Changing Climate and Changing Behaviour: Perceptions of Powerlessness and the Commons Dilemma

<p>Mitigating climate change is recognized as an increasingly urgent task that requires several different methods to achieve. Among these is the need to encourage voluntary behaviour change. Doing so necessitates an understanding of the barriers that prevent behaviour change, including those which are psychological. Among the psychological barriers to change are perceptions of powerlessness and the commons dilemma. This thesis takes a mixed method approach to understand importance of these in relation to both each other and other barriers when taking action to mitigate climate change. Results indicate that individuals do not clearly distinguish climate change from general environmental problems and have a tendency to simplify the issues to that considered to be the singularly most important. Powerlessness and the commons dilemma had been evaluated but not extensively or as specifically applicable to climate change. Powerlessness and the commons dilemma were both found to relate to lower amounts of action on climate change and less importance placed upon climate change in actions. Perceived risk and human influence on climate change were the strongest predictors of action. Results generally support the knowledge-deficit model of behaviour change as being applicable to climate change.</p>

Changing Climate and Changing Behaviour: Perceptions of Powerlessness and the Commons Dilemma

<p>Mitigating climate change is recognized as an increasingly urgent task that requires several different methods to achieve. Among these is the need to encourage voluntary behaviour change. Doing so necessitates an understanding of the barriers that prevent behaviour change, including those which are psychological. Among the psychological barriers to change are perceptions of powerlessness and the commons dilemma. This thesis takes a mixed method approach to understand importance of these in relation to both each other and other barriers when taking action to mitigate climate change. Results indicate that individuals do not clearly distinguish climate change from general environmental problems and have a tendency to simplify the issues to that considered to be the singularly most important. Powerlessness and the commons dilemma had been evaluated but not extensively or as specifically applicable to climate change. Powerlessness and the commons dilemma were both found to relate to lower amounts of action on climate change and less importance placed upon climate change in actions. Perceived risk and human influence on climate change were the strongest predictors of action. Results generally support the knowledge-deficit model of behaviour change as being applicable to climate change.</p>

Attitudes, beliefs and readiness to act on climate change: A preregistered replication

Despite segments of scepticism, the majority of the general public in most countries believe that climate change is occurring and caused by human activities. Behavioural changes by individuals can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to at least some extent, but a range of psychological and economic barriers can prevent individuals from taking action. A survey of New Zealanders by Aitken, Chapman and McClure (2011) reported that belief in human influence on climate change and the risks of climate change were positively correlated with the probability of taking action on climate change. Conversely, perceptions of powerlessness and the commons dilemma were negatively related to the probability of taking action. Feeling powerless was associated with placing less importance on climate change as an influence on actions. Although Aitken et al’s study has been influential, it was exploratory in nature, had a moderate sample size, was not preregistered, and has not previously been replicated. In this study we report a preregistered replication with a sample of 352 Australians. We were able to reproduce each of the key findings stated above.

Folk standards of sound judgment: Rationality Versus Reasonableness

Normative theories of judgment either focus on rationality (decontextualized preference maximization) or reasonableness (pragmatic balance of preferences and socially conscious norms). Despite centuries of work on these concepts, a critical question appears overlooked: How do people’s intuitions and behavior align with the concepts of rationality from game theory and reasonableness from legal scholarship? We show that laypeople view rationality as abstract and preference maximizing, simultaneously viewing reasonableness as sensitive to social context, as evidenced in spontaneous descriptions, social perceptions, and linguistic analyses of cultural products (news, soap operas, legal opinions, and Google books). Further, experiments among North Americans and Pakistani bankers, street merchants, and samples engaging in exchange (versus market) economy show that rationality and reasonableness lead people to different conclusions about what constitutes good judgment in Dictator Games, Commons Dilemma, and Prisoner’s Dilemma: Lay rationality is reductionist and instrumental, whereas reasonableness integrates preferences with particulars and moral concerns.