Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers

Nature Climate Change volume 2, pages 600–603 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

An Addendum to this article was published on 27 July 2012

This article has been updated

Abstract

A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change1,2. It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally3,4. However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions5,6. An alternative approach is to identify outcomes of mitigation efforts that deniers find important. People have strong interests in the welfare of their society, so deniers may act in ways supporting mitigation efforts where they believe these efforts will have positive societal effects. In Study 1, climate change deniers (N=155) intended to act more pro-environmentally where they thought climate change action would create a society where people are more considerate and caring, and where there is greater economic/technological development. Study 2 (N=347) replicated this experimentally, showing that framing climate change action as increasing consideration for others, or improving economic/technological development, led to greater pro-environmental action intentions than a frame emphasizing avoiding the risks of climate change. To motivate deniers’ pro-environmental actions, communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society, rather than focusing on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 04 July 2012

    This Letter has an addendum associated with it, please see the pdf for full details.

References

  1. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C. & Smith, N. Global Warming’s Six Americas (Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2011).

  2. Leviston, Z., Leitch, A., Greenhill, M., Leonard, R. & Walker, I. Australians’ Views of Climate Change (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2011).

  3. Washington, H. & Cook, J. Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand (Earthscan, 2011).

  4. Pidgeon, N. & Fischhoff, B. The role of social and decision sciencesin communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Clim. Change 1, 35–41 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hoffman, A. J. The growing climate divide. Nature Clim. Change 1, 195–196 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Soc. Quart. 52, 155–194 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tranter, B. Political divisions over climate change and environmental issues in Australia. Environ. Politics 20, 78–96 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Soc. Prob. 50, 348–373 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury Press, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E. & Freeman, M. The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environ. Politics 17, 349–385 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moser, S. C. & Dilling, L. in Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change (eds Moser, S. C. & Dilling, L.) Ch. 32, 491–516 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoffman, A. J. Talking past each other? Cultural framing of skeptical and convinced logics in the climate change debate. Org. Environ. 24, 3–33 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147–174 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108, 480–498 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Whole-system science, Nature Clim. Change 1, 1 (2011).

  16. Hulme, M. Meet the humanities. Nature Clim. Change 1, 177–179 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stern, P. C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56, 407–424 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stern, P. C. Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. Am. Psychol. 66, 303–314 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S. & Whitmarsh, L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 445–459 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ockwell, D., Whitmarsh, L. & O’Neill, S. Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: Forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement? Sci. Commun. 30, 305–327 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sathaye, J. et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: Mitigation (eds Metz, B. et al.) 692–743 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P. & Xu, J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82, 878–902 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V. & Kashima, Y. Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 89, 899–913 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N. & Barreto, M. Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 93, 234–249 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hennessy, K. et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Parry, M. L. et al.) Ch. 11, 507–540 (Cambridge Univ.Press, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. Framing theory. Ann. Rev. Politi. Sci. 10, 103–126 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Weber, E. U. & Stern, P. C. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol. 66, 315–328 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Anti-reflexivity: The American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theor. Culture Soc. 27, 100–133 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Butler, C. & Pidgeon, N. F. Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature Clim. Change 1, 46–49 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kashima, Y. et al. Folk theory of social change. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 12, 227–246 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP0984678) to the first author. The authors thank A. Mackintosh, M. Manning, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. Lawrence and A. Ryan for their comments on manuscript drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia Queensland 4072, Australia

    Paul G. Bain, Matthew J. Hornsey, Renata Bongiorno & Carla Jeffries

Authors
  1. Paul G. Bain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew J. Hornsey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Renata Bongiorno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carla Jeffries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

P.G.B. designed the studies, coordinated data collection, analysed the data and wrote the paper. M.J.H. contributed to the design and analysis of both studies and writing the paper. R.B. contributed to the design and analysis of Study 2 and writing the paper. C.J. contributed to the analysis of Study 1 and writing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul G. Bain.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bain, P., Hornsey, M., Bongiorno, R. et al. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Clim Change 2, 600–603 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1532

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1532

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing