The Influence of Inequality, Responsibility and Justifiability on Reports of Group-Based Guilt for Ingroup Privilege

Although members of several social groups report feeling guilt because of their group’s actions, average reports of group-based guilt tend to be quite low. We investigate three antecedents of group-based guilt derived from research on social justice and interpersonal emotion. We find that Whites, men and women perceive inequality, responsibility and justifiability of group differences to the same extent. Moreover, each factor is a key antecedent of guilt for Whites, men and women. We also find an interaction between justifiability and responsibility such that reports of group-based guilt increase as perceptions of ingroup responsibility increase and justifications for group differences decrease. Given the beneficial consequences of group-based guilt for intergroup relations, it is important to understand what factors lead to group-based guilt

Gendered Impressions of Issue Publics as Predictors of Climate Activism

The present work explores how gendered impressions of issue publics (i. e., those who are well-informed about, and have strong opinions about, a given topic) can predict individuals' interest in engaging in activism either consistent with the issue public's position or diametrically opposed to its position. In two studies (Ns = 286, 245) using MTurk samples, we explore the predictors of pro-climate and anti-climate activism based on the impressions of the climate concerned (i.e., an issue public supporting action on climate change; Study 1) and the climate dismissive (i.e., an issue public opposing action on climate change; Study 2). We relied on two complementary theoretical perspectives to make predictions: (a) gender role congruity theory, which suggests that the more perceivers ascribe gendered traits to issue publics that match the perceiver's own gender, the more they will engage in behavior associated with that issue public, and (b) social value of attributes which suggests that various components of femininity and masculinity may be universally valued (i.e., positive aspects of masculinity) or devalued (i.e., negative aspects of femininity) by society regardless of perceivers' own gender. Predictions made by gender role congruity theory were not supported: men, relative to women, did not prefer engaging in activism when they perceived the relevant issue public to be more masculine and women, relative to men, did not tend to prefer engaging in activism when they perceived the relevant issue public to be more feminine. In contrast, results were consistent with social value of attributes predictions suggesting the importance of positive components of masculine impressions of issue publics in promoting activism consistent with the issue public and discouraging activism diametrically opposed to the issue public Yet, results also point to the potential “dark side” of appearing masculine: ascription of negative masculine traits to an issue public was associated with increased willingness to engage in activism diametrically opposed to the issue public and ascribing negative masculine traits to the climate dismissive was associated with, reduced interest in engaging in anti-climate activism. In contrast, ascribing negative feminine traits to an issue public did not uniquely predict interest in engaging in activism either supporting or diametrically opposed to the issue public

Seeing Through Their Eyes: When Majority Group Members Take Collective Action on Behalf of an Outgroup

We examined majority group members' collective action on behalf of a minority group, focusing on the role of outgroup perspective taking and group-based guilt. As expected, outgroup perspective taking was positively associated with heterosexuals' collective action in response to hate crimes against non-heterosexuals and Whites' action in response to hate crimes against Blacks (Studies 1 and 2). This association was partially mediated by group-based guilt (Studies 2 and 3). We also examined the role of group-based anger; although it directly related to collective action, it did not mediate the association between perspective taking and collective action. Finally, we manipulated outgroup perspective taking to demonstrate its causal role in the subsequent outcomes (Study 3)

Hopium or empowering hope? A meta-analysis of hope and climate engagement

Researchers are increasingly examining whether hope can motivate action on climate change, or conversely, whether it might demotivate such action. We present a meta-analysis (k = 46) of quantitative studies examining the relationships between measures and manipulations of hope with climate engagement. On average, measured hope was associated with greater climate engagement (r = 0.18); however, this effect differed based on the target of hope. Hope regarding the possibility of respondents taking action was particularly strongly associated with greater engagement (r = 0.40), while in contrast, hope grounded in climate change not being a problem was associated with less engagement (r = −0.40). Hope in response to climate change generally, and domain-general hope, were only weakly associated with greater engagement (rs = 0.13, 0.20). On average, hope manipulations fostered increased engagement, though the increase was small (Cohen’s d = 0.08). Subgroup analyses suggested two promising types of hope manipulations warranting future research: personal efficacy (k = 2, d = 0.18) and in-depth (k = 2, d = 0.49). In contrast, messages suggesting societal efficacy (i.e., providing a sense of possibility that climate change could be addressed) did not significantly or substantially boost (nor discourage) engagement (d = 0.05), and status quo-framed messages (i.e., messages highlighting that environmental conditions could stay the same if climate action is taken) had a marginally significant negative effect on engagement (d = −0.18). After excluding a single outlier, the extent to which manipulations increased hope were not correlated with increases in climate engagement, suggesting the possibility that hope might be incidental to the success of some manipulations rather than a necessary component for promoting engagement. Overall, our meta-analysis does not suggest that increasing hope decreases climate engagement, with the possible exceptions of denial hope and status quo framed messages. Conversely, however, results provide partial yet inconclusive evidence for the hypothesis that increasing hope increases climate engagement. Given the existing published literature, we argue that future researchers should consider study designs that align with theoretical perspectives on how hope promotes climate engagement (e.g., longitudinal designs) and also consider directly assessing populations of interest (e.g., climate activists)

“Be Worried, be VERY Worried:” Preferences for and Impacts of Negative Emotional Climate Change Communication

While communication experts largely recommend avoiding climate change messages that create negative emotional states, little is known regarding how members of the public use emotions in their own communication about climate change. Given the important role individuals can play in addressing climate change via their interpersonal communication, it is important to understand preferences for using or avoiding communication framed with negative emotions, and their ultimate impact on taking action to address climate change. Further, social expectations about the use of emotions may influence whether individuals' gender and political identity impacts their preference for using specific types of emotions. Three studies tested preferences for and impacts of three negative emotions common to climate change responses: fear, sadness, and anger, in comparison to messages framed without emotion. Findings indicate that people generally prefer messages framed without emotion, although in line with predictions, women, and Democrats are more apt to prefer emotional messages than men and Republicans. Although participants say they prefer messages framed without emotion, climate change messages framed with negative emotions are more likely than messages framed without emotion to match participants' feelings on climate change, while messages framed with specific types of negative emotions are more likely than messages framed without emotion to convey impressions of the speaker as rational, strong, and caring, which in turn predict greater preference for emotional over non-emotional messages. Further, results from a petition-signing study indicate that communicating with negative emotions does not promote nor hinder behavioral engagement

Climate Change Marches as Motivators for Bystander Collective Action

Political marches are one of the most public and vocal means of engaging in collective action and can potentially build social movements by increasing the likelihood that bystanders become engaged with the social movement. Here, we conduct a trend study to test the impacts of two back-to-back highly visible large-scale climate change related marches on bystanders, targeting psychological drivers of collective action: efficacy beliefs, perceptions of others’ climate change activism and concerns, impressions of marchers, and behavioral intentions. Participants either completed a survey the day before the March for Science (n = 302) or several days after the People’s Climate March, which occurred a week after the first march (n = 285). Results suggest that the marches were at least partially effective: bystanders’ (a) collective efficacy beliefs and (b) impressions of marchers improved after the march. In contrast, marches were ineffective in increasing perceptions of others’ engagement with concern about climate change. We anticipated that political leaning of bystanders’ news sources would moderate effects of marches. Unexpectedly, collective efficacy beliefs improved among consumers of conservative, but not liberal, news. This unanticipated result is consistent with the notion that conservative news sources dedicated less coverage than liberal news sources to the marches prior to the marches (potentially leading to lower collective efficacy among those who consumed these sources), but that coverage afterwards was more equal across ideological bias of news sources. We also found that the more conservative the news sources consumed by an individual, the more negative impressions they had of marchers, and this relation was strongest among those that indicated, after the marches, that they had heard about the marches. These results on impressions are consistent with the notion that, when marches were covered, conservative news sources portrayed marchers relatively more negatively than liberal news sources. Overall, results suggest that marches can increase the likelihood that bystanders will participate in social movements via changes in psychological drivers of participation and the effects will likely depend upon political leanings of news sources via both whether sources mention the marches and how the sources cover the marches

Towards a Psychology of the Food-Energy-Water Nexus:Costs and Opportunities

Scholars, government scientific research institutions, and public policy-making entities are increasingly focusing on environmental issues from a food-energy-water (FEW) nexus perspective. This nexus represents the interconnection of these three systems, which are essential to human life. The FEW nexus is inherently and inescapably interdisciplinary. However, to date, there have been relatively few academic contributions to understanding the nexus from the social sciences, particularly from psychology. In this article, we suggest an extended framing of the nexus (food-energy-water x human) to explicitly recognize how human actions in the form of both consumption practices and population size and distribution impact the FEW nexus. We outline important contributions that psychology researchers could make in FEW nexus focused research teams. In doing so, we acknowledge difficulties and potential risks for psychology researchers engaging in FEW nexus based research, but suggest that, while such difficulties can create barriers, they can also present opportunities for psychologists.</p

A Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology & Global Climate Change

This report examines the role of the field of psychology in understanding and dealing with global climate change. The report explores the psychological drivers for contributing to climate change and the psychological barriers to action in response to the threat of climate change. The report makes policy recommendations based on its findings