Psychology of climate change denial: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:33, 9 May 2021

The psychology of climate change denial is the study of why humans engage in climate change denial, despite the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. The number of people denying climate change is increasing, contrary to the increasing volume of scientific evidence and the consensus of scientists that anthropogenic climate change is occurring.^[1] Several psychological barriers have been proposed to account for this phenomenon.

Psychological barriers

Various psychological factors can impact the effectiveness of communication about climate change, driving potential climate change denial.

Distance in time, space, and influence

Climate change is often portrayed as occurring in the future, whether that be the near or distant future. Many estimations portray climate change effects as occurring by 2050 or 2100, which both seem much more distant in time than they really are, which can create a barrier to acceptance.^[2] There is also a barrier created by the distance portrayed in climate change discussions.^[2] Effects caused by climate change across the planet do not seem concrete to people living thousands of miles away, especially if they are not experiencing any effects.^[2] Climate change is also a complex, abstract concept to many, which can create barriers to understanding.^[2] Carbon dioxide is an invisible gas, and it causes changes in overall average global temperatures, both of which are difficult, if not impossible, for one single person to discern.^[2] Due to these distances in time, space, and influence, climate change becomes a far-away, abstract issue that does not demand immediate attention.^[2]

Framing

In popular climate discourse framing, the three dominant framing ideas have been apocalypse, uncertainty and high costs/losses.^[2] These framings create intense feelings of fear and doom and helplessness.^[2] Framing climate change in these ways creates thoughts that nothing can be done to change the trajectory, that any solution will be too expensive and do too little, or that it is not worth trying to find a solution to something we are unsure is happening.^[2] Climate change has been framed this way for years, and so these messages are instilled in peoples’ minds, elicited whenever the words “climate change” are brought up.^[2]

Dissonance and denial

Because there is little solid action that people can take on a daily basis to combat climate change, then some believe climate change must not be as pressing an issue as it is made out to be.^[2] An example of this phenomenon is that most people know smoking cigarettes is not healthy, yet people continue to smoke cigarettes, and so an inner discomfort is elicited by the contradiction in ‘thinking’ and ‘doing’.^[2] A similar cognitive dissonance is created when people know that things like driving, flying, and eating meat are causing climate change, but the infrastructure is not in place to change those behaviors effectively.^[2]

In order to address this dissonance, climate change is rejected or downplayed.^[2] This dissonance also fuels denial, wherein people cannot find a solution to an anxiety-inducing problem, and so the problem is denied outright.^[2] Creating stories that climate change is actually caused by something out of humans’ control, such as sunspots or natural weather patterns, or suggesting that we must wait until we are certain of all of the facts about climate change before any action be taken, are manifestations of this fear and consequent denial of climate change.^[2]

"It seems as if people stop paying attention to global climate change when they realize that there are no easy solutions for it. Many people instead judge as serious only those problems for which they think action can be found.”^[2]

Individuals are alarmed about the dangerous potential futures resulting from a high-energy world in which climate change was occurring, but simultaneously create denial mechanisms to overcome the dissonance of knowing these futures, yet not wanting to change their convenient, comfortable lifestyles.^[3] These denial mechanisms include things like overestimating the costs of changing their lifestyles, blaming others, including government, rather than their own inaction, and emphasizing the doubt that individual action could make a difference within a problem so large.^[3]

Cultural identity and political worldview

Climate messages are filtered through cultural identity.^[2] In the United States, climate change acceptance or denial is largely based on political affiliation.^[4] This is partially caused by the idea that Democrats focus more on tighter government regulations and taxation, which are the basis for most environmental policy.^[2] Political affiliation also affects how different people interpret the same facts.^[2] The more highly educated an individual is, the more likely they are to rely on their own interpretation and political ideology rather than rely on scientists’ opinions.^[2] Therefore, political worldviews override expert opinion on the interpretation of climate facts and evidence of anthropogenic climate change.^[2] Another reason for the discrepancy in climate change denial between liberals and conservatives is the idea that “contemporary environmental discourse is based largely on moral concerns related to harm and care, which are more deeply held by liberals than by conservatives,” whereas if the discourse were framed using moral concerns related to purity that are more deeply held by conservatives, the discrepancy was resolved.^[5]

Affiliation with a political group, especially in the United States, is a very important personal and social identity for many.^[6] Because of this, it is likely that an individual will carry the popular values of their political affiliation, regardless of their personal belief on the matter, solely so they are not ostracized from the group and their identity.^[6] A study of climate change denial indicators from public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010 shows that conservative white males in the United States are significantly more likely to deny climate change than other Americans.^[7] Furthermore, conservative white males who reported understanding climate change very well were even more likely to deny climate change.^[7] This is further proven through another study done in Australia, that showed that when participants had their political identity made salient, through definition and characteristics of supporters, were more likely to deny climate change and reject governmental climate change policies, especially when those participants were aligned with right-wing politics.^[4]

One telltale worldview that leads to climate change denial is the belief in free enterprise capitalism.^[8] The “freedom of the commons”, or the freedom to use natural resources as a public good as it is practiced in free enterprise capitalism destroys important ecosystems and their functions, and so having a stake in this worldview does not correlate with climate change mitigation behaviors.^[8] Political worldview plays an important role in environmental policy and action (or inaction). Liberals tend to focus on environmental risks, while conservatives focus on the benefits that economic development brings.^[9] Because of these differences in world views, with one political ideology focusing on risks while the other focuses on benefits, conflicting opinions on the acceptance or denial of climate change arise.^[9]

Limited cognition

Limited cognition of the human brain, caused by things like the fact that the human brain has not evolved much in thousands of years, and so has not transitioned to caring about the future rather than immediate danger, ignorance, the idea that environments are composed of more elements than humans can monitor, so we only attend to things causing immediate difficulty, which climate change does not seem to do, uncertainty, undervaluing of distant or future risk, optimism bias, and the belief that an individual can do nothing against climate change are all cognitive barriers to climate change acceptance.^[8]

Ideologies

Ideologies, including suprahuman powers, technosalvation, and system justification, are all psychological barriers to climate change acceptance.^[8] Suprahuman powers describes the belief that humans cannot or should not interfere because they believe a religious deity will not turn on them or will do what it wants to do regardless of their intervention.^[8] Technosalvation is the ideology that technologies such as geoengineering will save us from climate change, and so mitigation behavior is not necessary.^[8] Another ideological barrier is the ideology of system justification, or the defense and justification of the status quo, so as to not “rock the boat” on a comfortable lifestyle.^[8]

Comparison with others

Social comparisons between individuals build social norms.^[8] These social norms then dictate how someone “should” behave in order to align with society’s ideas of “proper” behavior.^[8] This barrier also includes perceived inequity, where an individual feels they should not or do not have to act a certain way because they believe no one else acts that way.^[8]

Sunk costs

Financial investment in fossil fuels and other climate change inducing industries is often a reason for denial of climate change.^[8] If you accept that these things cause climate change, you would have to lose your investment, and so continued denial is more acceptable. People are also very invested in their behavior. Behavioral momentum, or daily habits, are one of the most important barriers to remove for climate change mitigation.^[8] Lastly, conflicting values, goals, and aspirations can interfere with the acceptance of climate change mitigation.^[8] Because many of the goals held by individuals directly conflict with climate change mitigation strategies, climate change gets pushed to the bottom of their list of values, so as to minimize the extent of its conflict.^[8]

Views of others and perceived risk

If someone is held in a negative light, it is not likely others will take guidance from them due to feelings of mistrust, inadequacy, denial of their beliefs, and reactance against statements they believe threaten their freedom.^[8]

Several types of perceived risk can occur when an individual is considering changing their behavior to accept and mitigate climate change: functional risk, physical risk, financial risk, social risk, psychological risk, and temporal risk.^[8] Due to the perception of all of these risks, the individual may just reject climate change altogether to avoid potential risks completely.^[8]

Limited behavior

One type of limited behavior is tokenism, where after completing one small task or engaging in one small behavior, the individual feels they have done their part to mitigate climate change, when in reality they could be doing much more.^[8] Individuals could also experience the rebound effect, where one positive activity is diminished or erased by a subsequent activity (like walking to work all week because you are flying across the country every weekend).^[8]

Conspiratorial beliefs

Climate change denial is commonly rooted in a phenomenon commonly known as conspiracy theory, in which people misattribute events to a secret plot or plan by a powerful group of individuals.^[10] The development of conspiracy theories is further prompted by the proportionality bias that results from climate change — an event of mass scale and a great deal of significance — being frequently presented as a result of daily small-scale human behavior; often, individuals are less likely to believe large events of this scale can be so easily explained by ordinary details.^[11]

This inclination is furthered by a variety of possible strong individually and socially grounded reasons to believe in these conspiracy theories. The social nature of being a human holds influential merit when it comes to information evaluation. Conspiracy theories reaffirm the idea that people are part of moral social groups that have the ability to remain firm in the face of deep-seated threats.^[12]^[13] Conspiracy theories also feed into the human desire and motivation to maintain one’s level of self-esteem, a concept known as self-enhancement.^[14] With climate change in particular, one possibility for the popularity of climate change conspiracy theories is that these theories knee-cap the reasoning that humans are culpable for the degradation of their own world and environment.^[15] This allows for maintenance of one’s own self-esteem, and provides strong backing for belief in conspiracy theories. These climate change conspiracy theories pass the social blame to others, which upholds both the self and the in-group as moral and legitimate, making them highly appealing to those who perceive a threat to the esteem of themselves or their group.^[16] In a similar vein, much like how conspiracy belief is linked with narcissism, it is also predicted by collective narcissism. Collective narcissism is a belief in the distinction of one’s own group whilst believing that those outside the group do not give the group enough recognition.^[17]

A variety of factors related to the nature of climate change science itself also enable the proliferation of conspiratorial beliefs. Climate change is a complicated field of science for lay people to make sense of. Research has experimentally indicated that people are wont to create patterns where there are none when they perceive a loss of control in order to return the world to one they can make sense of.^[18] Research indicates that people hold stronger beliefs about conspiracies when they exhibit distress as a consequence of uncertainty, which are both prominent when it comes to climate change science.^[19] Additionally, in order to meet the psychological desire for clear, cognitive closure, the likes of is not consistently accessible to lay people regarding climate change, people often lean on conspiracy theories.^[20] Bearing this in mind, it is also crucial to note that conspiracy belief is conversely lessened in intensity when individuals have their sense of control affirmed.^[21]

People with certain cognitive tendencies are also more drawn to conspiracy theories about climate change as compared to others. Aside from narcissism as previously mentioned, conspiratorial beliefs are more predominantly found in those who consistently look for meanings or patterns in their world, which often includes those who believe in paranormal activities.^[22] Climate change conspiracy disbelief is also linked with lower levels of education and analytic thinking.^[23]^[24] If a person has a predisposed inclination towards perceiving others’ actions as having been actively done willfully even when no such thing is happening, they are more likely to buy into conspiratorial thinking.^[24]

Though there are numerous different specific conspiracy theories regarding climate change, there are a few consistent examples found as denoted by researchers Douglas and Sutton. Some people believe that fabricating the existence of climate change for purposes of exerting political influence, while others believe that it is being fabricated in order to alarm governments into financially supporting future research. Some people believe that climate change is a scam on behalf of environmental groups that have bribed scientists in order to protect their financial interests in renewable energy. As referenced in the “The Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary from 2007, some believe global warming is a conspiracy crafted in order to promote interests in the nuclear sector.^[25]

References

^ Leiserowitz, Anthony; Maibach, Edward W.; Roser-Renouf, Connie; Feinberg, Geoff; Howe, Peter (2013). "Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans' Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013". SSRN Working Paper Series. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2298705. ISSN 1556-5068.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v Stoknes, Per Espen (2014-03-01). "Rethinking climate communications and the "psychological climate paradox"". Energy Research & Social Science. 1: 161–170. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.007. hdl:11250/278817. ISSN 2214-6296.
^ ^a ^b Stoll-Kleemann, S.; O’Riordan, Tim; Jaeger, Carlo C. (July 2001). "The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups". Global Environmental Change. 11 (2): 107–117. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00061-3.
^ ^a ^b Unsworth, Kerrie L.; Fielding, Kelly S. (July 2014). "It's political: How the salience of one's political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support" (PDF). Global Environmental Change. 27: 131–137. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.002.
^ Feinberg, Matthew; Willer, Robb (January 2013). "The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes". Psychological Science. 24 (1): 56–62. doi:10.1177/0956797612449177. ISSN 0956-7976. PMID 23228937. S2CID 18348687.
^ ^a ^b Greene, Steven (June 1999). "Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach". Political Psychology. 20 (2): 393–403. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00150. ISSN 0162-895X.
^ ^a ^b McCright, Aaron M.; Dunlap, Riley E. (October 2011). "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States". Global Environmental Change. 21 (4): 1163–1172. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s Gifford, Robert (2011). "The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation". American Psychologist. 66 (4): 290–302. doi:10.1037/a0023566. ISSN 1935-990X. PMID 21553954.
^ ^a ^b Lewandowsky, Stephan; Oberauer, Klaus (August 2016). "Motivated Rejection of Science". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 25 (4): 217–222. doi:10.1177/0963721416654436. ISSN 0963-7214. S2CID 53705050.
^ McCauley, Clark; Jacques, Susan (May 1979). "The popularity of conspiracy theories of presidential assassination: A Bayesian analysis". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37: 637–644. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.5.637.
^ Leman, P.J.; Cinnirella, Marco (2007). "A major event has a major cause: Evidence for the role of heuristics in reasoning about conspiracy theories". Social Psychological Review. 9: 18–28.
^ Tajfel, Henri; Turner, John C. (2004-01-09), "The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior", Political Psychology, Psychology Press, pp. 276–293, ISBN 978-0-203-50598-4, retrieved 2021-05-09
^ Wohl, Michael J. A.; Branscombe, Nyla R.; Reysen, Stephen (2010-06-02). "Perceiving Your Group's Future to Be in Jeopardy: Extinction Threat Induces Collective Angst and the Desire to Strengthen the Ingroup". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 36 (7): 898–910. doi:10.1177/0146167210372505. ISSN 0146-1672.
^ Sedikides, Constantine; Gaertner, Lowell; Toguchi, Yoshiyasu (2003-01). "Pancultural self-enhancement". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (1): 60–79. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.60. ISSN 1939-1315. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Kunda, Ziva (1990). "The case for motivated reasoning". Psychological Bulletin. 108 (3): 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480. ISSN 1939-1455.
^ Cichocka, Aleksandra; Marchlewska, Marta; de Zavala, Agnieszka Golec (2015-11-13). "Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Predict Conspiracy Beliefs? Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and the Endorsement of Conspiracy Theories". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 7 (2): 157–166. doi:10.1177/1948550615616170. ISSN 1948-5506.
^ Cichocka, Aleksandra; Marchlewska, Marta; Golec de Zavala, Agnieszka; Olechowski, Mateusz (2015-10-28). "'They will not control us': Ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies". British Journal of Psychology. 107 (3): 556–576. doi:10.1111/bjop.12158. ISSN 0007-1269.
^ Whitson, J. A.; Galinsky, A. D. (2008-10-03). "Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception". Science. 322 (5898): 115–117. doi:10.1126/science.1159845. ISSN 0036-8075.
^ van Prooijen, Jan-Willem; Jostmann, Nils B. (2012-12-17). "Belief in conspiracy theories: The influence of uncertainty and perceived morality". European Journal of Social Psychology. 43 (1): 109–115. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1922. ISSN 0046-2772.
^ Marchlewska, Marta; Cichocka, Aleksandra; Kossowska, Małgorzata (2017-11-11). "Addicted to answers: Need for cognitive closure and the endorsement of conspiracy beliefs". European Journal of Social Psychology. 48 (2): 109–117. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2308. ISSN 0046-2772.
^ van Prooijen, Jan-Willem; Acker, Michele (2015-08-10). "The Influence of Control on Belief in Conspiracy Theories: Conceptual and Applied Extensions". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 29 (5): 753–761. doi:10.1002/acp.3161. ISSN 0888-4080.
^ Bruder, Martin; Haffke, Peter; Neave, Nick; Nouripanah, Nina; Imhoff, Roland (2013). "Measuring Individual Differences in Generic Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories Across Cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire". Frontiers in Psychology. 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 3639408. PMID 23641227.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
^ Swami, Viren; Voracek, Martin; Stieger, Stefan; Tran, Ulrich S.; Furnham, Adrian (2014-12). "Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories". Cognition. 133 (3): 572–585. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006. ISSN 0010-0277. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ ^a ^b Douglas, Karen M.; Sutton, Robbie M.; Callan, Mitchell J.; Dawtry, Rael J.; Harvey, Annelie J. (2015-08-18). "Someone is pulling the strings: hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories". Thinking & Reasoning. 22 (1): 57–77. doi:10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586. ISSN 1354-6783.
^ Douglas, Karen M.; Sutton, Robbie M. (2015-01). "Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 71 (2): 98–106. doi:10.1177/0096340215571908. ISSN 0096-3402. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1] Leiserowitz, Anthony; Maibach, Edward W.; Roser-Renouf, Connie; Feinberg, Geoff; Howe, Peter (2013). "Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans' Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013". SSRN Working Paper Series. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2298705. ISSN 1556-5068.

[:0-2] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v Stoknes, Per Espen (2014-03-01). "Rethinking climate communications and the "psychological climate paradox"". Energy Research & Social Science. 1: 161–170. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.007. hdl:11250/278817. ISSN 2214-6296.

[:1-3] Stoll-Kleemann, S.; O’Riordan, Tim; Jaeger, Carlo C. (July 2001). "The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups". Global Environmental Change. 11 (2): 107–117. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00061-3.

[:2-4] Unsworth, Kerrie L.; Fielding, Kelly S. (July 2014). "It's political: How the salience of one's political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support" (PDF). Global Environmental Change. 27: 131–137. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.002.

[5] Feinberg, Matthew; Willer, Robb (January 2013). "The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes". Psychological Science. 24 (1): 56–62. doi:10.1177/0956797612449177. ISSN 0956-7976. PMID 23228937. S2CID 18348687.

[:3-6] Greene, Steven (June 1999). "Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach". Political Psychology. 20 (2): 393–403. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00150. ISSN 0162-895X.

[:4-7] McCright, Aaron M.; Dunlap, Riley E. (October 2011). "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States". Global Environmental Change. 21 (4): 1163–1172. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003.

[:5-8] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s Gifford, Robert (2011). "The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation". American Psychologist. 66 (4): 290–302. doi:10.1037/a0023566. ISSN 1935-990X. PMID 21553954.

[:6-9] Lewandowsky, Stephan; Oberauer, Klaus (August 2016). "Motivated Rejection of Science". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 25 (4): 217–222. doi:10.1177/0963721416654436. ISSN 0963-7214. S2CID 53705050.

[10] McCauley, Clark; Jacques, Susan (May 1979). "The popularity of conspiracy theories of presidential assassination: A Bayesian analysis". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37: 637–644. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.5.637.

[11] Leman, P.J.; Cinnirella, Marco (2007). "A major event has a major cause: Evidence for the role of heuristics in reasoning about conspiracy theories". Social Psychological Review. 9: 18–28.

[12] Tajfel, Henri; Turner, John C. (2004-01-09), "The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior", Political Psychology, Psychology Press, pp. 276–293, ISBN 978-0-203-50598-4, retrieved 2021-05-09

[13] Wohl, Michael J. A.; Branscombe, Nyla R.; Reysen, Stephen (2010-06-02). "Perceiving Your Group's Future to Be in Jeopardy: Extinction Threat Induces Collective Angst and the Desire to Strengthen the Ingroup". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 36 (7): 898–910. doi:10.1177/0146167210372505. ISSN 0146-1672.

[14] Sedikides, Constantine; Gaertner, Lowell; Toguchi, Yoshiyasu (2003-01). "Pancultural self-enhancement". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (1): 60–79. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.60. ISSN 1939-1315. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[15] Kunda, Ziva (1990). "The case for motivated reasoning". Psychological Bulletin. 108 (3): 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480. ISSN 1939-1455.

[16] Cichocka, Aleksandra; Marchlewska, Marta; de Zavala, Agnieszka Golec (2015-11-13). "Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Predict Conspiracy Beliefs? Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and the Endorsement of Conspiracy Theories". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 7 (2): 157–166. doi:10.1177/1948550615616170. ISSN 1948-5506.

[17] Cichocka, Aleksandra; Marchlewska, Marta; Golec de Zavala, Agnieszka; Olechowski, Mateusz (2015-10-28). "'They will not control us': Ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies". British Journal of Psychology. 107 (3): 556–576. doi:10.1111/bjop.12158. ISSN 0007-1269.

[18] Whitson, J. A.; Galinsky, A. D. (2008-10-03). "Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception". Science. 322 (5898): 115–117. doi:10.1126/science.1159845. ISSN 0036-8075.

[19] van Prooijen, Jan-Willem; Jostmann, Nils B. (2012-12-17). "Belief in conspiracy theories: The influence of uncertainty and perceived morality". European Journal of Social Psychology. 43 (1): 109–115. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1922. ISSN 0046-2772.

[20] Marchlewska, Marta; Cichocka, Aleksandra; Kossowska, Małgorzata (2017-11-11). "Addicted to answers: Need for cognitive closure and the endorsement of conspiracy beliefs". European Journal of Social Psychology. 48 (2): 109–117. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2308. ISSN 0046-2772.

[21] van Prooijen, Jan-Willem; Acker, Michele (2015-08-10). "The Influence of Control on Belief in Conspiracy Theories: Conceptual and Applied Extensions". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 29 (5): 753–761. doi:10.1002/acp.3161. ISSN 0888-4080.

[22] Bruder, Martin; Haffke, Peter; Neave, Nick; Nouripanah, Nina; Imhoff, Roland (2013). "Measuring Individual Differences in Generic Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories Across Cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire". Frontiers in Psychology. 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 3639408. PMID 23641227.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[23] Swami, Viren; Voracek, Martin; Stieger, Stefan; Tran, Ulrich S.; Furnham, Adrian (2014-12). "Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories". Cognition. 133 (3): 572–585. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006. ISSN 0010-0277. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[:7-24] Douglas, Karen M.; Sutton, Robbie M.; Callan, Mitchell J.; Dawtry, Rael J.; Harvey, Annelie J. (2015-08-18). "Someone is pulling the strings: hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories". Thinking & Reasoning. 22 (1): 57–77. doi:10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586. ISSN 1354-6783.

[25] Douglas, Karen M.; Sutton, Robbie M. (2015-01). "Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 71 (2): 98–106. doi:10.1177/0096340215571908. ISSN 0096-3402. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Affiliation with a political group, especially in the United States, is a very important personal and social identity for many.<ref name=":3" /> Because of this, it is likely that an individual will carry the popular values of their political affiliation, regardless of their personal belief on the matter, solely so they are not ostracized from the group and their identity.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Greene|first=Steven|date=June 1999|title=Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach|journal=Political Psychology|language=en|volume=20|issue=2|pages=393–403|doi=10.1111/0162-895X.00150|issn=0162-895X}}</ref> A study of climate change denial indicators from public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010 shows that conservative white males in the United States are significantly more likely to deny climate change than other Americans.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last1=McCright|first1=Aaron M.|last2=Dunlap|first2=Riley E.|date=October 2011|title=Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States|journal=Global Environmental Change|language=en|volume=21|issue=4|pages=1163–1172|doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003}}</ref> Furthermore, conservative white males who reported understanding climate change very well were even more likely to deny climate change.<ref name=":4" /> This is further proven through another study done in Australia, that showed that when participants had their political identity made salient, through definition and characteristics of supporters, were more likely to deny climate change and reject governmental climate change policies, especially when those participants were aligned with right-wing politics.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Unsworth|first1=Kerrie L.|last2=Fielding|first2=Kelly S.|date=July 2014|title=It's political: How the salience of one's political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support|journal=Global Environmental Change|language=en|volume=27|pages=131–137|doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.002|url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/92654/1/Unsworth%20Fielding%202014%20How%20the%20salience%20of%20ones%20political%20identity%20changes%20climate%20change%20beliefs.pdf}}</ref>
-One telltale worldview that leads to climate change denial is the belief in free enterprise capitalism.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=Gifford|first=Robert|date=2011|title=The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation.|journal=American Psychologist|language=en|volume=66|issue=4|pages=290–302|doi=10.1037/a0023566|pmid=21553954|issn=1935-990X}}</ref> The “freedom of the commons”, or the freedom to use natural resources as a public good as it is practiced in free enterprise capitalism destroys important ecosystems and their functions, and so having a stake in this worldview does not correlate with [[climate change mitigation]] behaviors.<ref name=":5" /> Political worldview plays an important role in environmental policy and action (or inaction). Liberals tend to focus on environmental risks, while conservatives focus on the benefits that economic development brings.<ref name=":6" /> Because of these differences in worldviews, with one political ideology focusing on risks while the other focuses on benefits, conflicting opinions on the acceptance or denial of climate change arise.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last1=Lewandowsky|first1=Stephan|last2=Oberauer|first2=Klaus|date=August 2016|title=Motivated Rejection of Science|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|language=en|volume=25|issue=4|pages=217–222|doi=10.1177/0963721416654436|s2cid=53705050|issn=0963-7214|url=https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/motivated-rejection-of-science(1f2a0ba7-baba-4d13-a2a8-f11df1a8b009).html}}</ref>
+One telltale worldview that leads to climate change denial is the belief in free enterprise capitalism.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=Gifford|first=Robert|date=2011|title=The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation.|journal=American Psychologist|language=en|volume=66|issue=4|pages=290–302|doi=10.1037/a0023566|pmid=21553954|issn=1935-990X}}</ref> The “freedom of the commons”, or the freedom to use natural resources as a public good as it is practiced in free enterprise capitalism destroys important ecosystems and their functions, and so having a stake in this worldview does not correlate with [[climate change mitigation]] behaviors.<ref name=":5" /> Political worldview plays an important role in environmental policy and action (or inaction). Liberals tend to focus on environmental risks, while conservatives focus on the benefits that economic development brings.<ref name=":6" /> Because of these differences in world views, with one political ideology focusing on risks while the other focuses on benefits, conflicting opinions on the acceptance or denial of climate change arise.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last1=Lewandowsky|first1=Stephan|last2=Oberauer|first2=Klaus|date=August 2016|title=Motivated Rejection of Science|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|language=en|volume=25|issue=4|pages=217–222|doi=10.1177/0963721416654436|s2cid=53705050|issn=0963-7214|url=https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/motivated-rejection-of-science(1f2a0ba7-baba-4d13-a2a8-f11df1a8b009).html}}</ref>
 === Limited cognition ===
@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 === Conspiratorial beliefs ===
+Climate change denial is commonly rooted in a phenomenon commonly known as conspiracy theory, in which people misattribute events to a secret plot or plan by a powerful group of individuals.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCauley|first=Clark|last2=Jacques|first2=Susan|date=May 1979|title=The popularity of conspiracy theories of presidential assassination: A Bayesian analysis|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=37|pages=637-644|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.37.5.637}}</ref> The development of conspiracy theories is further prompted by the proportionality bias that results from climate change — an event of mass scale and a great deal of significance — being frequently presented as a result of daily small-scale human behavior; often, individuals are less likely to believe large events of this scale can be so easily explained by ordinary details.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Leman|first=P.J.|last2=Cinnirella|first2=Marco|date=2007|title=A major event has a major cause: Evidence for the role of heuristics in reasoning about conspiracy theories|journal=Social Psychological Review|volume=9|pages=18-28}}</ref>
-People with a tendency to think [[Conspiracy theory|conspiratorially]] are more likely to deny the generally accepted notion that climate change is occurring and that humans are causing it.<ref name=":7" /> If an individual is already motivated to reject the scientific consensus, they may create a story conspiracies among climate scientists in an attempt to back up their claim.<ref name=":6" /> Those in support of free market economics are generally more likely to deny climate change, along with rejection of other mainstream science like the fact that HIV causes AIDS or that smoking causes lung cancer.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last1=Lewandowsky|first1=Stephan|last2=Oberauer|first2=Klaus|last3=Gignac|first3=Gilles E.|date=May 2013|title=NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science|journal=Psychological Science|language=en|volume=24|issue=5|pages=622–633|doi=10.1177/0956797612457686|pmid=23531484|s2cid=23921773|issn=0956-7976}}</ref> Endorsement of other popular conspiracy theories predicted the denial of climate change.<ref name=":7" />
+This inclination is furthered by a variety of possible strong individually and socially grounded reasons to believe in these conspiracy theories. The social nature of being a human holds influential merit when it comes to information evaluation. Conspiracy theories reaffirm the idea that people are part of moral social groups that have the ability to remain firm in the face of deep-seated threats.<ref>{{Citation|last=Tajfel|first=Henri|title=The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior|date=2004-01-09|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-16|work=Political Psychology|pages=276–293|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-0-203-50598-4|access-date=2021-05-09|last2=Turner|first2=John C.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wohl|first=Michael J. A.|last2=Branscombe|first2=Nyla R.|last3=Reysen|first3=Stephen|date=2010-06-02|title=Perceiving Your Group’s Future to Be in Jeopardy: Extinction Threat Induces Collective Angst and the Desire to Strengthen the Ingroup|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210372505|journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin|volume=36|issue=7|pages=898–910|doi=10.1177/0146167210372505|issn=0146-1672}}</ref> Conspiracy theories also feed into the human desire and motivation to maintain one’s level of self-esteem, a concept known as self-enhancement.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sedikides|first=Constantine|last2=Gaertner|first2=Lowell|last3=Toguchi|first3=Yoshiyasu|date=2003-01|title=Pancultural self-enhancement.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.60|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=84|issue=1|pages=60–79|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.60|issn=1939-1315}}</ref> With climate change in particular, one possibility for the popularity of climate change conspiracy theories is that these theories knee-cap the reasoning that humans are culpable for the degradation of their own world and environment.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kunda|first=Ziva|date=1990|title=The case for motivated reasoning.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480|journal=Psychological Bulletin|volume=108|issue=3|pages=480–498|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480|issn=1939-1455}}</ref> This allows for maintenance of one’s own self-esteem, and provides strong backing for belief in conspiracy theories. These climate change conspiracy theories pass the social blame to others, which upholds both the self and the in-group as moral and legitimate, making them highly appealing to those who perceive a threat to the esteem of themselves or their group.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cichocka|first=Aleksandra|last2=Marchlewska|first2=Marta|last3=de Zavala|first3=Agnieszka Golec|date=2015-11-13|title=Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Predict Conspiracy Beliefs? Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and the Endorsement of Conspiracy Theories|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550615616170|journal=Social Psychological and Personality Science|volume=7|issue=2|pages=157–166|doi=10.1177/1948550615616170|issn=1948-5506}}</ref> In a similar vein, much like how conspiracy belief is linked with narcissism, it is also predicted by collective narcissism. Collective narcissism is a belief in the distinction of one’s own group whilst believing that those outside the group do not give the group enough recognition.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cichocka|first=Aleksandra|last2=Marchlewska|first2=Marta|last3=Golec de Zavala|first3=Agnieszka|last4=Olechowski|first4=Mateusz|date=2015-10-28|title=‘They will not control us’: Ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12158|journal=British Journal of Psychology|volume=107|issue=3|pages=556–576|doi=10.1111/bjop.12158|issn=0007-1269}}</ref>
+A variety of factors related to the nature of climate change science itself also enable the proliferation of conspiratorial beliefs. Climate change is a complicated field of science  for lay people to make sense of. Research has experimentally indicated that people are wont to create patterns where there are none when they perceive a loss of control in order to return the world to one they can make sense of.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Whitson|first=J. A.|last2=Galinsky|first2=A. D.|date=2008-10-03|title=Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845|journal=Science|volume=322|issue=5898|pages=115–117|doi=10.1126/science.1159845|issn=0036-8075}}</ref> Research indicates that people hold stronger beliefs about conspiracies when they exhibit distress as a consequence of uncertainty, which are both prominent when it comes to climate change science.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=van Prooijen|first=Jan-Willem|last2=Jostmann|first2=Nils B.|date=2012-12-17|title=Belief in conspiracy theories: The influence of uncertainty and perceived morality|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1922|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology|volume=43|issue=1|pages=109–115|doi=10.1002/ejsp.1922|issn=0046-2772}}</ref> Additionally, in order to meet the psychological desire for clear, cognitive closure, the likes of is not consistently accessible to lay people regarding climate change, people often lean on conspiracy theories.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Marchlewska|first=Marta|last2=Cichocka|first2=Aleksandra|last3=Kossowska|first3=Małgorzata|date=2017-11-11|title=Addicted to answers: Need for cognitive closure and the endorsement of conspiracy beliefs|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2308|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology|volume=48|issue=2|pages=109–117|doi=10.1002/ejsp.2308|issn=0046-2772}}</ref> Bearing this in mind, it is also crucial to note that conspiracy belief is conversely lessened in intensity when individuals have their sense of control affirmed.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=van Prooijen|first=Jan-Willem|last2=Acker|first2=Michele|date=2015-08-10|title=The Influence of Control on Belief in Conspiracy Theories: Conceptual and Applied Extensions|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3161|journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology|volume=29|issue=5|pages=753–761|doi=10.1002/acp.3161|issn=0888-4080}}</ref>
+People with certain cognitive tendencies are also more drawn to conspiracy theories about climate change as compared to others. Aside from narcissism as previously mentioned, conspiratorial beliefs are more predominantly found in those who consistently look for meanings or patterns in their world, which often includes those who believe in paranormal activities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bruder|first=Martin|last2=Haffke|first2=Peter|last3=Neave|first3=Nick|last4=Nouripanah|first4=Nina|last5=Imhoff|first5=Roland|date=2013|title=Measuring Individual Differences in Generic Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories Across Cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire|url=http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225/abstract|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=4|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225|issn=1664-1078|pmc=PMC3639408|pmid=23641227}}</ref> Climate change conspiracy disbelief is also linked with lower levels of education and analytic thinking.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Swami|first=Viren|last2=Voracek|first2=Martin|last3=Stieger|first3=Stefan|last4=Tran|first4=Ulrich S.|last5=Furnham|first5=Adrian|date=2014-12|title=Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006|journal=Cognition|volume=133|issue=3|pages=572–585|doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006|issn=0010-0277}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last=Douglas|first=Karen M.|last2=Sutton|first2=Robbie M.|last3=Callan|first3=Mitchell J.|last4=Dawtry|first4=Rael J.|last5=Harvey|first5=Annelie J.|date=2015-08-18|title=Someone is pulling the strings: hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586|journal=Thinking & Reasoning|volume=22|issue=1|pages=57–77|doi=10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586|issn=1354-6783}}</ref> If a person has a predisposed inclination towards perceiving others’ actions as having been actively done willfully even when no such thing is happening, they are more likely to buy into conspiratorial thinking.<ref name=":7" />
+Though there are numerous different specific conspiracy theories regarding climate change, there are a few consistent examples found as denoted by researchers Douglas and Sutton. Some people believe that fabricating the existence of climate change for purposes of exerting political influence, while others believe that it is being fabricated in order to alarm governments into financially supporting future research. Some people believe that climate change is a scam on behalf of environmental groups that have bribed scientists in order to protect their financial interests in renewable energy. As referenced in the “The Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary from 2007, some believe global warming is a conspiracy crafted in order to promote interests in the nuclear sector.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Douglas|first=Karen M.|last2=Sutton|first2=Robbie M.|date=2015-01|title=Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0096340215571908|journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|volume=71|issue=2|pages=98–106|doi=10.1177/0096340215571908|issn=0096-3402}}</ref>
 ==See also==