Here’s a story that maybe some AGW outliers might want to read. Finally, recognition that doom and gloom, hell and high water, and all that… really aren’t effective, and people are getting “climate fatigue” from all that sort of senseless hype. Surprisingly, many major science news outlets (Physorg, ScienceDaily for example) are carrying this press release from University of California, Berkeley, of all places. But then, after you get past the headline, your realize who’s really in denial. – Anthony
Dire or emotionally charged warnings about the consequences of global warming can backfire if presented too negatively, making people less amenable to reducing their carbon footprint, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley.
BERKELEY — Dire or emotionally charged warnings about the consequences of global warming can backfire if presented too negatively, making people less amenable to reducing their carbon footprint, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley.
“Our study indicates that the potentially devastating consequences of global warming threaten people’s fundamental tendency to see the world as safe, stable and fair. As a result, people may respond by discounting evidence for global warming,” said Robb Willer, UC Berkeley social psychologist and coauthor of a study to be published in the January issue of the journal Psychological Science.
“The scarier the message, the more people who are committed to viewing the world as fundamentally stable and fair are motivated to deny it,” agreed Matthew Feinberg, a doctoral student in psychology and coauthor of the study.
But if scientists and advocates can communicate their findings in less apocalyptic ways, and present solutions to global warming, Willer said, most people can get past their skepticism.
Recent decades have seen a growing scientific consensus on the existence of a warming of global land and ocean temperatures. A significant part of the warming trend has been attributed to human activities that produce greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite the mounting evidence, a Gallup poll conducted earlier this year found that 48 percent of Americans believe that global warming concerns are exaggerated, and 19 percent think global warming will never happen. In 1997, 31 percent of those who were asked the same question in a Gallup poll felt the claims were overstated.
In light of this contradictory trend, Feinberg and Willer sought to investigate the psychology behind attitudes about climate change.
In the first of two experiments, 97 UC Berkeley undergraduates were gauged for their political attitudes, skepticism about global warming and level of belief in whether the world is just or unjust. Rated on a “just world scale,” which measures people’s belief in a just world for themselves and others, participants were asked how much they agree with such statements as “I believe that, by and large, people get what they deserve,” and “I am confident that justice always prevails over injustice.”
Next, participants read a news article about global warming. The article started out with factual data provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. But while half the participants received articles that ended with warnings about the apocalyptic consequences of global warming, the other half read ones that concluded with positive messages focused on potential solutions to global warming, such as technological innovations that could reduce carbon emissions.
Results showed that those who read the positive messages were more open to believing in the existence of global warming and had more faith in science’s ability to solve the problem. Moreover, those who scored high on the just world scale were less skeptical about global warming when exposed to the positive message. By contrast, those exposed to doomsday messages became more skeptical about global warming, particularly those who scored high on the just world scale.
In the second experiment, involving 45 volunteers recruited from 30 U.S. cities via Craigslist, researchers looked specifically at whether increasing one’s belief in a just world would increase his or her skepticism about global warming.
They had half the volunteers unscramble sentences such as “prevails justice always” so they would be more likely to take a just world view when doing the research exercises. They then showed them a video featuring innocent children being put in harm’s way to illustrate the threat of global warming to future generations.
Those who had been primed for a just world view responded to the video with heightened skepticism towards global warming and less willingness to change their lifestyles to reduce their carbon footprint, according to the results.
Overall, the study concludes, “Fear-based appeals, especially when not coupled with a clear solution, can backfire and undermine the intended effects of messages.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When my daughter was an undergrad at Cal she participated in studies like this to bring in a little extra cash. So I’m not taking it all that seriously. 🙂
Now that’s an understatement.
What does fairness have to do with Global Warming and its effects? They might want to add to that study that using words like fairness or justice will get people to ignore them too because those words are indicators of a political ax to grind. Afterall this is a science topic……right? Global Warming isnt just Communist/socialist/progressive/Marxist movement in green clothing……right?
Significance from 97 Berkeley undergrads and 45 people (how selected?) from American cities? Not in my lifetime.
==================
So, people who have a distinctly negative view of the world (let’s say, Progressives who think massive government intervention is necessary for “social” justice”) are more likely to accept gloom-and-doom scenarios, while the rest of us need to see reasonable discussion and potential solutions. Hmmm. Who woulda thunk it.
Hmm, they seem at a place where , as we say in greece, “forward is a precipice and behind a ravine” ( you say between a rock and a hard place).
They have to devise an insidious way of presenting fear, if they want to stampede people, since people seem immunized to overt fear mongering. Fear is necessary for a stampede to economic measures, otherwise you have a mutual admiration society.
Berkeley? Potheads asking potheads what they think of pothead attitudes toward being potheads trying to study potheads……..
Spark another bowl, Berkeley, maybe you can dream of a world where rational people actually believe you.
“But if scientists and advocates can communicate their findings in less apocalyptic ways, ……”
But they can’t. Besides they don’t have ‘findings’ as such – just results from model runs.
Catastrophe doesn’t sell? Then why are they doubling down on it?
So the more scientists act like the old guy with the end of the world sign the less people are likely to believe them. What a suprise.
Is this research doing anything other than confirming that people with left-wing political views are more likely to “believe in global warming” than people with right-wing views?
It is interesting though because to some extent it explains why left-leaning people are so willing to believe that everything is terrible and unfair and heading for disaster, and right-leaning people are so willing to believe that everything is, if not perfect, about as good as it’s going to get.
One of the spin-offs of the climate debate for me personally has been an erosion of my formerly left-wing views. If the left have got it so wrong on climate, what other cherished left-wing views will not stand up to scrutiny if one looks for evidence to support them? I’ve always been aware of the bias and prejudices of the right-wing, but it’s been interesting to have to question my left-wing world view as a result of my growing climate scepticism!
“factual data provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. ”
That’s an oxymoron!
I thin you people on this blog have it about right.
To paraphrase this article:
If the doctor tells you that you have only six months to live, you are more likely to seek a second opinion than if she tells you it’s nothing serious, come back next week if you’re not feeling better.
Common sense.
Well if you want a truly expert opinion as to the degree of utter balderdash expounded in the above post you could do worse than consult Mr. Briggs who is linked upon this board.
I am sure he would be happy to help.
Kindest Regards
The left wing people think with the right side of their brains. The right wing people think with the left sides of their brains. Do I have that about right? Or is it the other way around?
Adjacent to Berkeley is Oakland, the home of A.C.E, the Alliance for Climate Education (http://www.acespace.org/), dedicated to making pro-Gore movies and training sessions and teen-clubs for our high-schools. Following the Marxist-Gramscii infiltration strategy, wherein “Education” is Newspeak for Agiprop, they are setting up the next generation to be brainwashed with Gore-mush. We need to keep our kids and grandkids away from this stuff.
I would agree with the findings and wonder if some of the alarmists blogs aren’t also starting to realise that they may be turning away potential contributors who are essential to maintaining interesting and informative debate.
Until recently I was a constant visitor to “Skeptical Science” often offering my generally differing perspective. It soon became apparent that some of the self appointed “housekeepers”, when it started to get difficult for them to dislodge the “stains” some skeptics managed to be impart onto their, the “housekeepers” favorite “rugs”, tightly held beliefs in other words, the “housekeeper”would turn their “rug beaters” upon the skeptic himself, hoping perhaps to force him into submission, or send him scurrying, hopefully never to return.
I would often be accused of just repeating what I had read at WUWT, ironic as at that time I had never visited WUWT, in fact my very first visit was after I had heard Anthony speak during one of his Australian presentations. However it was the constant accusation that I was a WUWT “nutter” that caused me to begin regularly visiting here to see what it was that drew such responses, and liking what was being offerred, the much wider perspective and greater tolerance of differing points of view, decided to stay.
I would now consider myself a regular reader of WUWT with only an occasional glimpse at “skeptical science” , and then just to see if some of the more persistent skeptics are still stirring the pot there, but it seems that also for some, they too tire of the over the top reactions some of their thought provoking perspectives undeservedly receive.
I don’t think any blog can afford to alienate any potential contributors, especially given that so many unknowns exist that could turn it all upside down, and I thank WUWT for fostering balance in the debate, and not forcing anyone into a corner where they will become defensive, becoming less amenable to considering all points of view, just as the lead article is telling us.
Is that supposed to be funny?
What, they showed people the 10:10 “Splattergate” video?
For millions of years, I suppose, human beings have had to find their way to coexist with the notion that their entire existence could be snuffed out at any instant. And as we explore and discover more and more about the world, we uncover even more apocoliptic threats to our survival.
Megavolcanoes, tsunami’s, asteroid impacts, avian flu, return of the ice age, nuclear winter, global warming. We are Human Beings. We’ve always lived with the awareness of our own mortality, and for most of us, we are able to prosper and thrive despite this burden. I can’t help but be amused to see the gloomy predictions of the climate change alarmists be ignored by most people.
This is an example of why Karl Popper defined pseudo-science and social physiology is just such an endeavor. I meet lots of young people and students, they are far more attuned to bullshit then most of us think.
kalsel3294 says: Wrote
November 19, 2010 at 9:45 pm
“I don’t think any blog can afford to alienate any potential contributors, especially given that so many unknowns exist that could turn it all upside down, and I thank WUWT for fostering balance in the debate, and not forcing anyone into a corner where they will become defensive, becoming less amenable to considering all points of view, just as the lead article is telling us.”
Exactly!
Is it April 1, or what? This keeps getting more hilarious.
I think they’re pulling our collective legs.
Garsh, it took them this long to figure out basic psychology 101 ?
Pfft, amateurs.