5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Climate Denial Fuels Climate Change Discussions More Than Local Climate-Related Disasters

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Most scientists agree that climate change is the largest existential threat of our time. Despite the magnitude of the threat, surprisingly few climate-related discussions take place on social media. What factors drive online discussions about climate change? In this study, we examined the occurrence of Reddit discussions around three types of climate-related events: natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, wildfires), political events (i.e., 2016 United States Presidential election), and policy events (i.e., United States’ withdrawal from Paris Climate Agreement, release of IPCC report). The objective was to understand how different types of events influence collective action as measured by discussions of climate change. Six large US cities were selected based on the occurrence of at least one locally-relevant natural disaster since 2014. Posts ( N = 4.4 million) from subreddits of the selected cities were collected to obtain a six-month period before and after local natural disasters as well as climate-related political and policy events (which applied equally to all cities). Climate change discussions increased significantly for all three types of events, with the highest discussion during the 2016 elections. Further, discussions returned to baseline levels within 2 months following natural disasters and policy events but continued at elevated rates for up to 4 months following the 2016 elections. The findings suggest that collective discussions on climate change are driven more by political leaders’ controversial positions than life-threatening local natural disasters themselves. Implications for collective action are discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation.

          Most people think climate change and sustainability are important problems, but too few global citizens engaged in high-greenhouse-gas-emitting behavior are engaged in enough mitigating behavior to stem the increasing flow of greenhouse gases and other environmental problems. Why is that? Structural barriers such as a climate-averse infrastructure are part of the answer, but psychological barriers also impede behavioral choices that would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental sustainability. Although many individuals are engaged in some ameliorative action, most could do more, but they are hindered by seven categories of psychological barriers, or "dragons of inaction": limited cognition about the problem, ideological world views that tend to preclude pro-environmental attitudes and behavior, comparisons with key other people, sunk costs and behavioral momentum, discredence toward experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and positive but inadequate behavior change. Structural barriers must be removed wherever possible, but this is unlikely to be sufficient. Psychologists must work with other scientists, technical experts, and policymakers to help citizens overcome these psychological barriers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            A Theory of Psychological Reactance

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The end of history illusion.

              We measured the personalities, values, and preferences of more than 19,000 people who ranged in age from 18 to 68 and asked them to report how much they had changed in the past decade and/or to predict how much they would change in the next decade. Young people, middle-aged people, and older people all believed they had changed a lot in the past but would change relatively little in the future. People, it seems, regard the present as a watershed moment at which they have finally become the person they will be for the rest of their lives. This "end of history illusion" had practical consequences, leading people to overpay for future opportunities to indulge their current preferences.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                26 August 2021
                2021
                : 12
                : 682057
                Affiliations
                Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin , Austin, TX, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Susana Batel, University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE), Portugal

                Reviewed by: Christian Andreas Klöckner, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway; Beverly Ann Cigler, Penn State Harrisburg, United States

                *Correspondence: Miti Shah, mitishah@ 123456utexas.edu

                This article was submitted to Personality and Social Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2021.682057
                8426507
                825ef52b-6d4d-4ad1-bc77-1dc31429bfe9
                Copyright © 2021 Shah, Seraj and Pennebaker.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 17 March 2021
                : 05 August 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 15, Pages: 5, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health 10.13039/100000002
                Award ID: 1R01MH117172
                Funded by: John Templeton Foundation 10.13039/100000925
                Award ID: 48503
                Award ID: 62256
                Categories
                Psychology
                Brief Research Report

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                climate change,climate denial,collective action,political leaders,natural disasters

                Comments

                Comment on this article