People are not doing enough to quickly stop global warming. Why don’t they do more? What’s stopping them? A frequently heard theory is that the subject is at a great psychological distance for many people, says environmental psychologist Anne van Valkengoed. She is a postdoctoral researcher in the group of Professor Linda Steg at the University of Groningen. “It is set in the future and geographically far away. People would then lack a sense of urgency, and would therefore not take sufficient action.”
But in one review article published last week in One Earth Van Valkengoed, together with colleagues, undermines this theory.
Where does this theory of psychological distance come from?
“She’s been around for a long time. A frequently cited example is that someone invites you to go on holiday. It makes quite a difference to your trading whether it is next year or next week. In the first case you mainly think about the holiday itself, that it is nice and fun, and how beautiful the country is. In the latter case you think much more practically. You have to arrange a ticket, think about your passport, pack your things.
“In 2010, a New Zealand scientist wondered if this concept could explain why people are doing so little about climate change. Because this often concerns future scenarios, and that the consequences will mainly be felt in Africa and Asia. A year later, British scientists tested this for the first time by questioning a representative group of over 1,800 Britons. They came to the conclusion that for many people climate change is already very close, in both space and time. So they refuted the link with psychological distance.”
Yet the idea of psychological distance continues to emerge in the literature, and in communications from governments and NGOs. Why?
“It is indeed very stubborn. I find it difficult to interpret. We analyzed 27 major surveys from the last five years, including in the US and Europe. It investigated whether that psychological distance is indeed there for the majority of people, as is the idea. But we can’t find it anywhere. It varies slightly from survey to survey, but about 70 percent say that the consequences of climate change are already occurring or will occur in the coming years. And between 50 and 80 percent say it already poses a threat to their own country.”
You then examined whether psychological distance is indeed a barrier to climate action. What comes out of that?
“The 27 studies we examined show mixed results. There are those that support the theory. But there are also indications that people are motivated to take action when they know that climate change will affect other people far away, for example in developing countries.”
There is a gap between our good intentions and our actual behavior
Are there more misunderstandings about climate?
“People often underestimate the support for climate policy, the extent to which others are concerned about climate change, and also the environmental values that others have. Research by colleagues shows that people rate nature and nature conservation highly, an average of 5 on a scale of 6.”
People think it’s important, but too little is happening. Is that compatible?
“There is a gap between our good intentions and our actual behavior. In the literature this is called the intention-behaviour gap named. Several factors play a role. After all, we are not only concerned about the climate, but we are also busy with our careers, we have money worries, we have to raise children, we want to develop ourselves personally and have social contacts. In everyday life, different goals can conflict with each other. Which goal we prioritize depends on many factors. The value you assign to those goals, the context. The latter now often steers us towards unsustainable choices. Think of the croquette sandwiches that are in the front of the canteen, or the airline tickets that are so much cheaper than train tickets.
Read also: With every increase in warming, the negative effects on people and the planet will ‘escalate’, says IPCC
“Incidentally, we have noticed more and more recently that explanations for a lack of sustainable behavior are often based on rather negative and often unchanging characteristics of people, such as laziness or selfishness. When people explain the behavior of others, they are more likely to point to personality traits or character traits, and consider fewer contextual factors. When people explain their own behavior, they do so more on the basis of contextual factors. To give an example: if we see someone else eating meat, we might think that that person doesn’t care about the climate at all, and is only concerned with themselves. If we eat meat ourselves, we are more inclined to think: there were no other options, I can eat meat now and then because I eat vegetarian for the rest of the week, and so on.”
What now?
“We need to start thinking more about how we can convert those good intentions into behavior. For example, by making sustainable choices easier, more fun and more normative. Sustainability is often not yet the norm, it is the alternative choice for which we must consciously choose or take an extra step. And sustainability touches all aspects of our lives. How we use energy, what we do and don’t buy, what we eat, and how we get around.”