Illuminating the link between perceived threat and control over climate change: the role of attributions for causation and mitigation

Davydova, Julie; Pearson, Adam R.; Ballew, Matthew T.; Schuldt, Jonathon P.

doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2181-7

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Past-primed participants expected the government to limit their need for change and cover any costs when they did. This may not be all negative for climate discourse involving such people; Davydova et al ( 2018 ) found that there is a greater sense of collective control (belief that something can be done collectively to mitigate a threat) and perception of a threat from climate change when emphasis is placed on the responsibility of government in both contributing to and mitigating climate change effects. However, for our purposes the past treatment may have encouraged an aversion to change and adaptation by reminding people of what they have already lost on the coast; in other words, it is possible that past-priming reinforced the status quo bias that we were hoping to challenge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climax thinking on the coast: a focus group priming experiment with coastal property owners about climate adaptation

Sherren

Sutton

Chappell

2022

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal communities face increasingly difficult decisions about responses to climate change. Armoring and defending the coast are being revealed as ineffective in terms of outcomes and cost, particularly in rural areas. Nature-based options include approaches that make space for coastal dynamism (e.g., through managed retreat) or leverage ecosystem services such as erosion control (e.g., by restoring coastal wetlands). Resistance can be strong to these alternatives to hard infrastructure. Nova Scotia, off Canada’s Atlantic coast, is a vulnerable coastal jurisdiction facing such decisions. The emerging climax thinking framework was used to design 14 experimental online focus groups. These focus groups explored how three priming treatments influenced discussions about adaptation options and urgency and quantitative pre/post-tests, compared with information-only control treatments. A future-focused priming strategy seemed most effective since it fostered discussions about duties to future generations. The altruism-focused priming strategy involved reflections of wartime mobilization and more recent collective action. It also worked but was more difficult to implement and potentially higher risk. Past-focused priming was counterproductive. Further research should test the future-focused and altruism-focused strategies among larger groups and in different jurisdictions, reducing some of the biases in our sample.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climax thinking on the coast: a focus group priming experiment with coastal property owners about climate adaptation

Sherren

Sutton

Chappell

2022

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Messages explicating the dire consequences of climate change tend to reduce people's intention to act upon climate change due to a sense of powerlessness and fear resulted from elevated risk perception (Feinberg & Willer, ; O'Neill & Nicholson‐Cole, ). Due to these observations, messages aiming at increasing people's efficacy perception are gaining momentum in climate change communication research (Davydova, Pearson, Ballew, & Schuldt, ; Feldman & Hart, ). However, despite some promising findings, efficacy does not always increase mitigation action.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement

Chu

Yang

2020

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Construal-level theory suggests that high-level abstract features weigh more in people's decision-making at farther distance, while low-level concrete features weigh more at closer distance. Based on this, we propose that psychological distance will influence the effect of risk versus efficacy framing on climate change engagement. In particular, risk perception related to the end-state expectancy of climate change mitigation should influence people's climate change engagement at farther distance. In contrast, efficacy perception related to the perceived feasibility of attaining end-state goals should influence engagement at closer distance. Results from an experimental survey based on a national sample that is both demographically and geographically representative (N = 1,282) supported our proposition. At closer spatial distance, perceived efficacy boosted by efficacy framing increased participants' intention to perform climate mitigation behaviors. In contrast, at farther distance, risk framing increased behavioral intention through heightened risk perception. Based on these findings, we suggest that when communicating distant and abstract risks, highlighting their disastrous impacts may better motivate action. In contrast, when communicating impending and concrete risks, stressing the feasibility of action may have stronger motivational potential.

show abstract

“…Emotions influence the ways in which individuals perceive and process threats and how they form their opinions (Brader and Marcus 2013;Redlawsk and Pierce 2017). Previous work has examined the effects of emotions across policy domains, including terrorism (e.g., Keltner 2000, 2001;Huddy et al, 2005Huddy et al, , 2007, immigration (e.g., Brader et al 2008;Erisen and Kentmen-Cin 2017), climate change (Davydova et al 2018), and economic crisis (Magni 2017). Following the same scholarly strand, we draw on theories of affect and posit that emotional reactions triggered by immigration influence the extent to which citizens prefer domestic over international solutions to the dual questions of immigration and terrorism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotional reactions to immigration and support for EU cooperation on immigration and terrorism

Erişen

Vasilopoulou

Kentmen-Çin

2019

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What explains variation in European citizens' support for common EU immigration and counter-terrorism policies? We advance extant literature that focuses on the utility versus identity debate by focusing on individuals' emotional reactions. Drawing on theories of affect, we show that citizens' emotions about immigration are integral to their preferences for EU cooperation on the dual questions of immigration and terrorism. We hypothesise that while anger about immigration is associated with opposition to cooperation on both policies, fear about immigration is associated with support for a common EU counter-terrorism strategy. Using a large-N crosssectional survey conducted in Germany and the Netherlands, our analyses confirm our hypotheses. Our findings have implications for the progress of European integration and the scope of public approval of EU common policies.

show abstract

Illuminating the link between perceived threat and control over climate change: the role of attributions for causation and mitigation

Cited by 12 publications

References 31 publications

Climax thinking on the coast: a focus group priming experiment with coastal property owners about climate adaptation

Climax thinking on the coast: a focus group priming experiment with coastal property owners about climate adaptation

Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement

Emotional reactions to immigration and support for EU cooperation on immigration and terrorism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About