Test 2: John McClure Readings Flashcards
House Insulation Study:
(7) DV Measures
> Indoor temperature and relative humidity > Energy consumption > Self-reported health > Admission to hospitals > Wheezing > Days off school and work > Visits to general practitioners
House Insulation Study:
Results:
> Small increase in bedroom temperature and a decrease in relative humidity. > Energy consumption in insulated homes was 81% of that in uninsulated homes (lower usage in insulated homes). > Insulated homes were below 10 degrees Celsius (cold in winter perceived to be cause of health issues) for fewer hours of the day.
These Indoor Environment measures were linked to these health outcomes:
Note: odd ratios is the likelihood of the event occurring due to exposure to x. If OR > 1 (increased likelihood of event) and OR < 1 (decreased likelihood of event).
> Poor Health outcomes (0.5) reduced likelihood of poor health outcomes in insulated homes. > Self-Reports of Wheezing (0.57) reduced likelihood of wheezing in insulated homes. > Self-reports of children taking days off school (0.49) reduced likelihood children taking days off school in insulated homes. > Self-Reports of adults taking days off work (0.62) is less likely in insulated homes. > Visits to general practitioner (0.73) is less likely in insulated homes. **self- reported not actual visits! > Hospital visits reduced in insulated homes but this was insignificant.
Is insulating homes an effective preparative action that can be used to improve health outcomes?
Yes, insulated homes are significantly warmer, drier indoor environment that resulted in improved self-reports of health related outcomes i.e. wheezing days off school and work, visits to general practitioners office and fewer hospital admissions for respiratory conditions.
**income & housing are interrelated factors that lead to poor health outcomes but changing housing standards is easier.
Why is improving indoor environments an effective prevention?
> people in western countries
spend 90% of their time
indoors.
> intervening at a home level
rather than an individual
level is a practical way to
improve health outcomes
by targeting households.
> Old homes are incredibly
hard to heat. Money spent
on heating is money that
can not be spent on other
necessities like food.
> Colder homes place
physiological stress on.
select populations like old
people, sick people and
babies who's
thermoregulation system is
not as robust as most
people.
> Cold homes are often damp
with mold that can lead to
respiratory conditions.
> Increased mortality rates in
winter suggests that homes
are not effectively being
heated or staying warm.Insulated Homes Study:
Participants
> Overrepresentation of Maori
and Pacifica in low income
neighbourhoods and poor
insulated homes.
Insulated homes and social functioning:
> 0.56 less likely to be have
poor mental health.
Climate change, Powerlessness and the comms dilemma: Assessing NZ’s preparedness to act
Main Findings:
(A) Perceptions of
powerlessness and the
comms dilemma were
strong predictors of
inaction to climate change
(When included both constructs in
analysis powerlessness
Become insignificant. Indicating that it is secondary to the comms dilemma in decisions of action.
(B) the comms dilemma is a strong predictor of climate change action. If people perceive other to have taken action they are more likely to do so.
(C) Perceived Risk and the
perception that humans
influenced climate change
were the strongest
predictors (they are conceptually distinct
constructs but were so
strongly correlated that
they were joint together to
form "Risk and Human
Influence".
(D) more knowledge is linked to higher risk perceptions but is not a main influence to action.
(E) high powerlessness linked to lower risk perceptions of cc and more uncertainty about ccWhat is the comms dilemma?
How does it link to climate change?
Groups would benefit from cooperation between group members but individuals are conflicted by incentives to free-ride:
(A) Belief it is unfair that they
should contribute to the
group goal if others are
not.
(B) Belief that the groups goal
is unobtainable.
How does this relate to climate change?
Climate change is a global issue, with a uncertain time frame and contributions to mitigation are often anonymous.
Thus, if people are uncertain about climate change, are unaware of others contributions than people are less likely to cooperate.
***our perceptions on others
contributions to the group
goal can act as a
psychological barrier that
leads to inaction.
What is Powerlessness?
- Media
Individuals perceptions that their contributions will make a significant impact on mitigating climate change will strongly influence peoples likelihood to engage in voluntary mitigating actions.
Media portrayal’s of the issue influences the publics sense of powerlessness, increases fatalism and inaction.
> If reports focus on the damage caused by climate change without recommending mitigation behaviours this can increase fear that leads to inaction.
> Mixed media reports can increase the uncertainty in the public about the issue and leads to A) less cooperation between groups B) to avoid overwhelming uncertainty people deny the the problem exists or justifying inaction by saying they are waiting for more information.
Other factors which influence climate change mitigation:
(A) Norms:
environmentalism is the
socially desirable behaviour
but it conflicts with peoples
personal interests and
comes with a cost.
(B) Guilt:
Powerlessness is used to
justify their inaction and
explain away guilt.
(C) Group Size:
there is a negative
correlation between group
size and active involvement
in mitigation for climate
change.
in groups peoples self-
efficacy is reduced and they
feel that people they are
unable to change the
groups outcome.Climate Change:
Perceptions of Risk- role of knowledge
People who perceive climate change to more of a risk (i.e. a serious concern) than people are more likely to take voluntary actions to mitigate the risk.
More knowledge on the issue is associated with higher risk perceptions because people understand the role of human behaviour on climate change and are more willing to engage in mitigating behaviour (they’re less uncertain and less powerless).
**weak predictor-it is a factor but not a main factor in peoples decisions to act or ignore climate change.
Campaigns on climate change would be more effective if….
They acknowledged the psychological barriers that lead to inaction towards climate change. For example, if they highlighted the role of human behaviour and identify specific mitigating behaviours could be adopted.
What are the 7 Dragons of Inaction?
1. Limited Cognition about the
problem.
2. Ideological world views that
tend to prelude pro-
environmental attitudes and
behaviour.
3. Comparisons with key other
people.
4. Sunk costs& Behaviour
momentum.
5. Disceredence to experts
and authorities.
6. Perceived risks of change.
7. Limited Behaviour.What are examples of Limited Cognition about the Problem:
(A) Ancient Brain:
The human brain has not
evolved much from our
ancestors. Thus, concerns
about the environment,
that fall outside immediate
danger and hunting, do
not come easy to people.
(B) Ignorance:
- Not knowing the problem
exists (small proportion of
the population are
ignorant to climate change
exisiting).
- Being aware of the
problem but not knowing
how to fix it (majority of the
population).
> people are not experts, even
experts do not know the best
course of action & media
presents mixed messages.
(C) Environmental Numbness:
- It's known that there are
too many stimuli in our
environment for us to
monitor- we are selective
with our attention.
- Climate change is often a
concern that falls outside
of our immediate
attention.
- Seeing the same
environment
conservation messages
can lead to habituation or
numbness to the issue.
(D) Uncertainty:
- Perceived and real
uncertainty reduces the
frequency of pro-
environmental behaviour.
- Uncertainty is used as a
justification for inaction
and excuse for behaving
out of self-interest.
- Scientists admitting that
there will be a level of
uncertainty to any model
cause the public to
perceive them as being
uncertain themselves and
subsequently people
underestimate the risk of
the issue.
(E) Judgemental Discounting:
- Discounting future risk
- Spatial discounting-
where people perceive
the risk to be greater for
other countries.
- Neutralisation Theory:
try to rationalise their
inaction and absolve
themselves pro-
environmental
responsibilities.
(F) Optimism Bias:
- It is known that climate
change is expected to get
worse over the next 25
years but people
optimistically assume it
will be in other countries
in the world then theirs.
(G) Perceived Behavioural
Control and Self-Efficacy:
- Since climate change is a
global issue many
individuals feel that their
contribution will not be
sufficient to mitigate this
issue.
- Perceived behavioural
control is a good predictor
take public transport to
reduce green house gas
emissions.
- Linked to Fatalism
What are examples of Ideological world views that tend to prelude pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour.
*Some belief systems are so broad that effect all domains of our lives i.e. political ideologies. These may conflict with climate change mitigation attitudes and behaviours.
(A) World Beliefs:
- Free-Enterprise belief
systems are a strong
predictor for an individuals
disbelief in climate change.
- Being a stakeholder in
large corporations who
contribute to climate
change is linked to
discrediting climate
change.
(B) Superhuman Powers:
- Some people abstain from
climate change mitigation
because they hold the
belief that mother nature
or their religious deity will
NOT forsake them anyway.
(C) Technosalvation:
- Belief that technological
advancements will find a
way to solve climate
change without any
voluntary behaviour
necessary.
(D) Systems Justification:
- a tendency to justify
existing social hierarchies
and inequalities.
- "don't rock the boat
thinking"
*it is possible to portray
climate change mitigation
as a social norm and apart
of the system.
What are examples of comparisons with other people?
(A) Social Comparisons:
(B) Social Norms and
Networks:
- societal norms can justify a
resistance to change or be
used to build momentum
for societal change.
- double edged sword
- when people were told
how their neighbours
conserved energy people
tended to change their
behaviour to match their
neighbours (+ or -'ly) or
- people maintained low
consumption if they were
given positive feedback.
(C) Perceived Inequity:
- A common motive for
innovation "why should I
change if they won't
change?"
- Perceived or real inequity
exists than cooperation
decreases.
- Important figures show
resistance to change
the public uses this as a
justification for their own
inaction .
What examples of Sunk-costs?
(A) Financial Investments:
- once investments have
been perceived to be
spent, people continue a
task despite it being a
sunk cost.
- Why? Loss aversion
people do not want to
appear as being wasteful.
- If you are apart of a big
corporation and you learn
about your contribution to
climate change, as a form
of mitigating cognitive
dissonance they deny
that climate change exists
or is a risk- a solution that
does not involve solving
climate change.
(B) Behavioural Momentum:
- HABIT is the "enormous
fly wheel of society"
- habit gives us a sense of
stability and enough
momentum to keep
society ordered.
- Habit is a barrier because
old habits die hard. They
are incredibly resistant to
change and require
gradual change over a
long period of time!
- more behaviour
momentum = the more
resistant to change!
(C) Conflicting values, goals
and aspirations:
- Peoples values are not
always compatible with
each other. For instance
pro-environmentalism
values conflict with
capitalist values.
- Aspirations to get ahead
lead to behaviours which
are not environmentally
friendly.
- Environmental concerns
often come secondary to
other goals and aspirations.
(D) Lack of Place Attachments:
- Theory that people would
be more concerned about
environmentalism if they
felt more connected to the
land.
- Evidence is mixed on this.
What are examples of Disceredence?
(A) Mistrust:
- When the public does not
trust scientists or
government officials
about climate change
they are more likely to
be resistant to mitigation
behaviour changes or
policies.
- trust is easily broken and
distrust spreads like
wildfire.
- trust in experts is
mandatory for behaviour
change.
(B) Perceived Program
Inadequacies:
- Many un-impactful
policies have been
implemented about
climate change.
- Not mandatory or
enforced so people
choose to ignore them.
- Cognitive Dissonance:
it's easier to discredit the
policies effectiveness
then it is to admit that
you could be doing
more and change your
behaviour.
(C) Denial:
- Uncertainty, mistrust and
sunk-costs can feed into
active denial about
climate change.
- small proportion of the
population actively deny
climate change exists
but they tend to be more
outspoken in their
beliefs then believers.
- Terror Management:
when one's mortality is
made salient people
clutch to their belief
systems in order to
mitigate their anxiety
and fear of death.
(D) Reactance:
- Based on a mistrust of
scientists or expert
opinions on climate
change people can
negatively react to any
advice given and
perceive it as being an
attempt to limit their
freedom.
What are examples of Perceived Risk?
What “might” happen if people change their behaviour-
(A) Functional Risk:
- Will it work? If people
perceive green house gas
emission technologies to
be in affective they are
less likely to engage in
said behaviour.
(B) Physical Risk:
- Does climate change
mitigating behaviour pose
any physical harm to me?
i.e. bicycle accident.
(C) Financial Risk:
- Does adopting mitigating
behaviours incur a
financial cost? more
expensive then my
habitual behaviour?
- For example, how long
till energy consumption
behaviours show a
positive affect to justify
the immediate financial
cost?
(D) Social Risk:
- Will others notice my
behaviour?
- Will this behaviour
change influence
peoples perceptions of
me in a negative way?
(E) Psychological Risk:
- Least likely
- Will any negative social
costs lead to a reduction
in self-esteem and
confidence?
(D) Temporal Risk:
- Most common
- Fear of wasting time,
money and effort into a
lost cause.
What are examples of Limited Behaviour?
Humans have a tendency to engage in the minimal behavioural effort required. Thus, most people could do more than they currently are to combat climate change!
(A) Tokenism:
- If other psychological
barriers are overcome and
someone engages in
mitigating behaviours.
- People tend to adopt
token behaviour changes-
that are easy to adopt but
make little to no impact on
climate change.
- Low-Cost Hypothesis:
peoples intentions do not
match their behavioural
impact.
(B) The Rebound Effect:
- Once a mitigating
behaviour has been
adopted. The positive
impact is has on the
environment is canceled
out by other subsequent
behaviours.
- For example, you buy an
electric car to cut down
on green house gas
emissions but then drive
more frequently.
Psychologists (5) Essential Strategies to help Overcome the Seven Dragons of Inaction:
1. Analyse specific barriers at
the behavioural level.
Clearly define the behaviour
which is inhibiting pro-
environmental behaviours.
2. After creating a better
measure for carbon costs
associated with various
behaviour choices, create a
better ways to translate and
communicate this to
consumers.
3. Understand what drives
influences in public support
or opposition to policies
and technologies - test
social networking theory.
4. Design and conduct more
intervention studies aimed
at carbon-related behaviour
choices (i.e. travel and
energy consumption).
5. Work closely with other
disciplines, government
agencies, with technical
experts (climate change can
not be overcome alone).Climate change: Is there a problem? Why should we bother?
•Our best scientists argue that climate change is a serious concern that is only expected to get worse over the next 25 years if we do not actively engage in mitigation behaviors. They’ve also identified that the leading cause of climate change in human actions. Primarily, carbon gas (and other gas) emissions.
•Climate change will have massive consequences:
The climate may get too hot for people to live in, sea levels will rise, more forest fires, glaziers are melting, coral reefs are dying, extinction of flora and fauna.
•Change needs to be done now whilst there is still time to mitigate climate change.
Yet. Some People Still Argue: The Science is not Settled-
• Journalists are known to exaggerate differences between climate change scientists in order to make an interesting article.
• In reality, there is 97% agreement between climate change scientists. Everyone agrees that climate change is an issue, but like any model there is variance in predictions on the time frame for climate change.
e.g. medical diagnosis such as cancer or in terms of earthquake risk.
Two Opposing Trends in Climate Change Literature:
- Increasing Emissions:
•Developing nations want the same thing as developed nations (i.e. goods, industry or vehicles) during this industrial advancement their gas emissions are raising.
•There is an increase in
population.
•Increase in countries turning forests into crops. This leads to a reduction in the number of trees on the planet that can naturally create oxygen out of carbon dioxide.
*all contribute to more gas emissions. - Solutions:
• New technological advancements and efficiencies to increase sustainability (i.e. solar energy, windfarms, electric cars etc.)
• Human actions: using sustainable technology and mitigating behaviors like riding your bike, using reusable bags and minimizing energy consumption.
• Stop burning the planet.
*It’s a race between developing sustainability solutions to combat the increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Two Main Approaches to hazards:Climate Chnage
(A) Legislation-
• Policies and regulations put in place to reduce harm to the environment.
e.g. insulation regulations for new homes and flats or pushing for hot water cylinders to be insulated.
e.g. In USA Obama introduced a bill to reduce petrol gas usage by
2025.
*Legislation is good, but it is not good enough.
(B) Voluntary Actions-
How can we increase voluntary actions?
• Turn to psychology to overcome the many barriers that justify and contribute to inaction.
(4) Domains of Research into Increasing Voluntary Actions:
- Risk Perception & Climate Change.
- Motivation (as a barrier to change)
- Fatalism about Climate Change.
- The Comms Dilemma.
(1) Risk Perception and Climate change:
Two key processes of assessing risk-
(A) Gut/Visceral Reaction:
o The automatic and gut emotional reaction people have towards threatening stimuli, people or animals.
(B) Analytical Processing:
• A more calculated analytical assessment of risk where people calculate the statistical probability of a threat or hazard occurring.
*It’s common for Visceral and Analytical processing of risk to conflict and for
emotional reactions to override or more methodical risk assessments.
How can our Knowledge on Risk Perception be applied to Climate Change?
(A) Change the language used:
• Change terminology from climate change to climate crisis to emphasis the level of risk around climate change.
(B) Translate Analytical Data into Visceral [gut] Images:
• Communicate scientific data on climate change and risk into images aimed to trigger a gut emotional response in favor of sustainability.
• Use animals, showcase images of sea levels rising, glaziers melting etc.
• Compare and contrast years to show the damage done up till now and its future risk if mitigation actions are not adopted.
(2) Motivation and Climate change:
Gillford (2011)
• Governments rely on educational campaigns to scare people engaging in voluntary actions without taking into account psychological barriers or the structural barriers that their current legislation retains.
e.g. poor public transport.
• Research indicates it may be easier to reduce domestic energy usage (i.e. lightbulbs, insulation or solar etc.) than it is to change transport behaviors.
o Legislation should be used to regulate public transport
o Voluntary actions should target more amenable behaviors like energy consumption.
*this means that people are not overwhelmed with the number of polices
on sustainability, regulating gas emissions and reduce perceived threat
to freedom.
• In some areas like Asia and Europe they have introduced [fast] Rail which is a faster service which has lower gas emissions than flying.
Cost and Benefit Analysis and Motivation:
(Actual or Perceived)
• It’s common for people to assume that sustainability will come with an immediate personal cost.
• This is true maybe for the short-term in financial cost or effort but in the medium and long term these behaviors will be worthwhile.
e.g. lightbulbs, insulation and electric cars.
Stern (2007) The cost of not acting is much greater.
(3) Fatalism and Climate change:
2 strategies to combat fatalism.
2 examples to counter fatalism
Ineffective and effectI’ve messages
- Climate change is a global issue, and this can lead to people feeling their individual contribution is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
- Climate change is an unstoppable force of nature.
e.g. John Key said “We can try our best to be sustainable, but NZ is only 0.2% of the
whole population so or efforts or futile”.
Two Strategies to Combat Fatalism:
(A) The World is made up of Multiples of 5 million:
If we view the world as being made up of multiples of 5 million then NZ contribution to mitigating climate change does not seem so insignificant.
(B) How many Votes does USA/China have in the UN?
If we consider that USA and China, who are arguably the two most powerful countries, have the same number of votes in the UN than we do (1) we can feel empowered by our ability to make our vote count.
How to Counter Fatalism:
(A) Focus on Actions:
(Abramson, 2009)
If people are asked “can we stop climate change?” most people say, NO.
In contrast if people are asked “can you cut down your energy use in the shower?” most people said, yes. I’ll take shorter showers.
(B) Small Actions Make a Difference:
Smaller and easier to adopt behaviors can still make a significant impact on mitigating climate change.
e.g. new lightbulbs, insulation, eating less meat (35% of NZ’s gas emission come
from agriculture) or painting your roof white to reflect the sun.
What Messages Work Best?
Ineffective:
• Fear or anxiety inducing campaigns can be counterproductive and lead to paralysis and denial towards climate change.
Effective:
• Target actions, not just risk.
• Give people a sense of control.
• Use images and humor.
(4) The Comms Dilemma & Climate change:
- Each country wants more than its share.
- If each countries goal is to maximize their own gain without regard for the environment than everyone will lose.
Examples:
- USA said they would not cut back their emissions unless China did.
- China argued that western countries emit more emissions than they did so USA had to reduce their emissions by 40% before they would consider doing the same.
- Obama (2015) broke this stalemate by getting China to agreement on reducing emissions.
How to Overcome the Comms Dilemma:
Climate Change
How to Overcome the Comms Dilemma:
(A) Communicate the Benefits of Cooperation:
Highlighting the downfall of self-interest strategies and the benefits of working together to combat climate change. Including ecological, financial or diplomatic costs.
(B) Communicate the Benefits of Coming First:
- Highlight the benefits of being the first: market shares for inventing new electric cars, batteries, organic foods etc.
- Energy and health cost savings
- Maintaining NZ Green Image for tourism and agricultural purposes.
(C) Having Pay Offs for Cooperation:
Having a carpool lane that allows for people to avoid traffic by traveling with more than 3 people.
(D) Having International Agreements:
- Paris (2015) all nations made an agreement to reduce their emissions.
- Trump pulled out of the agreement in 2017 claiming it would bare to much of a financial burden on America.
- Interestingly, no other nations pulled out of the agreement and many of USA’s states are still aiming to reduce their emissions.
With Climate Change, Fatalism Fuses with Comms Dilemma:
(A) Fatalism:
My contribution is just a drop in the ocean, insignificant.
(B) Comms Dilemma:
Unfairness, bearing the cost of change whilst others are not.
*are conceptually distinct constructs but research suggest that people perceive them
to be one in the same, and equally driving their mitigation (or lack of) behaviors.
We need to make the public understand that these are distinct: one refers to feeling powerless to stopping climate change (fatalism) and the other
Countering Fatalism: Earthquakes
- Specifics:
>People should focus on the specific actions people can take
>Small actions can make a big difference - Causal Models
A) Expert models accurately reflect that disasters have many causes.
Earthquake- Poor Buildings -Disasters
B) Citizen Models however omit key links:
Earthquake- Disaster
*Citizens do not recognize that their preparative behavior can mitigate the
damage of the hazard.
- Distinctive Damage:
- It’s often one house in the street that suffers distinctive damage and not the whole block.
- The media presents disaster damage as being widespread.
A) When all buildings collapsed people attributed the damage as being due to the hazard and uncontrollable.
B) When most buildings survived and only one suffered significant damage people tended to attribute this to a flaw in the buildings design (i.e. controllable
- Media Portrayals:
Fatalistic vs. Informed messages in the media.
A) Fatalistic- builder
“No building in the world could withstand this kind of ground movement.
Even with the best architect and engineers… if nature is going to drag it
away there is nothing you can do”.
B) Informed- chief engineer
“NZ building standards have improved over the years and many of the
buildings damaged were old. Newer builds tended to fair well against the
earthquake”.
People who listened to the informed message were less fatalistic and attributed the cause of the damage to be due to poor building designs and thus, preventable.
What messages work best for climate change?
- How Risk Is Portrayed:
Ads would be more effective if it included numbers and a shorter time frame - which messages work best?
A) High anxiety messages do not work.
o Being in a high state of anxiety can act as a psychological barrier that prevents people from taking action and using denial of the problem to reduce the uncomfortable state.
Instead: Messages should focus on…
o Focus on solutions, tangible mitigating behaviors people can adopt rather than solely focusing on the problem itself.
o Give people a sense of control.
Focus on Actions, not just Risk:
o Target the belief that action helps
- Fatalism
Tendency to think that hazards and disasters are outside of our control. That they are too powerful for our individual contributions to make any significant impact on.
Leads to the hazard being confounded with its impact or damage
Fatalism
Risk perceptions and earthquakes.
(A) Misjudging Different Risk
o We do not take action on all issues that we perceive to be risky or dangerous.
o We have a tendency to overestimate some risk and underestimate others (i.e. biased risk perception judgements).
o Media exposure on issues feeds into our risk perceptions (i.e. more dramatic, focus cause being inside or outside human control, confusion, geographical related risk etc.).
(B) Low Frequency Hazards
o We prepare less for hazards that are perceived to be infrequent or unlikely
o Especially when the timing of these risks is uncertain or hard to predict
i.e. we don’t know when or if it may happen.
(C) Unrealistic Optimism/Self-Other Bias
In one study participants were asked if Chicago was hit by a nuclear bomb how many people would survive? Most people said approx. 80%
Then they were asked what would they be doing after the bomb hit? Almost everyone said they would be in the community helping to clean up.
This is evidence of biased risk judgements and has been termed “comparative optimism”. The tendency for us to perceive us to be less effected by our neighbors or the average person.
This can also manifest in the belief that “I am better prepared and more likely to survive than the average person”.
The consequence of optimism biases is a tendency for people to be unprepared.
We can solve this by providing people with tangible ways that others have prepared for that you yourself have not taken.
Religion and happiness?
Main findings
(A) difficult life circumstances sig. Predict religiousness
(B) people in well developed nations drop out of religon because they have other means to support their wellbeing
(C) religiousness brings respect, meaning and social support which is linked to increased swb that is particularly beneficial for individuals with poor life circumstances.
(D) Individual religiosity is more likely when religiosity is the societal norm rather than the minority.
Wealth and Happiness:
psychological and social wellbeing measured as
Social: > respect > having family and friends you can count on
Psychological: > feeling a sense of freedom > learning new things > having opportunities to do what we do best
Wealth and Happiness:
Main findings
(A) positive and
negative feelings
were best predicted
with social
psychological
needs and moderatley by the
fulfillment of basic
needs.
(C) National income
and
satisfaction of
standards of living
strongly predicted
life evaluations.
(D) The relationship
between income
and life evaluations
was stronger in
wealthy nations
than
in poorer nations.
**indicates that general societal circumstances is strongly tied to peoples life evaluations and satisfaction.
**indicates that income and life evaluations rest on the fulfillment of material aspirations (beyond basic needs)
Prior to the Christchurch earthquake ___ was perceived to be higher risk
wellington. based on the geopraphic risk where wellington sits on a fault line and earthquakes are expected.
optimism and risk
bias in risk judgments where people engage in comparative optimism. They perceive themselves as being more prepared than others and thus, are less likely to suffer less harm.
experiencing disaster and risk perceptions
people who experience risk are more likely to understand their vulnerabilities for future risk and prepare more than others.
immediately following a disaster comparative optimism drops significantly for a period of time following the disaster.
in both affected and non-affected towns.
In contrast, people in the effected town who suffer no harm can lead to increases in comparative optimism (normalisation bias).
risk perceptions an baseline
different geographical locations have different base rates of risk for certain hazards. Thus, people view low risk as being no risk-they feel that if a natural disaster was to occur it wold hit a high risk place first.
did we find evidence of comparative optimisim?
NO, no cites rated themselves lower in risk compared to other cites.
Applying Motivation Research to Climate Change
- Assess the long-term basis of the perceived (or real) cost.
- Use Co-Benefits (other benefits from adopting sustainability behaviors)
Co-Benefits:
By using this strategy then people would not need to believe in climate change in order for them to voluntarily adopt pro-environmental behaviors.
We can target this small subset of disbelievers by emphasizing:
a. Cost-Savings
b. Health Benefits (insulation, less pollution, staying fit and being social).
Examples:
• Australia provides new homes and flats with energy consumption five-star ratings:
o Since this impacts the price it sold or rented for this can be quite motivating.
• Requiring ad’s for new car models to display their average petrol usage information.
• Install energy feedback meter’s so the resident can see their Realtime energy consumption usage.
• Government Subsides: insulating poor income neighborhoods, tax rebates for trading in guzzler vehicles and for installing solar panels.
