A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism.
Journal
Nature human behaviour
ISSN: 2397-3374
Titre abrégé: Nat Hum Behav
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697750
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
received:
27
06
2022
accepted:
20
09
2022
pubmed:
18
11
2022
medline:
23
11
2022
entrez:
17
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite over 50 years of messaging about the reality of human-caused climate change, substantial portions of the population remain sceptical. Furthermore, many sceptics remain unmoved by standard science communication strategies, such as myth busting and evidence building. To understand this, we examine psychological and structural reasons why climate change misinformation is prevalent. First, we review research on motivated reasoning: how interpretations of climate science are shaped by vested interests and ideologies. Second, we examine climate scepticism as a form of political followership. Third, we examine infrastructures of disinformation: the funding, lobbying and political operatives that lend climate scepticism its power. Guiding this Review are two principles: (1) to understand scepticism, one must account for the interplay between individual psychologies and structural forces; and (2) global data are required to understand this global problem. In the spirit of optimism, we finish by describing six strategies for reducing the destructive influence of climate scepticism.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36385174
doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01463-y
pii: 10.1038/s41562-022-01463-y
pmc: PMC7615336
mid: EMS190992
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1454-1464Subventions
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : 101020961
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.
Références
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014 Nov;107(5):809-24
pubmed: 25347128
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Jan;84(1):18-28
pubmed: 12518968
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008 Jul;34(7):913-23
pubmed: 18550863
Front Psychol. 2016 Feb 11;7:121
pubmed: 26903924
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Sep 5;114(36):9587-9592
pubmed: 28827344
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Nov;85(5):808-22
pubmed: 14599246
Psychol Sci. 2022 Dec;33(12):1989-2008
pubmed: 36242521
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 30;10(9):e0138208
pubmed: 26422694
Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:591-621
pubmed: 14744228
Am Behav Sci. 2013 Jun;57(6):699-731
pubmed: 24098056
Psychol Sci. 2013 Jan 1;24(1):56-62
pubmed: 23228937
BMC Public Health. 2010 Jun 01;10:299
pubmed: 20515503
Nat Clim Chang. 2013 Oct 1;3(10):885-889
pubmed: 24926321
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jan 5;113(1):92-7
pubmed: 26598653
Science. 2016 Oct 7;354(6308):42-43
pubmed: 27846488
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010 Mar;36(3):326-38
pubmed: 20008965
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Oct;5(10):1369-1380
pubmed: 33888880
PLoS One. 2017 May 5;12(5):e0175799
pubmed: 28475576
Cognition. 2021 Oct;215:104820
pubmed: 34218027
Nature. 2010 Jun 10;465(7299):686-7
pubmed: 20535183
Am Psychol. 2017 Jul-Aug;72(5):459-473
pubmed: 28726454
Annu Rev Public Health. 2021 Apr 1;42:1-21
pubmed: 33355475
Psychol Rev. 2001 Oct;108(4):814-34
pubmed: 11699120
Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Jan;2(1):2-3
pubmed: 30980051
Psychol Bull. 1990 Nov;108(3):480-98
pubmed: 2270237
Br J Soc Psychol. 2013 Jun;52(2):386-95
pubmed: 23316747