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.

Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the Alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions

Nature Climate Change volume 6, pages 879–884 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Surprisingly few individuals who are highly concerned about climate change take action to influence public policies. To assess social-psychological and cognitive drivers of public-sphere climate actions of Global Warming’s Six Americas ‘Alarmed’ segment, we developed a behaviour model and tested it using structural equation modelling of survey data from Vermont, USA (N = 702). Our model, which integrates social cognitive theory, social norms research, and value belief norm theory, explains 36–64% of the variance in five behaviours. Here we show descriptive social norms, self-efficacy, personal response efficacy, and collective response efficacy as strong driving forces of: voting, donating, volunteering, contacting government officials, and protesting about climate change. The belief that similar others took action increased behaviour and strengthened efficacy beliefs, which also led to greater action. Our results imply that communication efforts targeting Alarmed individuals and their public actions should include strategies that foster beliefs about positive descriptive social norms and efficacy.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

Figure 1: Most recent ‘Global Warming’s Six Americas’ segments in March 201550.
Figure 2: Theoretical model of public-sphere climate action.
Figure 3: Differences in efficacy and descriptive social norms constructs between Alarmed individuals who contacted government officials in the 12 months preceding survey and those who did not contact officials.

References

  1. IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  2. Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment (US Global Change Research Program, 2014); http://nca2014.globalchange.gov

  3. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18452–18456 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dunlap, R. E. & McCright, A. M. in Sociological Perspectives on Global Climate Change (eds Dunlap, R. E. & Brulle, R. J.) 300–332 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. Skocpol, T. Naming the Problem: What it will Take to Counter Extremism and Engage Americans in the Fight against Global Warming (Univ. Harvard, 2013); http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/system/documents/695/original/Skocpol_CapTrade_report_January_2013.pdf

  7. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on U. S. climate change policy. Soc. Probl. 50, 348–373 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Roser-Renouf, C., Maibach, E., Leiserowitz, A. & Zhao, X. The genesis of climate change activism: from key beliefs to political action. Climatic Change 125, 163–178 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lubell, M., Zahran, S. & Vedlitz, A. Collective action and citizen responses to global warming. Polit. Behav. 29, 391–413 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stenhouse, N. Powerful Feelings: Extending the Extended Parallel Processing Model to Collective Action on Climate Change (George Mason Univ., 2015); http://go.nature.com/Iy3TdZ

    Google Scholar 

  11. Feldman, L., Hart, P. S., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E. & Roser-Renouf, C. Do hostile media perceptions lead to action? The role of hostile media perceptions, political efficacy, and ideology in predicting climate change activism. Commun. Res. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650214565914 (2015).

  12. Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C. & Leiserowitz, A. Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis (Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., 2009); http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/SixAmericas2009.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G. & Howe, P. Americans’ Actions to Limit Global Warming in April 2013 (Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., 2013); http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Behavior-April-2013.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 913–923 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sabine, G. H. A History of Political Theory (Wadsworth, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G. & Howe, P. Global Warming’s Six Americas, September 2012 (Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., 2013); http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication-OFF/files/Six-Americas-September-2012.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Prentice-Hall, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. & Kallgren, C. A. A focus theory of normative conduct. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Roser-Renouf, C. & Nisbet, M. C. The measurement of key behavioral science constructs in climate change research. Int. J. Sustain. Commun. 3, 37–95 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84, 191–215 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. & Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6, 81–97 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Truelove, H. An Investigation of the Psychology of Global Warming: Perceptions, Predictors of Behavior, and the Persuasiveness of Ecological Footprint Calculators (Washington State Univ., 2009); http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.428.2146&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  24. Bandura, A. Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 9, 75–78 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ojedokun, A. O. & Balogun, S. K. Environmental attitude as a mediator of the relationship between self-concept, environmental self-efficacy and responsible environmental behaviour among residents of high density areas in Ibadan metropolis, Nigeria. Ethiop. J. Environ. Stud. Manage. 3, 111–119 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lindsay, J. J. & Strathman, A. Predictors of recycling behavior: an application of a modified health belief model. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27, 1799–1823 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kaiser, F. G., Hübner, G. & Bogner, F. X. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35, 2150–2170 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S. & Lorenzoni, I. Engaging the Public with Climate Change: Behaviour Change and Communication (Earthscan, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (W. H. Freeman, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32, 665–683 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Witte, K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun. Monogr. 59, 329–349 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Maddux, J. E. & Rogers, R. W. Protection motivation and self-efficacy: a revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19, 469–479 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Riggs, M. L. & Knight, P. A. The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes. J. Appl. Psychol. 79, 755–766 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B. & Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35, 472–482 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schultz, P. W. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21, 25–36 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Doherty, K. From Alarm to Action: Closing the Gap between Belief and Behavior in Response to Climate Change (Antioch Univ., 2014); http://aura.antioch.edu/etds/146

    Google Scholar 

  37. Roser-Renouf, C., Maibach, E., Leiserowitz, A. & Zhao, X. The Genesis of Climate Change Activism: From Key Beliefs to Political Advocacy (International Communication Association, 2011); http://go.nature.com/feyYRd

  38. Hine, D. W. et al. Synthesis and Integrative Research, Final Report (NCCARF, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nisbet, M. C. & Kotcher, J. E. A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Sci. Commun. 30, 328–354 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ashford, S., Edmunds, J. & French, D. P. What is the best way to change self-efficacy to promote lifestyle and recreational physical activity? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Br. J. Health Psychol. 15, 265–288 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kenski, K. & Stroud, N. J. Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 50, 173–192 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Burstein, P., Einwohner, R. L. & Hollander, J. A. in The Politics of Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives on States and Social Movements (eds Jenkins, C. & Klandermans, B.) Ch. 10 (Univ. Minnesota Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Finkel, S. E., Muller, E. N. & Opp, K. D. Personal influence, collective rationality, and mass political action. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 83, 885–903 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jung, D. I. & Sosik, J. J. Transformational leadership in work groups: the role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Res. 33, 313–336 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Teig, E. et al. Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health Place 15, 1115–1122 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J. & Jenkins, J. C. Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the US 2002–2010. Climatic Change 114, 169–188 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D. & Bretschneider, P. The future that may (or may not) come: how framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 103–109 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Maibach, E. W., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C. & Mertz, C. K. Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: an audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PLoS ONE 6, e17571 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Roser-Renouf, C., Stenhouse, N., Rolfe-Redding, J., Maibach, E. & Leiserowitz, A. in The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication (eds Hansen, A. & Cox, R.) (Routledge, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G. & Rosenthal, S. Global Warming’s Six Americas, March 2015 (Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., 2015); http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/six-americas

    Google Scholar 

  51. Maibach, E. W., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., Mertz, C. K. & Akerlof, K. Global Warming’s Six Americas Screening Tools: Survey Instruments; Instructions for Coding and Data Treatment; and Statistical Program Scripts (Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., 2013); http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Six_Americas_Screening_Tool_Manual_July2011.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  52. De Groot, J. I. M. & Steg, L. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ. Behav. 40, 330–354 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. & Guagnano, G. A. A brief inventory of values. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 58, 984–1001 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Schwartz, S. H. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 10, 221–279 (Academic, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Little, R. J. A. & Rubin, D. B. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data 2nd edn (Wiley, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Williams, L. J. & O’Boyle, E. H. Jr Measurement models for linking latent variables and indicators: a review of human resource management research using parcels. Hum. Resour. Manage. Rev. 18, 233–242 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank A. Leiserowitz and C. Saunders for the guidance they provided during this project. We also thank P. Stern and R. Brulle for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Antioch University New England, Keene, New Hampshire 03431, USA

    Kathryn L. Doherty

  2. Social and Environmental Research Institute, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060, USA

    Kathryn L. Doherty & Thomas N. Webler

Authors
  1. Kathryn L. Doherty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas N. Webler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.L.D. conceived, designed, and implemented the research project, including survey development and administration and data collection and analysis/interpretation. T.N.W. provided advice on research design and survey development. K.L.D. wrote the manuscript with input from T.N.W.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn L. Doherty.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 2174 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doherty, K., Webler, T. Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the Alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions. Nature Clim Change 6, 879–884 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3025

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3025

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