| dc.description.abstract | This thesis was interested in exploring the questions of why individuals typically
do not respond strongly to climate change, and how individual motivations to do so
might be strengthened. More specifically, this thesis explored two widely cited barriers
to climate change action and the solutions commonly suggested to overcome them. The
first barrier is the lack of personal experience with climate change, which is believed to
inhibit relevant emotional processes. The second, not unrelated, barrier is that people
typically perceive climate change as a distant threat, one that is not relevant to them
personally, where they live, and in the present time.
To test these explanations, two public surveys of residents of both the UK (n =
616) and Switzerland (n = 316) explored the relationships among negative emotions,
perceptions of geographically proximal and distant climate change risks, and variables
that capture people’s willingness to address climate change. The findings supported the
idea that stronger negative emotions were positively related to more readiness to act
against climate change. The relationship between spatially close versus distant risk
perceptions and measures of different forms of action was, however, more complex.
Specifically, the findings revealed a strong association between global risk perceptions
and policy support and a strong association between local risk perceptions and personal
intentions. One explanation for these (unexpected) associations is that they are due to
spontaneous matches with regard to psychological distance: Local risk perceptions are
psychologically proximal on the spatial dimension and personal intentions can be
regarded as proximal on the social dimension. Likewise, the spatially remote global risk
perceptions can be matched to support for policies, which can be regarded as distant on
the social dimension.
Studies 3 and 4 tried to experimentally untangle the complex relationships
between psychological distance and people’s perceptions and actions that were
2
observed in the survey research. Specifically, in both studies participants were
manipulated to adopt either a spatially proximal or distant perspective on climate
change. Study 3 (n = 80) measured participants emotional responses to climate change
and looked at how these predicted different attitudinal and behavioural responses under
a proximal or distant framework, whereas Study 4 (n = 330) more directly explored the
possible effects of activating negative emotions (i.e., fear) in combination with different
distance frames as part of attempts to promote action on climate change. The findings of
Studies 3 and 4 suggest that decreasing the psychological distance of climate change
and inducing fear can both be potentially useful strategies to promote action on climate
change. However, the operation of both these strategies is more complex than is often
assumed and these complexities have implications for the effectiveness of each strategy.
For one thing, both attempts to reduce distance and increase fear can initiate multiple
psychological processes that simultaneously increase and decrease the likelihood of
acting on climate change. Because these processes work in opposition, reduced distance
and increased fear can have positive effects, negative effects, or no effect at all.
Together, the findings across studies highlight that psychological distance is
neither an insurmountable obstacle to action against climate change – it depends on
what kind of action is being considered (Studies 1 & 2) – and nor is decreasing
psychological distance a panacea to motivate action – this can trigger the same kind of
defensiveness that have been observed in response to other strategies, such as the use of
emotion (Studies 3 & 4). In the general discussion, the theoretical implications of these
insights for different theoretical models of distance, emotion, and action are considered,
as are the implications for the practice of promoting public engagement with and action
on climate change. | en_GB |
