Climate Psychology: What is preventing the uptake in lifestyle changes that would significantly reduce one’s environmental impact?

Chris Macdonald

Abstract


Human consumption and human emissions are rapidly destroying our home planet and the vital ingredients of life—the science is clear and abundant. And so, we need to make extreme changes in many aspects of life as quickly as possible—as a matter of survival. This paper explores the underlying mechanisms that prevent the public from making lifestyle changes that would significantly reduce their environmental impact. As part of the experiment, students were asked to complete the same anonymous survey. Before starting they were reminded that there is no right or wrong answer and that they should give their honest opinion. Perhaps the most reassuring of the findings was that over 90% of both UK and U.S. participants stated that they were concerned about the climate crisis and that they felt that it is important to make lifestyle changes to reduce harmful emissions, thus indicating a general awareness and motivation to take personal action. The most common reasons cited for not wanting to make a suggested lifestyle change were that the participant felt as though it is difficult to make the suggested change, and that the participant felt that the suggested change would not make a significant difference. Accordingly, the opposite statements were the most common reasons given for why the participants would consider making a suggested lifestyle change (it is easy to make the suggested change, and the participant felt that the suggested change would make a significant positive impact). The paper concludes by offering some ways in which we could facilitate the uptake in sustainable lifestyle choices.


Keywords


Climate, Psychology, Behavioural economics, Sustainability, Environmental footprint, Ethics, Morality, Lifestyle, Action, Climate communication, Climate change, Climate awareness, Climate action

Full Text:

PDF

References


Barragan RC, Dweck CS. 2014. Reciprocity triggers children's benevolence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:(48) 17071-17074

doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419408111

Brody N. Vangelisti AL. 2016. Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Communication Monographs 83:(1) 94-119

doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1044256

Cook J, Nuccitelli D, Green SA, Richardson M, Winkler B, Painting R, Way R, Jacobs P, Skuce A. 2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8:(2)

opscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

Cook J, Oreskes N, Doran PT, Anderegg WRL, Verheggen B, Maibach EW, Carlton JS, Lewandowsky S, Skuce AG, Green SA, Nuccitelli D, Jacobs P, Richardson M, Winkler B, Painting R, Rice K. 2016. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters 11:(4)

doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Gifford. 2011. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American psychologist 66:(4) 290-302

doi.org/10.1037/a0023566

Hamlin JK, Wynn K, Bloom P. 2007. Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature 450:(7169) 557-559

doi.org/10.1038/nature06288

Hamlin JK, Wynn K. 2011. Young infants prefer prosocial to antisocial others. Cognitive development 26:(1) 30–39

doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.09.001

Koneswaran G, Nierenberg D. 2008. Global farm animal production and global warming: impacting and mitigating climate change. Environmental health perspectives 116(5): 578–582

doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11034

Latané B, Darley J. 1969. Bystander “Apathy”. American Scientist 57:(2) 244-268

jstor.org/stable/27828530

Machovina B, Feeley KJ, Ripple WJ. 2015. Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Science of Total Environment 536 419-431

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26231772

Plötner M, Over H, Carpenter M, Tomasello M. 2015. Young children show the bystander effect in helping situations. Psychological Science 499-506

doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569579

Poore J, Nemecek T. 2019. Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360:(6392) 987-992

doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

SA. 2019. What causes ocean dead zones. Scientific American May 4

scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-dead-zones

Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N. 2012. The psychological distance of climate change.

Risk Analysis: An International Journal 32: (6) 957-972

doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x

TVC. 2019. How much have you saved? TVC May 4

thevegancalculator.com/#calculator

UN. 2006. Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental issues and options. United Nations: Food and Agriculture

fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

UN. 2015. Paris Agreement. The United Nations Dec 12

unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf

UN. 2018. Tackling the world's most urgent problem: meat. The United Nations Sep 26

unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/tackling-worlds-most-urgent-problem-meat

USGS. 2006. Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water. USGS Mar

pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3028

Valentine ME. 1980. The attenuating influence of gaze upon the bystander intervention effect. Journal of Social Psychology 111:(2) 197

psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-25777-001

Visser TAW, Roberts A. 2018. Automaticity of social cues: The influence of limiting cognitive resources on head orientation cueing, Scientific Reports 8:(10288)

nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28548-x

WAF. 2019. Animal agriculture causing animal extinction. The World Animal Foundation May 4

worldanimalfoundation.org/articles/article/8949042/186425.htm

Warneken F, Tomasello M. 2006. Altruistic Helping in Human Infants and Young Chimpanzees. Science 311:(5765) 1301-1303

doi.org/10.1126/science.1121448




DOI: https://doi.org/10.23954/osj.v5i3.2490

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Open Science Journal (OSJ) is multidisciplinary Open Access journal. We accept scientifically rigorous research, regardless of novelty. OSJ broad scope provides a platform to publish original research in all areas of sciences, including interdisciplinary and replication studies as well as negative results.