Multilevel intergroup conflict at the core of climate (in)justice: Psychological challenges and ways forward

Abstract

Although developed countries have been historically responsible for causing climate change, developing countries are more vulnerable to its current and future effects and being asked to commit to levels of climate action that exceed their responsibilities and capabilities. Climate change exacerbates existing social inequities by disproportionately impacting certain groups (including women, racial minorities, and the poor) more than others. Powerful institutions such as the government and the academy have a responsibility to alter this course and advance climate justice but are themselves marred by inequities. Given these disparities, the question of how the burden of climate change mitigation should be justly distributed amongst stakeholders is of paramount importance to international and domestic climate negotiations. Insights from the social identity and group processes literatures explain how experiences of inequity along geographical and sociodemographic dimensions generate identities and groups. As group members, people are sensitive to threats to the ingroup, experience collective emotions on behalf of the group, and differentially apply morality to in‐ versus outgroups. Members are also incentivized to protect and further their group's interests relative to outgroups. Social psychology offers some promising avenues of research for potential solutions to mitigate the multilevel intergroup conflict posing as a barrier to climate justice. Climate governance recommendations to policymakers and negotiators include incentivizing integrative solutions and fully considering the justice implications of climate policy. Climate scholars are encouraged to pursue interdisciplinary collaborations, improve diversity within the academy and in research samples, and prioritize climate adaptation in developing contexts.This article is categorized under: Climate, History, Society, Culture > Disciplinary Perspectives Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Global Justice

How Can Psychology Contribute to Climate Change Governance? A Systematic Review

“…The third cluster, which, with twelve records, is the smallest, explicitly refers to psychological group dynamics, i.e., cognitive, affective and relational processes in public, participatory and institutional fora. In particular, the studies in question refer to mental health care in risk governance systems [124]; policymaking and planning in the field of climate governance [113], especially with respect to transnational climate negotiations [83,110,123,125,127]; social norm-based governance strategies [118]; public engagement in collective action [120]; and collaboration with stakeholders and residents to build climate resilience [81,82].…”

“…Attention was from time to time placed on interdependence between individual and community processes in risk prevention [124]; pitfalls in group dynamics interfering with decision-making desirable outcomes, such as polarisation, confirmation bias and groupthink [123]; social influence [118]; role of relational and affective dynamics like social identity, solidarity, collective emotions, efficacy and inspiration in shaping both international deliberations and local climate action [110,120,125,127]; motivating factors, psychological impacts and coping strategies of young people in dealing with asymmetrical power relations that mark their participation in international climate meetings [83]; psychological distance, collective memory, and social engagement in participatory adaptation planning [82]; alternative ways of knowledge production, fostering collective imagination and design of creative solutions to the uncertain scenarios of climate change [81].…”

“…However, some important exceptions from our review must be highlighted: environmental stewardship, as a horizontal network process of adaptation and ecosystem protection where citizens have an active role [98]; collaborative development of local adaptation strategies [81,82,91], conceptualisation of universities as multilevel and multisectoral networks and hubs for co-creation toward sustainability [112]; mental health care integration in intersectoral multilevel governance models to tackle systemic risks [124]; challenges of deliberative processes involving a plurality of interested actors with divergent views and concerns [113,123]; youth participation in UNFCCC international meetings [83]; emotional, social and collective dynamics underpinning governance function and intergroup conflicts within international climate negotiations [110,125,127]. Moreover, mitigation-related community initiatives lead by grassroot local groups have been investigated both under a social representation framework [80], and under a collective action lens within the opportunity structure of networked climate governance [120].…”

“…A viable pathway towards a more relational and ecological account of human behaviour could derive from some developments and applications of the social norm paradigm and from reflections on collective identity, memory, social representations and group-based emotions, e.g., [120,125], yet avoid treating the context as a collection of additional given variables in the causal chain. Shifting the focus is not sufficient; a structurally different theoretical underpinning is needed [50,143], namely, an advancement for psychological theories that are sharply ecological in nature [144].…”