Different Explanations of Climate Change Economics Explanations of human responses to climate change arise due to factors related to economic structures Psychology: Explanations of human responses to climate change arise due to factors related to individuals Sociology (next week): Explanations of human responses to climate change arise due to factors related to social groups

Before we begin Short game, related to psychology that we will be discussing today

Game One Imagine I have just given you $30 Now, I give you a choice based on my flipping a coin Heads: you win $9 Tails: you lose $9 Do you want to do the coin flip?

Final Paper Discussion

General Points for Research Paper Highlight your research question right up front Don’t do research on a question that you already know the “right” answer for – its uninteresting! Consider alternative explanations seriously Write a draft and then delete, delete, delete Only leave in those parts that relate to your research question Keep the “background” section short (or non-existent)

General Points for Research Paper -- continued Question must relate to climate change! Can’t just be description or summary of prior research – must be analytic in some way, looking at some relationship or variation and applying theory E.g.: If interested in affects of climate change, then look at vulnerability/adaptation/resilience literature and make the argument be about which countries will be more (or less) successful in responding to similar climate impacts

Final Paper Discussion: One Option “Apply concepts to empirical cases” option Intro Review literature that categorizes things in the social world related to climate change (adaptive capacity, vulnerability, or similar) Show how these concepts allow you to see differences between different cases, e.g., which country is more vulnerable to climate change Conclusion

Final Paper Discussion: Another Option “Comparison of alternative policies” option Intro Criteria of comparison Describe the alternatives Assess the alternatives against your criteria Conclusion

Final Paper Discussion: Another Option “Explaining something” option Intro Theory How scholars discuss the DV What IVs scholars suggest cause variation in the DV Describe your case(s) Assess which of the IVs does the best job of explaining the variation you see in your cases Conclusion

Logistics and Style Stuff Be a Professional NO experiments or surveys – its illegal without “human subjects clearance” which takes too long to do during a quarter Use headings to structure your argument Run spell-check Proofread as a separate step Alphabetize and be consistent in formatting of citations Use in-text citations to keep things simple

Many slides courtesy of Ezra Markowitz Used with permisson

Psychology and Climate Change We are not “rational” as a basic assumption People use 2 types of thinking (Kahneman, 2011) Associative/affective reasoning: fast, intuitive, emotional, personal Analytic/intellectual reasoning: “slower, deliberative, logical, statistical Psych and what we understand: Availability heuristics Psych and what we worry about: Finite pool of worry Psych and what we do Single action bias Social norms

Psychological assumptions People lack information about climate change More information = better decision-making “Right” information = more support for policy Information availability = use of information Scare people = more action Make people feel guilty = more engagement THESE ARE ALL FALSE (at least some of the time)

How people get and use climate change information Decision-makers only pay attention to certain sources, types of info Republicans go to FoxNews, Democrats go to MSNBC We tend to reject information that goes against core beliefs, values Or that suggests something be done that we disagree with (motivated reasoning) We evaluate information both emotionally (“System 1”) and cognitively (“System 2”)

Two systems Affective system: Fast, automatic, associative, emotional Cognitive or rational system: Slower, deliberative, “cold and calculating” Two systems operate in parallel to interpret information about CC When outputs are in disagreement (e.g., Affect says CC isn’t a problem but Cognitive says it is), decision- making is generally driven by affective system

Risk perceptions Experience more important than description Learn about risks from description vs. experience Learn about CC mostly from description from scientists Learning from experience is more powerful driver of risk perception (but directly experience weather, not climate)

Game Two Imagine I give you a different choice based on my flipping a coin Heads: you win $39 Tails: you win $21 If don’t do coin flip, you get $30 for sure Do you want to do the coin flip?

Results of two games Only difference is whether I “primed” you to think of yourself as having the $30 before you start or not Game One: losses frame – might go down from $30 to $21 Generally, more people take the bet Risk seeking behavior Game Two: gains frame – going up from $0 to $21 or $39 Generally, more people go for “sure thing” Risk averse behavior Similar to gambling or stock market

How info is presented Humans are sensitive to how information is presented CC can be “framed” in multiple ways: Content frames: public health, national security, environmental conservation Structure frames: loss vs. gain; present vs. future We generally accept risk if thinking about possible losses; but avoid risk if thinking about possible gains So, take more risks when come across loss-framed info Climate change generally presented as losses frame

Lots of evidence that we do not act rationally Game presented you with information that is objectively the same, but often people make different decisions in the two cases Small, irrelevant, things often influence our decisions (parole judges) Women overestimate risk of breast cancer but underestimate risk of heart disease

We don’t perceive risks “rationally” Estimates of Probabilities of Death From Various Causes Amos Tversky study: CauseSubject EstimatesStatistical Estimates Heart Disease Cancer Other Natural Causes All Natural Causes Accident Homicide Other Unnatural Causes All Unnatural Causes

Psychology: barriers to understanding Beliefs influence perceptions, not vice versa Farmers see what they believe, not believe what they see We believe personal experience, not the statistics Perceptions about climate change causes and consequences are socially constructed within communities and lead us to “attend to, fear, and socially amplify some risks while ignoring, discounting, or attenuating others” (Weber 2010)

Psychology: barriers to worrying about climate Finite pool of worry Can only worry about so much: if worry more about climate change, we worry less about other things If worry more about other things (like the economy), we worry less about climate change, with no change in the objective risks

Psychology: barriers to worrying about climate Availability heuristic: whether we believe something depends on whether we can think of examples Use easily-available and recent memories to estimate likelihood of things happening, regardless of how rare we know them to be OVER-worry about things that have happened recently UNDER-worry about rare things that haven’t happened for awhile Not scared enough by rare events, but scared too much when they happen (Sandy/Katrina; Fukushima; earthquakes). Overreact after major event but then “falls off radar”

Psychology: barriers to taking action Single action bias “Regardless of which single action is taken first, decision makers have a tendency not to take any further action, presumably because the first action suffices in reducing the feeling of worry or vulnerability.”

Psychology: barriers to taking action Status quo bias “People do not move away from hazards even when they are aware of them” Won’t move into bad situation but will stay in one “Nudge” issues: wherever we start, there we stay Netflix subscriptions Automatic enrollment in retirement plans Optimistic biases (Weinstein, 1980): Uncertainty promotes optimism

Psychology: barriers to taking action Not my fault Commons dilemma Undercuts responsibility and action Lack of “efficacy” – feeling that you can make a difference Moral judgment system ill-equipped to recognize and deal with unintended outcome of our own behavior (Markowitz & Shariff, 2012) No obvious villain to blame Unintentional side-effect of modern life

We take “unsmart” risks when we FRAME (“think of”) things as losses Implications for climate change Take more chances and risks if believe we are faced with losses If see climate change as mainly framed as a “loss” which means we are likely to take unrealistic risks to get back to the “no climate change world” Alternatively, if see climate change as going to happen and our behavior allows us to get the less-warmed world as a “sure thing” if we take certain actions, we might take actions that are more in line with the “real” odds

Psych discussion How can we use these insights to address the problem of climate change? Default options: e.g., green energy Framing: risk seeking