). While emotions like fear and hope are valid experiences, they should not hinder individuals from taking decisive action. People in other parts of the world cannot afford to remain passive in the face of destruction, raising the question of why it seems easier for those in the Western world to do so. Despite the challenging emotions that disasters bring forth, it is imperative for individuals to let these feelings serve as a motivator for change rather than a deterrent.
In addition to these complex emotions, the surrounding community can significantly influence individuals’ attitudes toward climate change. Place-based attachment or place identity plays a crucial role in shaping a person’s response to climate change, whether they choose to take action or not. A study focusing on college students in the Appalachian region tested theories related to place-based attachment. Students’ statements revealed that the region’s socio-economic reliance on employment opportunities from extraction jobs makes them perceive policies shifting away from these sources as a direct threat to their livelihoods and economic well-being (Caretta et al. 856). This finding stresses the need to address diverse backgrounds when addressing climate change, as abrupt changes in the region, such as losing vital job resources, can lead to a vilification of climate change and resistance to addressing it. Interviews with students also revealed that deficiency in education and the prevalence of misinformation in their area contribute to the perceived threat and disapproval of climate change action (Caretta et al. 858). This educational gap extends to newer generations, as they are surrounded by assertions that climate change is not real, leading them to believe it due to the limited information available to them.
Nevertheless, when individuals from the community attempt to educate themselves and others, they face denialism and skepticism, largely stemming from the politicization of the issue (Caretta et al. 859). In conservative, rural communities like the Appalachian region, engaging in discussions about topics perceived as aligning with the liberal agenda is exceptionally challenging. This challenge is deeply rooted in the country’s historical tendency to politicize all events. If we fail to confront this issue, uncertainty and inaction regarding climate change will persist.
Data was also examined to understand Appalachian students’ perceptions of climate change in their local area, the United States, and developing countries. The five-year-long survey testing place-based attachment in undergraduate students in Appalachia revealed that 27% of students perceived conflicting information about climate change, specifically disagreements among scientists on whether global warming is occurring. While 68% of the students expressed a belief that scientists acknowledge global warming, and 91% believe it is happening, doubt remains among students regarding the accuracy of the scientific information (Caretta et al. 860). Sensory bias, mentioned earlier, is evident, as 47% of the respondents believe that global warming is actively harming people in developing countries, while only 29% believe it is actively harming Appalachia (Caretta et al. 862). This discrepancy may arise from a lack of first-hand experience with natural disasters in their local area, causing difficulty in comprehending the harm it poses.
Since the surveyed students have primarily observed such events in other countries, there may be a challenge in recognizing the impact on their own region and the likelihood of it worsening. Some students actively address climate change, yet the prevailing sense of concern and frustration stems from the belief that individual efforts are insufficient and major corporations are not taking adequate action. Additionally, the pressure of being told that their generation bears the responsibility to solve climate change leaves them with a profound sense of hopelessness. Despite attempting to discuss these feelings with family, they often face dismissal, being told there is nothing they can do about it (Caretta et al. 865). These challenges not only harm individuals emotionally but also contribute to a sense of isolation, like Tim Wehage experienced, as the lack of understanding from those around them exacerbates the already significant emotional burden they carry. The impact of these challenges on an individual’s psyche highlights the urgent need for a more collective and supportive approach to addressing climate change.
The prevalent belief among a significant number of individuals in the Appalachian region and other rural communities that climate change either is not occurring or is happening elsewhere can be attributed to “modest majority” and “big minority” consensus estimates. Surveys taken in a university and nationally revealed that those who believed in climate change, constituting the majority, tended to underestimate the prevalence of their viewpoint, while those in the minority overestimated the prevalence of their perspective (Maier et al. 933). These findings can be applied to the number of people in the Appalachian region who assert that climate change is not a significant issue for them. They might perceive their viewpoint as the majority, given their accustomed mindset, and attempting to challenge their perspective might only escalate defensiveness. The study also concluded that cognitive availability contributes to “modest majority” and “big minority” consensus estimates due to the fact that when individuals become more certain, the focus on their own perspective intensifies, while individuals that are less certain are able to recognize opposing viewpoints. Individuals who harbor uncertainty about their beliefs, regardless of whether they align with the minority or majority, tend to display a bias toward “safe” estimates. This implies that they express judgments of agreements around the midpoint, approximately 50% (Maier et al. 933). The perceived abundance of agreement reflects the human tendency to align with majority viewpoints, irrespective of genuine belief. This phenomenon significantly impacts individuals who oppose climate change action, as they perceive their stance to be the prevailing consensus among their peers, contributing to a cycle of misinformation.
Additionally, the notion that climate change is perceived as a liberal issue hinders progress toward addressing the problem. Returning to the psychological biases highlighted by Levin and Johnson, political bias stands out as particularly prominent in the United States. The political landscape makes it so that addressing hypothetical threats, especially those with complex, uncertain, and controversial evidence, becomes challenging to defend in legislative bodies. Securing the necessary budgets for such changes is equally difficult and politically damaging (Levin and Johnson 1599). When citizens witness their representatives denouncing climate change, their perspective on it continues to be shaped by their inclination to align their views on climate change with their political beliefs. However, citizens might not fully grasp that their condemnation results from the political leaders’ own desires and motivations, rather than a reflection of their genuine beliefs. This may contribute to the illusion that most people hold their viewpoint as true since there is such rampant misinformation.
The focus on how psychology influences individual actions against climate change is not intended to promote inaction or excuse the ignorance of those who choose to ignore climate change. Instead, it aims to provide a potential explanation and initiate discussions about the underlying reason for inaction. A common thread across the articles used is the emphasis on not only addressing physical environmental changes but also delving into the subjective and psychological aspects to better comprehend inaction and find ways to diminish its impact. It is crucial to recognize that the responsibility for addressing the worsening climate should not solely rest on the shoulders of citizens; the government is the key leader of decisive action. They possess the power and bear the responsibility of utilizing that power to better the nation. Considering the emotions and psychological factors of those unwilling to believe or participate in climate change efforts is essential, and dismissing them as unwilling to save the planet oversimplifies the issue. While not everyone can make a large-scale impact, and as Wehage states, “That is O.K.”, we can elect officials who recognize the importance of taking action against climate change, empowering those in power to make significant contributions beyond what an average citizen can achieve.
To address the disconnect between citizens and the government regarding climate change, transparent communication is crucial. This involves sharing scientific findings, policy initiatives, and engaging in community forums and meetings where citizens can interact with experts and policymakers directly. It is also essential to integrate climate change education into school curriculum to influence students’ attitudes and behaviors towards climate change. Holding the government accountable for inaction is also vital, and showcasing global efforts can highlight the interconnected nature of climate issues. Involving citizens by seeking public input and feedback on proposed measures ensures that policies align with their personal concerns and values, fostering a more connected and informed public.
1 Those in positions of power, such as the government and city councils, possess information about climate change effects that is not readily accessible to ordinary citizens. This information gap contributes to the spread of misinformation or outright denial of climate change among the general population.
Works Cited
American Psychological Association. “Want to Achieve Your Goals? Get Angry.” Apa.org, 2023, www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/10/angry-goals.
Caretta, Martina Angela, et al. “Exploring Climate Change Perspectives. An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Place‐Based Attachment in Appalachia, USA.” Rural Sociology, vol. 87, no. 3, Feb. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12433. Accessed 8 Apr. 2022.
Johnson, Dominic, and Simon Levin. “The Tragedy of Cognition: Psychological Biases and Environmental Inaction.” Current Science (00113891), vol. 97, no. 11, Dec. 2009, pp. 1593–603, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=47364195&site=ehost-live. Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.
Maier, Karl J., et al. “The ‘Modest Majority and Big Minority’ of Climate Change: Believers and Nonbelievers Are Inaccurate about the Extent That Others Agree.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 52, no. 9, Wiley-Blackwell, July 2022, pp. 928–40, https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12901. Accessed 10 Nov. 2023.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Climate Change Impacts.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, 13 Aug. 2021, www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-change-impacts.
Schlegel, Lena Maria. “Between Climates of Fear and Blind Optimism: The Affective Role of Emotions for Climate (In)Action.” Geographica Helvetica, vol. 77, no. 4, Oct. 2022, pp. 421–31, https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-77-421-2022. Accessed 16 Apr. 2023
Tolentino, Jia. “What to Do with Climate Emotions.” The New Yorker, 10 July 2023, www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/what-to-do-with-climate-emotions.
Published May 23, 2024
Photo credit: “Earth” by ConzNL is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
