Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks

Böhm, Gisela; Pfister, Hans‐Rüdiger

doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(00)00035-4

Cited by 125 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings are consistent with both the appraisal-theoretical work on risk perception (Zeelenberg et al 2008;Böhm & Pfister 2000) and Field Theory (Lewin, 1936 The way in which identities were expressed by scientists suggests that it is possible to engage with climate change in many ways, even within the same individual, and making one identity salient may bring attention to different objects of care.…”

Section: Overview Of Key Findings and Implicationssupporting

confidence: 80%

Emotions predict policy support: Why it matters how people feel about climate change

Wang

Leviston

Hurlstone

et al. 2018

Global Environmental Change

183

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current research shows that emotions can motivate climate engagement and action, but precisely how has received scant attention. We propose that strong emotional responses to climate change result from perceiving one's "objects of care" as threatened by climate change, which motivates caring about climate change itself, and in turn predicts behaviour. In two studies, we find that climate scientists (N=44) experience greater emotional intensity about climate change than do students (N=94) and the general population (N=205), and that patterns of emotional responses explain differences in support for climate change policy.Scientists tied their emotional responses to concern about consequences of climate change to future generations and the planet, as well as personal identities associated with responsibility to act. Our findings suggest that "objects of care" that link people to climate change may be crucial to understanding why some people feel more strongly about the issue than others, and how emotions can prompt action. Keywords:Climate change, emotion, care, identity, field theory, psychological distance Highlights• This paper sheds light on why people feel specific, or any, emotions about climate change and links these emotions to support for climate action• We demonstrate a connection between objects of care, the emotions they evoke, and actions to address climate change

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Key Findings and Implicationssupporting

confidence: 80%

Emotions predict policy support: Why it matters how people feel about climate change

Wang

Leviston

Hurlstone

et al. 2018

Global Environmental Change

183

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the results of our study, deontological messages that foster morality-based emotions should most easily resonate with an audience when the anthropogenic origin of the risk is emphasized and an agent who can be ascribed responsibility is specified (Böhm and Pfister 2000). The scenarios that we used in this study portrayed protagonists other than the study participants so that the relevant emotions and behaviors implied blame assignment to others.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…For example, a cognitive judgment about the riskiness of consequences can be intuitive and automatic if based on a recognition process from memory (Klein 1993); a moral judgment, on the other hand, can be deliberate and analytical if the actions to be judged constitute a moral dilemma (Knobe 2007). Böhm and Pfister (2000) showed that the relative dominance of the two evaluative modes is influenced by the causal structure of the risk event. In their study, deontological evaluation increased with the ease with which responsibility and blame could be ascribed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perceiver’s social role and a risk’s causal structure as determinants of environmental risk evaluation

Böhm

Pfister

2015

Journal of Risk Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a dual-process risk perception model that integrates cognitive and emotional as well as consequentialist and deontological components by distinguishing between two modes of evaluative processing: (a) a consequentialist evaluation that focuses on potential consequences and (b) a deontological evaluation that focuses on moral values. Each of these two modes is assumed to trigger specific cognitive evaluations, specific emotions, and specific behavioral tendencies concerning a perceived risk. We conducted an experiment (N = 270) that tested whether the relative dominance of the two evaluative modes would depend on the causal structure of the environmental risk being evaluated and on the social role of the evaluator. Three types of causal structure were varied by providing scenario information: (a) anthropogenic risks that endanger only nature, (b) naturally caused risks with potential harmful consequences for humans, and (c) anthropogenic risks that may harm humans. Participants evaluated each scenario from the perspective of one of three social roles: mayor, expecting parent, and environmental activist. For each scenario, participants specified their focus and evaluated the event's morality and perceived risk, the intensity of specific emotions, and their preferences for prospective behaviors. Results showed that the consequentialist evaluation was generally stronger than the deontological evaluation and was less affected by the experimental manipulations. The deontological evaluation was substantially affected by the risk's causal structure. It was stronger for anthropogenic than for natural causation; risks caused by humans were associated with greater perceived moral blameworthiness, more intense morality-based emotions (e.g. outrage), and a stronger tendency to perform agent-related behaviors (e.g. aggression) than naturally occurring risks. The effect of the social role was less pronounced than that of the causal structure. Furthermore, the effect of an evaluative focus on behavior was fully mediated by emotions for deontological evaluations and partially mediated for consequentialist evaluations. The implications for environmental risk perception and communication are discussed.

show abstract

“…For example, Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga (1993) reported that managers' decisions to reward or punish salespeople's behavior are based more on deontological than consequentialist considerations, and Böhm and Pfister (2000) reported that the perceived causal structure of environmental risks determines whether action tendencies are based primarily on deontological or consequentialist judgments. Even so, Hastie's (2001, p. 664) conclusion that "clear models of nonconsequential decision processes are still needed" remains true.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better safe than sorry: Precautionary reasoning and implied dominance in risky decisions

DeKay

Patiño‐Echeverri

Fischbeck

2009

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In four studies, student and nonstudent participants evaluated the possible outcomes of binary decisions involving health, safety, and environmental risks (e.g., whether to issue a dam-failure evacuation order). Many participants indicated that false positives (e.g., evacuation, but no dam failure) were better than true negatives (e.g., no evacuation and no dam failure), thereby implying that an incorrect decision was better than a correct one, and that the more protective action dominated the less protective action. A common rationale for this response pattern was the precautionary maxim "Better safe than sorry." Participants apparently evaluated outcomes partly on the basis of the decisions that might lead to them, in conflict with consequentialist decision models. Consistent with this explanation, the prevalence of implied dominance decreased substantially when the emphasis on decisions was reduced. These results demonstrate that initial preferences for decision alternatives can seriously bias the evaluation of consequences in risky high-stakes decisions.

show abstract

Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks

Cited by 125 publications

References 10 publications

Emotions predict policy support: Why it matters how people feel about climate change

Emotions predict policy support: Why it matters how people feel about climate change

The perceiver’s social role and a risk’s causal structure as determinants of environmental risk evaluation

Better safe than sorry: Precautionary reasoning and implied dominance in risky decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About