Emotional reactions to climate change: a comparison across France, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

appraisal theories climate change cross-national comparison emotions environmental behavior risk perception sustainability

Journal

Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 06 01 2023
accepted: 09 06 2023
medline: 24 7 2023
pubmed: 24 7 2023
entrez: 24 7 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

We present a study of emotional reactions to climate change utilizing representative samples from France, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom (UK). Drawing on appraisal theories of emotion, we examine relations between appraisals, emotions, and behavioral intentions in the context of climate change. We compare the four countries concerning emotional differences and commonalities and relate our findings to pertinent models of cultural values. Five distinct emotions were measured: worry, hope, fear, outrage, and guilt. In addition, the survey asked respondents to appraise a set of climate-related statements, such as the causality of climate change, or the efficacy of mitigation efforts. Also, a set of climate-relevant actions, such as willingness to reduce energy consumption or support for climate policies, was assessed. Findings show that appraisals of human causation and moral concern were associated with worry and outrage, and appraisals of efficacy and technological solutions were associated with hope. Worry and outrage are associated with intentions to reduce one's energy consumption, whereas hope and guilt are related to support for policies such as tax and price increases. A country comparison shows that French respondents score high on outrage and worry and tend to engage in individual behaviors to mitigate climate change, whereas Norwegian respondents score high on hope and show a tendency to support policies of cost increase. Generally, worry is the most and guilt the least intense emotion. Moral concerns and perceived collective efficacy of one's country in addressing climate change are relatively strong in France, while beliefs in human causation and in negative impacts of climate change prevail in Germany, and confidence in technological solutions are prevalent in Norway. In sum, findings reveal typical patterns of emotional responses in the four countries and confirm systematic associations between emotions and appraisals as well as between emotions and behaviors. Relating these findings to models of cultural values reveals that Norway, endorsing secular and egalitarian values, is characterized by hope and confidence in technological solutions, whereas France and Germany, emphasizing relatively more hierarchical and traditional values, are rather characterized by fear, outrage, and support for behavioral restrictions imposed by climate change policies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37484093
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1139133
pmc: PMC10358841
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1139133

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Böhm, Pfister, Doran, Ogunbode, Poortinga, Tvinnereim, Steentjes, Mays, Bertoldo, Sonnberger and Pidgeon.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2019 Jul;20(1):69-90
pubmed: 31313637
Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:799-823
pubmed: 25251484
Front Psychol. 2020 Jul 16;11:1573
pubmed: 32765360
Br J Soc Psychol. 2018 Apr;57(2):267-291
pubmed: 29492984
Eur J Soc Psychol. 2014 Aug;44(5):430-440
pubmed: 25678723
Int J Psychol. 2014 Apr;49(2):63-70
pubmed: 24811876
Risk Anal. 1999 Aug;19(4):689-701
pubmed: 10765431
Health Educ Behav. 2000 Oct;27(5):591-615
pubmed: 11009129
Public Underst Sci. 2017 May;26(4):434-451
pubmed: 26142148
Risk Anal. 2014 May;34(5):937-48
pubmed: 24219420
PLoS One. 2021 May 26;16(5):e0252105
pubmed: 34038456
Behav Res Ther. 1983;21(1):9-16
pubmed: 6830571
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000 Jun;104(3):317-37
pubmed: 10900699
Front Psychol. 2018 Oct 10;9:1904
pubmed: 30364126
J Pers Assess. 2005 Feb;84(1):37-48
pubmed: 15639766

Auteurs

Gisela Böhm (G)

Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Psychology, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway.

Hans-Rüdiger Pfister (HR)

Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Institute of Experimental Industrial Psychology (LueneLab), Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany.

Rouven Doran (R)

Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Charles A Ogunbode (CA)

School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Wouter Poortinga (W)

Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

Endre Tvinnereim (E)

Department of Government, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway.

Katharine Steentjes (K)

Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

Claire Mays (C)

Institut Symlog, Paris, France.

Raquel Bertoldo (R)

Aix Marseille Univ, LPS, Aix-en-Provence, France.

Marco Sonnberger (M)

Department of Sociology of Technology, Risk and Environment, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Section for Environmental Sociology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.

Nicholas Pidgeon (N)

Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

Classifications MeSH