How people update their beliefs about climate change: An experimental investigation of the optimistic update bias and how to reduce it

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Psychology Pub Date : 2023-08-16 DOI:10.1111/pops.12920
T. Kube, M. Wullenkord, L. Rozenkrantz, Peter Kramer, Sophia Lieb, Claudia Menzel
{"title":"How people update their beliefs about climate change: An experimental investigation of the optimistic update bias and how to reduce it","authors":"T. Kube, M. Wullenkord, L. Rozenkrantz, Peter Kramer, Sophia Lieb, Claudia Menzel","doi":"10.1111/pops.12920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"People usually update their beliefs selectively in response to good news and disregard bad news. Here, we investigated in two preregistered experiments (N = 278 and N = 306) (1) whether such valence‐dependent belief updating also underlies information processing in the context of climate change and (2) whether it can be altered by interventions informing about different aspects of climate change. To this end, we adapted a well‐established belief update task to the context of climate change. In multiple trials, participants were asked about their beliefs about adverse consequences of climate change; subsequently, they were asked to update their beliefs in light of new information. Both studies provided evidence against the hypothesis that people integrate good news about climate change more than bad news. After half of the trials, participants were randomized to one of four video‐based interventions, each of which aimed at promoting a more accurate risk perception and increasing pro‐environmental intentions. After the interventions, participants showed a more accurate risk perception, and women rather than men increased their intentions for pro‐environmental behavior. The results provide implications for climate change communication, as they show that when facing the consequences of climate change, people adjust their risk perception accurately and increase their pro‐environmental intentions.","PeriodicalId":48332,"journal":{"name":"Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12920","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

People usually update their beliefs selectively in response to good news and disregard bad news. Here, we investigated in two preregistered experiments (N = 278 and N = 306) (1) whether such valence‐dependent belief updating also underlies information processing in the context of climate change and (2) whether it can be altered by interventions informing about different aspects of climate change. To this end, we adapted a well‐established belief update task to the context of climate change. In multiple trials, participants were asked about their beliefs about adverse consequences of climate change; subsequently, they were asked to update their beliefs in light of new information. Both studies provided evidence against the hypothesis that people integrate good news about climate change more than bad news. After half of the trials, participants were randomized to one of four video‐based interventions, each of which aimed at promoting a more accurate risk perception and increasing pro‐environmental intentions. After the interventions, participants showed a more accurate risk perception, and women rather than men increased their intentions for pro‐environmental behavior. The results provide implications for climate change communication, as they show that when facing the consequences of climate change, people adjust their risk perception accurately and increase their pro‐environmental intentions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人们如何更新他们对气候变化的信念:乐观更新偏见的实验研究以及如何减少它
人们通常会有选择地更新他们的信念来回应好消息,而忽略坏消息。在此,我们通过两个预注册实验(N = 278和N = 306)调查了(1)在气候变化背景下,这种效价依赖的信念更新是否也是信息处理的基础;(2)它是否可以通过告知气候变化不同方面的干预措施而改变。为此,我们在气候变化的背景下调整了一个完善的信念更新任务。在多个试验中,参与者被问及他们对气候变化不利后果的看法;随后,他们被要求根据新的信息更新自己的信念。这两项研究都提供了证据,反驳了人们对气候变化的好消息多于坏消息的假设。在一半的试验后,参与者被随机分配到四种基于视频的干预措施中的一种,每一种干预措施都旨在促进更准确的风险感知和增加亲环境意图。干预后,参与者表现出更准确的风险感知,女性比男性更倾向于亲环境行为。研究结果为气候变化沟通提供了启示,因为它们表明,当面对气候变化的后果时,人们会准确地调整他们的风险感知,并增加他们的亲环境意图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Understanding the psychological aspects of national and international political developments is increasingly important in this age of international tension and sweeping political change. Political Psychology, the journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, is dedicated to the analysis of the interrelationships between psychological and political processes. International contributors draw on a diverse range of sources, including clinical and cognitive psychology, economics, history, international relations, philosophy, political science, political theory, sociology, personality and social psychology.
期刊最新文献
Trust in action: Cooperation, information, and social policy preferences We see symbols but not saviors: Women's representation and the political attitudes of working‐class women Political leaders' identity leadership and civic citizenship behavior: The mediating role of trust in fellow citizens and the moderating role of economic inequality The affective nexus between refugees and terrorism: A panel study on how social media use shapes negative attitudes toward refugees Are rules made to be broken? Conspiracy exposure promotes aggressive behavior
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1