Psychology of Climate Change: Communicating How We Think

Community psychologists are very interested in understanding cultural ways of knowing. The concept of ‘ways of knowing’ is meant to indicate that our outlook on life is greatly impacted by how we are raised in our culture—the things we think about, how we think about these things, different ways we define a problem, different solutions we might come up with, etc. That is not to say that everyone within a culture thinks exactly the same.

A quick exercise:

1. If you are American, think for a minute and define “American culture.” Do you fit this definition?
2. Now pretend you are not American, and define “American culture.” How well do you fit this definition?

[If you are not American, substitute your own country or culture of your choice.]

As an American, I can think of a zillion ways in which I am not your average American. But when I place myself in the shoes of an outsider looking in, oh yeah, I can see a zillion ways in which I’m a pretty typical American. These are different ways of knowing. In studying cultural ways of knowing, patterns emerge. Yes, huge variations also exist, but cultural ways of knowing can help us to understand both the patterns and the variations. It’s all a matter of the outlook you have, and something psychologists like to call “the problem definition.”

One of my favorite examples of cultural divergences in the problem definition comes from a study done in the late 1960s. Greenfield (1997) summarized it this way:

“Cole, Gay, Glick, and Sharp (1971) took an object-sorting task to Liberia, where they presented it to their Kpelle participants. There were 20 objects that divided evenly into the linguistic categories of food, implements, food containers, and clothing. Instead of doing the taxonomic sorts expected by the researchers, participants persistently made functional pairings (Glick, 1968). For example, rather than sorting objects into groups of tools and foods, participants would put a potato and a knife together because “you take the knife and cut the potato” (Cole et al., 1971, pg. 79). According to Glick, participants often justified their pairings by stating “that a wise man could only do such and such” (Glick, 1968, p. 13). In total exasperation, the researchers “finally said, ‘How would a fool do it?’ The result was a set of nice linguistically ordered categories—four of them with five items each” (Glick, 1968, p. 13). In short, the researchers’ criterion for intelligent behavior was the participants’ criterion for foolish; the participants’ criterion for wise behavior was the researchers’ criterion for stupid.”

In this example, researchers and participants were all clearly able to understand and demonstrate all possible solutions to the task. But because of their different cultural ways of knowing, they tended to define the problem and the solution in different ways. Their initial assumptions were different, and so they tended to draw different conclusions about what they should do.

Another quick exercise:

1. Google ‘climate change’ and read any article or watch any video clip that pops up.
2. Scroll down to the comments and read them until you feel your brain turn to pudding.

You may have noticed that people think about climate change very differently. We have different ways of defining the problem (e.g., global threat of environmental catastrophe, liberal conspiracy to rule the earth, real thing that’s happening but no biggie, etc.). With each of these problem definitions comes a separate set of solutions (e.g., large-scale mitigation and adaptation efforts, decentralize power and let the free market reign, do nothing because it’ll sort itself out, etc.).

There is actually a scientific consensus on climate change that has been consistent for multiple decades. Plenty of uncertainties remain, including how bad the problem is going to be depending on what people decided to do. Emit more carbon? Big problem. Lower emissions? Less big problem. But there is so much misinformation out there, and so much more poorly understood information that climate scientists are really beginning to struggle with questions about communicating their research and findings to the general public. How best to translate science jargon into human speak? But just as important, scientists are realizing that, as scientists, they make a series of assumptions about knowledge, research, and data that non-scientists don’t necessarily make. Their ways of knowing are different. Much like the researchers trying to get the Kpelle to categorize objects in a specific way, climate scientists would like non-scientists to understand their data in a certain way so as to come to the same conclusions

Because of our history of work with culture and ways of knowing, community psychologists can contribute to climate change communication. A few examples have recently emerged in this aspect of the psychology of climate change. The American Climate & Environmental Values Survey found a number of ways of knowing that influence Americans’ understanding of and response to climate change. For example, “We’re not ready to abandon the American Dream” (p. 16). Communicating climate change research within the framework of sacrifice, without also focusing on potentials for positive development, turns Americans off. Also, Americans often respond to one of two types of morality: ‘we should address climate change because it’s the right thing to do,’ or, ‘we should address climate change before disasters harm our environment, and thus, harm us.’

Another recent report, How to Talk About Climate Change and Oceans: A FrameWorks Message Brief, discusses specifically the ways Americans feel out of step with the scientific community on climate change. For example, “They remain woefully ignorant of how exactly global warming works” (p. 1, italics in original) even though they have plenty of examples of it happening at home and abroad. Many Americans require a foundational tutorial about how the climate operates normally in order to understand how and why it might be changing. But take care in communicating this because, “When scientific data is presented in ways that seem exaggerated or overstated, Americans become more skeptical of claims about the origins of the problem and more likely to believe that the problem could be natural and not anthropogenic” (p. 2, italics in original).

Climate change is a very broad field that is so very complex. Community psychologists can positively contribute to this field by exploring people’s ways of knowing when it comes to the climate sciences. As mentioned before, huge variations will always exist within a culture, even within our cultural patters. But if we work toward an understanding of the climate change problem definition, we can begin to agree on action steps leading to solutions.

Greenfield, P. M. (1997). You can’t take it with you: Why ability assessments don’t cross cultures. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1115-1124.

Citing:

Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D. W. (1971). The cultural context of learning and thinking. New York: Basic Books.

Glick, J. (1968, February). Cognitive style among the Kpelle of Liberia. Paper presented at the meeting on Cross-Cultural Cognitive Studies, American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Kati Corlew, M.A.

University of Hawai`i, Mānoa

Psychology of Climate Change: The Slow Process of Change

     Change is hard. Anyone who has ever tried to give up a bad habit or take up a good habit can attest to this fact. And yet when we consider changing our societies to mitigate climate change, we naively assume that if we just figure out the right thing to do, somehow everything will fall into line. The fact of the matter is that change is a slow process, even for very minor changes. The greater the change and the more people involved in making it, the more difficult it will be to sustain.

     Community psychology has long explored the process of creating and maintaining community change. Much like the process a person goes through when attempting to change themselves for the better, a community must go through a series of steps to make lasting change. When you consider that the response to climate change means a planet-ful of communities must go through this same series of steps, you begin to realize the difficulty in responding to climate change.

     I teach a course at the University of Hawai`i, Mānoa called “Cultural Community Psychology and Global Climate Change.” In the short video mini-lecture below, I explain the steps taken to create and sustain a positive change. The societal and global changes necessary to adapt to climate change must incorporate this process if we want to implement lasting changes successfully.

Kati Corlew, M.A.

University of Hawai`i, Mānoa

Psychology of Climate Change: Political Debates and Cognitive Dissonance

     Scientists are often perplexed by the political nature of the climate change debate. After all, whether or not people accept the evidence supporting the existence of climate change has nothing to do with politics—it has to do with whether or not people accept scientific evidence.

     However, the truly political question—what should we do about climate change?—may be too contentious a topic when we consider the psychological need for consistency between our social and political identities, our morality, and our behaviors. The desire to avoid inconsistency may be driving our desire to avoid that second question—what should we do about climate change? Instead, people focus on whether or not climate change is real, hoping to avoid the ‘what to do about it’ debate entirely.

     I teach a course at the University of Hawai`i, Mānoa called “Cultural Community Psychology and Global Climate Change.” This course explores how human diversity affects the ways in which we respond to and are impacted by climate change. In the short video mini-lecture below, I discuss how the psychological concept cognitive dissonance may be increasing the politicization of the climate change debate.

Mini Lecture Link

Kati Corlew, M.A.

University of Hawai`i, Mānoa

Psychology of Climate Change: An Uncertain Future

Though the fact of climate change has not been under scientific debate for decades, the uncertainty of climate change remains.  How can this be?  How can fact exist so easily with uncertainty?  “It simply can’t” is the answer given by politicians, political pundits, and others who seek to cast doubt on climate sciences.  Especially after the so-called “Climategate” in which climate scientists’ emails were leaked to the public and then distorted to show wrong-doing where none existed, the public may be more confused than ever about how fact and uncertainty can coexist.

In scientific circles, “uncertainty” means something different than it does to the rest of us.  If I say I am uncertain if I’ll go to the store today, it means I may or may not go.  When a climate scientist says the sea will rise 0.5 to 1.0 meters in the next 50 to 100 years, it means the sea level is going to rise.  The uncertainty is how much it will rise, when exactly it will reach which levels, and where exactly it will rise most (remember the sea is not rising evenly around the world).  Scientists are sure about climate change; the questions of uncertainty are the specifics of climate change – how bad will it be in which year, in which place, given a vast array of possible circumstances?

The computer models that calculate climate projections are getting better every year, though each has different strengths and weaknesses, and all of them take a very long time and a lot of processor power to generate.  Reports like the IPCC compile multiple models to generate a range of projections – somewhere between the best-case and worst-case scenarios.  What are some factors they just can’t predict even with these computer models?  Most important are the human factors – what are we as a species going to do to address climate change?  Will we cut all emissions?  Will we do nothing?  Will we increase our CO2 pollution?

Scientists are used to dealing with uncertainty.  No single study ever “proves” anything; it only points to an answer.  When hundreds or thousands of studies point to the same answer, scientists can feel pretty comfortable saying “this is probably the case.”  They keep that word “probably” because new theories, new technology, or new scientists may discover something that changes everything.  Science is never “proof.”  At best, it is “our best understanding of the way things are.”  Scientists are rarely comfortable giving a definitive answer.  They are comfortable with “best understandings” because there is always uncertainty.

But people are often not so good with uncertainty.  Even scientists in their daily non-work-related lives will crave stability.  Part of human psychology is that we expect our lives to be today more or less like they were yesterday.  We expect the people we know to have stable personalities.  We feel great stress when our lives change abruptly.  Conservation of Resources theory explains that people work hard to obtain and maintain those things we value most.  When the stability of our resources is threatened (much less interrupted), people experience stress that can even become severe enough to affect our health.

             It is no wonder that people want to have exact answers about what is going to happen with climate change.  And it is no wonder that those who have an anti-climate-sciences agenda are able to exploit our very real need for answers when they claim scientists don’t really know anything or are just making it all up.  But with nearly 7 billion people on the planet, almost 200 countries, and certainly more than one opinion on what to do about climate change, it is no wonder that there is so much uncertainty about what the future holds.

Kati Corlew, M.A.

University of Hawai`i, Mānoa

Psychology of Climate Change: “Intention, Everyone!”

Despite what some conspiracy theorists may believe (or what some environmentalists may mutter to themselves when feeling frustrated), anthropogenic climate change is not happening by plan. There is no grand design or league of evil geniuses who have set in motion a nefarious plot to slowly raise the earth’s temperature over a few centuries. Climate change isn’t something we caused on purpose; it is something that started happening while we were busy focusing on other things.

The fact is, climate change was an easy thing to create once we kick-started the Industrial Revolution. At the beginning, it would have seemed impossible that a world so big could ever reach the limits of what shocks and pollution it could absorb. Our world is much smaller now in this age of the internet, cellphones, and ubiquitous airline travel. And our planet seems much smaller now in the age of garbage landslides , groundwater contamination, deforestation, and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

We hit our limits while we were looking the other way.

This is one reason that stopping climate change poses such an enormous psychological challenge. It happened without our intent—a grand series of pollution coincidences on our road to development and modernization. How could something so inadvertent require such an extraordinary amount of money, effort, and international coordination to stop? It is something we cannot comfortably comprehend. But successfully addressing climate change requires sustained intent and huge changes to the way we have come to behave as a species.

Is everyone willing and able to commit?

Social scientists have recently been studying the increasing polarization and politicization of climate change in the US. In general, they have been finding that liberals and Democrats are more willing to believe in climate change sciences, and are more willing to support efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

The question then becomes, why are conservatives and Republicans less willing to believe in climate change sciences and less willing to support mitigation and adaptation? The answer has a great deal to do with human psychology. People are much more willing to believe in ideas that fit easily into our current worldview. Certain values commonly associated with the Republican party (free market, deregulation of industry, and smaller government) are diametrically opposed to the expensive, restrictive, and highly coordinated efforts needed to address climate change.

It is difficult for people to accept changes that fundamentally go against what they believe, and it is difficult for people to make 180 degree changes in their behaviors (skeptical readers, I ask you to convert to another religion today, and to think about all of the New Year’s Resolutions you’ve made and broken). People have fair success with small, non-threatening changes, but sweeping and belief-challenging actions are difficult to sustain.

In Community Psychology, we assume that people do not exist in a bubble but that they influence, and are influenced by, their settings. We look at the many contextual issues that contribute to the status quo, and then look for “levers of change” – key points that, if changed, will change everything. For climate change, we must seek levers of change for our behaviors and our intentions. How do we change human civilization to mitigate and adapt to the changing climate? And how do we change ourselves so that our sustainability intentions are, well, sustained?

One thing is sure: no intergovernmental panels were convened to figure out how to cause climate change. But in order to address it, we need massive coordination of action and intent.

Kati Corlew, M.A.

University of Hawai`i, Mānoa 

Psychology of Climate Change: Place and Community

In Psychology, Sense of Community means the connection an individual feels to their community. When the sense of community is both strong and positive, we can typically expect to see greater wellbeing.

Sense of Place means the connection an individual feels to a place. When sense of place is strong and people have their needs fulfilled in their space, we can typically expect to see greater wellbeing.

Community and place can overlap, but they do not necessarily overlap. For example, I no longer participate with the Middle Tennessee Storytellers Guild (since I live in Hawai`i), but I’ve been in the same online writing group for almost a decade despite multiple moves spanning 6,000 miles. A basketball team may no longer be a basketball team without a court. But a religious congregation who lost their church/temple/mosque could certainly still gather in another location, though they may greatly feel the loss or lack of their space.

For some communities, the connection to place and community are so integrated as to be virtually meaningless (or highly damaged) without each other. People identify themselves according to their place and their community. This is true, for example, with people who have lived their entire lives, or multiple generations, in one location. Spatial home, family home, and community home become interchangeable.

This interconnection is especially true for indigenous people whose cultural values and norms evolved over thousands of years in the same space. Daily activities, worldviews, traditions, stories, and life expectations of the community are defined by their place. In such cases, sense of place and sense of community are not so much interconnected as they are indistinguishable.

Which brings us to climate change.

At the recent climate talks in Cancun, climatologists offered a number of models ranging from best to worst case scenarios for mitigation and adaptation. The coming century may see nearly 200 million people displaced globally as land becomes uninhabitable. Climate change will not impact the world equally. This map from NASA, for example, shows that while the sea level on the coast of the U.S. mainland is dropping slightly, the increased winds are pushing the Pacific Ocean waters southwest, which is causing an extreme rise in sea level for South Pacific islands.

The unfortunate truth of climate change is that those least responsible are first and most affected. Developing nations do not have the money, power, or infrastructure necessary to mitigate or adapt to the rapidly changing climate. In the near future, multiple developing countries are faced with the loss of their countries’ land.  While this raises important legal questions on an international scale (e.g., is a government still a government without its homeland? ), many important psychological questions are also raised regarding community, culture, and place attachment.

For years, the Tuvaluan government has been an active voice in global forums advocating for wealthy industrialized nations to mitigate climate change by reducing consumption, waste, and burning of fossil fuels. In addition, the Tuvaluan government has called for wealthy industrialized nations to aid developing nations to develop the infrastructure necessary to adapt to climate changes. The goal for Tuvalu is to keep their home safe by limiting sea level rise.

My preliminary studies in Tuvalu show that the culture is strengthened by the integration of land and community. Tuvaluans’ identities are heavily reliant on their connection to their home island community. Even after migrating to the capitol atoll of Funafuti for economic or educational opportunities, families continue to identify strongly with their home island, even across generations. People invest a lot of time, energy, and emotional resources into church and community groups that are island-specific. Just as their island is home, so too is their island community home.

The Tuvaluan people are diverse in their opinions about climate change and future responses of the country. Some feel that migration is likely in the coming generations. But not all Tuvaluans would be willing to leave. One woman explained to me that some people do not want to leave because they feel that if they do not have land then they do not have a home. They will be lost. Another woman told me, “I will not go. I was born here and I will die here.”

Tuvaluans who have lived in other countries (e.g., Australia or New Zealand) often struggle with the individualistic culture and community norms. Tuvaluan islands are small and the people live close together in constant interaction. Homes are open and neighbors are close. Families are extended and community connections are strong. Living in foreign places where neighborhoods sprawl over vast areas with clearly delineated private yards and houses, Tuvaluans struggle from that lack of constant community interaction.

This is not to say that Tuvaluans cannot thrive in other places—many have and continue to do so. But Tuvaluans should not be forced into migration. Though many articles speak about migration as an inevitability, this is not so. With concerted and sustained mitigation and adaptation efforts by the United States and other nations with a high carbon footprint, Tuvaluans and others around the world can maintain their homelands.

Understanding the importance of place and community, the question becomes not whether Tuvaluans should be able to keep their home, but what right do we have to destroy it?

------
Post By
Kati Corlew, University of Hawai`i, Mānoa

Psychology of Climate Change: Introduction

‘Climate change’ is a phrase fraught with meaning. To scientists, it is the variation of weather patterns and ecological systems over a sustained and extended period of time due to anthropogenic activities. But that’s not all.

To Glenn Beck, climate change is a socialist conspiracy created for population control.

To President Mohammad Nasheed of the Maldives, climate change is a threat to the health, stability, human rights, and security of his country.

And therein lies the problem with the meaning of climate change—between Glenn Beck and President Nasheed there literally resides a world of difference in the way people understand the phrase.

Finucane (2009) argued that sound scientific understanding of climate change is at once essential and insufficient to implementing the responses necessary for human adaptation. We must advance the physical sciences of climate change, including climatology, meteorology, oceanography, and geology, but we must also advance the social sciences of climate change. Part of the reason for this comes from an urban planning perspective—as societies develop, they must develop in ways likely to sustain themselves into the next century; they must take climate changes into account. But another major reason for the involvement of social sciences is that climate change has no steadfast meaning to lay people around the world.

This is where Community Psychology comes in. If there is one thing we do well (and there are many things, actually), it’s getting at the importance of contextual factors. Climate change will affect people differently depending on which region they live in (physical topography), depending on which country they live in (political forces, global power, developed versus developing nation status), depending on which culture they belong to (decision hierarchies, relationship to land, religious beliefs, ascribed meaning to weather and climate changes), depending on their ethnicity (are they majority or minority in their country? Do they have status or power?), depending on their gender (status, power, freedom), and depending on their social class.

Furthermore, beyond the differential impacts of climate change, the ways in which people understand climate change is also different according to their context. Some people view climate change as a call to action to stop polluting, to develop green technologies. Some people view climate change as a serious (current) threat to their land, culture, and community. Some people do not believe that climate change is happening or will happen. Some people are willing to assist mitigation and adaptation efforts. Some people are willing to actively prevent mitigation and adaptation efforts.

Community Psychology has many opportunities to get involved in these and other social science facets of climate change. In my coming posts, I will discuss many of these issues in greater detail. Welcome to the Psychology of Climate Change.

----
Kati Corlew,
University of Hawai`i, Manoa