Abstract
There is considerable concern that the public are not getting the message about climate change. One possible explanation is “optimism bias,” where individuals overestimate the likelihood of positive events happening to them and underestimate the likelihood of negative events. Evidence from behavioral neuroscience suggest that this bias is underpinned by selective information processing, specifically through a reduced level of neural coding of undesirable information, and an unconscious tendency for optimists to avoid fixating negative information. Here we test how this bias in attention could relate to the processing of climate change messages. Using eye tracking, we found that level of dispositional optimism affected visual fixations on climate change messages. Optimists spent less time (overall dwell time) attending to any arguments about climate changes (either “for” or “against”) with substantially shorter individual fixations on aspects of arguments for climate change, i.e., those that reflect the scientific consensus but are bad news. We also found that when asked to summarize what they had read, non-optimists were more likely to frame their recall in terms of the arguments “for” climate change; optimists were significantly more likely to frame it in terms of a debate between two opposing positions. Those highest in dispositional optimism seemed to have the strongest and most pronounced level of optimism bias when it came to estimating the probability of being personally affected by climate change. We discuss the importance of overcoming this cognitive bias to develop more effective strategies for communicating about climate change.
Funding statement: British Academy, (Grant/Award Number: ‘SG143114’).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the British Academy/Leverhulme Small Grants Scheme for an award to the first author to allow him to research some of these issues.
References
Arnett, Jeffery J. 2000. Optimistic bias in adolescent and adult smokers and non-smokers. Addictive Behaviors 25. 625–632.10.1016/S0306-4603(99)00072-6Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Lynn & Robert Emery. 1993. When every relationship is above average: Perceptions and expectations of divorce at the time of marriage. Law and Human Behavior 17. 439–450.10.1007/BF01044377Search in Google Scholar
Bardwell, Lisa V. 1991. Problem-framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environmental Management 15. 603–612.10.1007/BF02589620Search in Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 1957. Mythologies, Annette Lavers (trans.). New York: Hill.Search in Google Scholar
Bartlett, Frederic C. 1932. Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey, Laura Sale & Laura McGuire. 2011. An inconvenient truth? Can a film really affect psychological mood and our explicit attitudes towards climate change? Semiotica 187(1/4). 105–125.10.1515/semi.2011.066Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey. 2010. Why aren’t we saving the planet? A psychologist’s perspective. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203840078Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey. 2011. Get the edge: How simple changes will transform your life. London: Headline.Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey. 2012. How effective is carbon labelling for the consumer? Nature Climate Change 2. 214–217.10.1038/nclimate1468Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey. 2016. Rethinking body language: How hand movements reveal hidden thoughts. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315880181Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey & Kathy Doherty. 1995. “I saw what really happened”: The discursive construction of victims and perpetrators in first-hand accounts of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14. 408–433.10.1177/0261927X950144005Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey & Laura McGuire. 2011. Are we too optimistic to bother saving the planet? The relationship between optimism, eye gaze and negative images of climate change. International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic, and Social Sustainability 7. 241–256.10.18848/1832-2077/CGP/v07i04/54949Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey & Laura McGuire. 2014. The psychology of consumption: Or why we don’t do what we say. In A. Ulph & D. Southerton (eds.), Sustainable consumption: Multidisciplinary perspectives, 175–195. London: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679355.003.0008Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey, Laura McGuire & Laura Sale. 2010. Do we actually look at the carbon footprint of a product in the initial few seconds? An experimental analysis of unconscious eye movements. International Journal of Environmental Cultural Economic and Social Sustainability 6. 47–66.10.18848/1832-2077/CGP/v06i01/54719Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey & Laura Sale. 2009. Explicit and implicit attitudes to low and high carbon footprint products. International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability 5. 191–206.Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey & Laura Sale. 2011. Shopping to save the planet? Implicit rather than explicit attitudes predict low carbon footprint consumer choice. International Journal of Environmental Cultural Economic and Social Sustainability 7. 211–232.10.18848/1832-2077/CGP/v07i04/54948Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey & Heather Shovelton. 1999a. Mapping the range of information contained in the iconic hand gestures that accompany spontaneous speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18. 438–462.10.1177/0261927X99018004005Search in Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey & Heather Shovelton. 1999b. Do iconic hand gestures really contribute anything to the semantic information conveyed by speech? An experimental investigation. Semiotica 123. 1–30.10.1515/semi.1999.123.1-2.1Search in Google Scholar
Bower, Gordon H. 1978. Experiments on story comprehension and recall. Discourse Processes 1. 211–231.10.1080/01638537809544437Search in Google Scholar
Bracha, Anat & Donald J. Brown. 2012. Affective decision making: A theory of optimism bias. Games and Economic Behavior 75. 67–80.10.1016/j.geb.2011.11.004Search in Google Scholar
Bradley, Brendan P., Karin Moog & Stacey C. Lee. 1997. Attentional biases for negative information in induced and naturally occurring dysphoria. Behavior Research and Therapy 35. 911–927.10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00053-3Search in Google Scholar
Bransford, John. D. & Jeffery J. Franks. 1972. The abstraction of linguistic ideas: A review. Cognition 1. 211–249.10.1016/0010-0277(72)90020-0Search in Google Scholar
British Social Attitudes Survey. 2012. British social attitudes. http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-29/transport/belief-in-climate-change.aspx (accessed 1 July 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Buswell, Guy T. 1922. Fundamental reading habits: A study of their development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Costa-Font, Joan, Elias Mossialos & Caroline Rudisill. 2009. Optimism and the perceptions of new risks. Journal of Risk Research 12. 27–41.10.1080/13669870802445800Search in Google Scholar
Davis, Joel J. 1995. The effects of message framing on response to envoronmental communications. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 72. 285–299.10.1177/107769909507200203Search in Google Scholar
Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs. 2007. Step forward on reducing climate change impacts of products. http://www.defra.gov.U.K./news/2007/070530a.htm (accessed 10 February 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Department of Environment and Climate Change. 2010. Act on CO2. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.U.K./20101007164856/http:/actonco2.direct.gov.U.K./home/about-us.html (accessed 4 March 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 1997. Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446221785Search in Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek, Jonathan Potter & David Middleton. 1992. Toward a discursive psychology of remembering. The Psychologist 5. 441–446.Search in Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, Barbara. 2009. Bright-sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America. New York: Holt.Search in Google Scholar
Elgaaied, Leila. 2012. Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior-A suggested typology of residents in France based on their recycling patterns. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29. 369–377.10.1108/07363761211247488Search in Google Scholar
Fredrickson, Barbara L. & Christine Branigan. 2005. Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion 19. 313–332.10.1080/02699930441000238Search in Google Scholar
Gifford, Robert, et al. 2009. Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: An 18-nation survey. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29. 1–12.10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.06.001Search in Google Scholar
Gifford, Robert. 2011. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation. American Psychologist 66. 290–302.10.1037/a0023566Search in Google Scholar
Harker, Lee Anne & Dacher Keltner. 2001. Expressions of positive emotion in women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80. 112–124.10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.112Search in Google Scholar
IPCC. 2015. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II, and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.Search in Google Scholar
Isaacowitz, Derek M. 2006. Motivated gaze: The view from the gazer. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15. 68–72.10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00409.xSearch in Google Scholar
Just, Marcel A. & Patricia A. Carpenter. 1976. Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology 8. 441–480.10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3Search in Google Scholar
Just, Marcel A. & Patricia A. Carpenter. 1980. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 87. 329–354.10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329Search in Google Scholar
Kaakinen, Johanna K. & JU.K.ka Hyönä. 2005. Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse Processes 40. 239–257.10.1207/s15326950dp4003_4Search in Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Kellstedt, Paul, Sammy M. Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz. 2008. Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis 28. 113–126.10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.xSearch in Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, Franziska, Dominique Pleimling, Jana Hosemann, Stephan Füssel, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2013. Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media. PloS One 8. e56178.10.1371/journal.pone.0056178Search in Google Scholar
Leahy, Terry. 2007. Tesco, carbon and the consumer. http://www.tesco.com/climatechange/speech.asp (accessed 5 March 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Luo, Jiang & Derek M. Isaacowitz. 2007. How optimists face skin cancer information: Risk assessment, attention, memory, and behavior. Psychology and Health 22. 963–984.10.1080/14768320601070951Search in Google Scholar
Marshall, Peter. 2015. Nature’s web: Rethinking our place on Earth. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315702148Search in Google Scholar
Mathews, Andrew & Colin MacLeod. 2002. Induced processing biases have causal effects on anxiety. Cognition & Emotion 16. 331–354.10.1080/02699930143000518Search in Google Scholar
Matin, Ethel. 1974. Saccadic suppression: A review and an analysis. Psychological Bulletin 81. 899–917.10.1037/h0037368Search in Google Scholar
McGuire, Laura & Geoffrey Beattie. 2016. Consumers and climate change: Can the presence of others promote more sustainable consumer choice? International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic & Social Sustainability 12. 33–56.Search in Google Scholar
Mosing, Miriam A., Brendan P. Zietsch, Sri N. Shekar, Margaret J. Wright & Nicolas G. Martin. 2009. Genetic and environmental influences on optimism and its relationship to mental and self-rated health: A study of aging twins. Behavioral Genetics 39. 597–604.10.1007/s10519-009-9287-7Search in Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi & Erik M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pahl, Sabbine, Peter R. Harris, Helen A. Todd & Derek R. Rutter. 2005. Comparative optimism for environmental risks. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25. 1–11.10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.12.004Search in Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan & Margaret Wetherell. 1986. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Power, Nicola, Geoffrey Beattie & Laura McGuire. 2017. Mapping our underlying cognitions and emotions about good environmental behavior. Why we fail to act despite the best of intentions. Semiotica 215. 193–234.10.1515/sem-2016-0035Search in Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith. 1978. Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin 85. 618–660.10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.618Search in Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124. 372–422.10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372Search in Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62. 1457–1506.10.1080/17470210902816461Search in Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith, Alexander Pollatsek, Jane Ashby & Charles Clifton. 2012. Psychology of reading. London: Psychology Press.10.4324/9780203155158Search in Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith, Arnold D. Well, Alexander Pollatsek & James H. Bertera. 1982. The availability of useful information to the right of fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics 31. 537–550.10.3758/BF03204186Search in Google Scholar
Scheier, Michael F., Karen A. Matthews, Jane F. Owens, George J. Magovern, R. Craig Lefebvre, R. Anne Abbott & Charles S. Carver. 1989. Dispositional optimism and recovery from coronary artery bypass surgery: The beneficial effects on physical and psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57. 1024–1040.10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1024Search in Google Scholar
Schulz, Richard, Jamila Bookwala, Judith E. Knapp, Michael Scheier & Gail M. Williamson. 1996. Pessimism, age and cancer mortality. Psychology and Aging 11. 304–309.10.1037/10338-015Search in Google Scholar
Segerstrom, Suzanne C. 2001. Optimism and attentional bias for negative and positive stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27. 1334–1343.10.1177/01461672012710009Search in Google Scholar
Segerstrom, Suzanne C., Shelley E. Taylor, Margaret E. Kemeny & John L. Fahey. 1998. Optimism is associated with mood, coping and immune change in response to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74. 1646–1655.10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1646Search in Google Scholar
Seligman, Martin. 2002. Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sharot, Tali. 2011. The optimism bias. Current Biology 21. 941–945.10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030Search in Google Scholar
Sharot, Tali. 2012. Why we’re wired to look on the bright side. London: Constable & Robinson.Search in Google Scholar
Sharot, Tali, Christoph W. Kom & Raymond J. Dolan. 2011. How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nature Neuroscience 14. 1475–1479.10.1038/nn.2949Search in Google Scholar
Shiller, Robert. 2000. Irrational exuberance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Stern, Nicholas. H. 2006. Stern review: The economics of climate change. London: HM Treasury.10.1017/CBO9780511817434Search in Google Scholar
Stocker, Thomas F., Dahe Qin, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Melinda Tignor, Simon K. Allen, Judith Boschung & Pauline M. Midgley. 2014. IPCC, 2014: Climate change 2014: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.Search in Google Scholar
Storbeck, Justin & Gerald L. Clore. 2005. With sadness comes accuracy; with happiness, false memory mood and the false memory effect. Psychological Science 16. 785–791.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01615.xSearch in Google Scholar
Taylor, Shelley. 1998. The MacArthur research network on socioeconomic status and health. http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/optimism (accessed 2 March 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Ulph, Alistair & Dale Southerton (eds.). 2014. Sustainable consumption: Multi-disciplinary perspectives in honour of Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta. London: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679355.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Unilever. 2013. Unilever sustainability plan. http://www.unilever.com.tw/Images/slp_Unilever-Sustainable-Living-Plan-2013_tcm13–388693_tcm206–395956.pdf (accessed 26 January 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Wadlinger, Heather A. & Derek M. Isaacowitz. 2008. Looking happy: The experimental manipulation of a positive visual attention bias. Emotion 8. 121–126.10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.121Search in Google Scholar
Walker, Gabrielle & David King. 2008. The hot topic: How to tackle global warming and still keep the lights on. Bloomsbury: London.Search in Google Scholar
Wall, Rob, Patrick Devine-Wright & Greig A. Mill. 2007. Comparing and combining theories to explain pro-environmental intentions. Environment and Behavior 39. 731–753.10.1177/0013916506294594Search in Google Scholar
Wegener, Michael. 1994. Operational urban models state of the art. Journal of the American Planning Association 60. 17–29.10.1080/01944369408975547Search in Google Scholar
Weinstein, Neil D. 1980. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39. 806–820.10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806Search in Google Scholar
World Wildlife Fund. 2008. Stop climate change before it changes you. http://www.wwf.org.U.K./ (accessed 7 March 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Xing, Cai & Derek M. Isaacowitz. 2006. Aiming at happiness: How motivation affects attention to and memory for emotional images. Motivation and Emotion 30. 243–250.10.1007/s11031-006-9032-ySearch in Google Scholar
Yang, Janet Z. & Lee Ann Kahlor. 2012. What, me worry? The role of affect in information seeking and avoidance. Science Communication 35. 189–212.10.1177/1075547012441873Search in Google Scholar
Yarbus, Alfred L. 1967. Eye movements during perception of complex objects. New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4899-5379-7_8Search in Google Scholar
Appendix
A Climate change in general
There has been a lot of heated discussion lately of the role of human beings in climate change. Climate change sceptics argue that even if the planet is warming up, it is not clear that it is because of human behavior. They point out errors in previous United Nations IPCC reports and accuse the global warming “industry” of ratcheting up the risks of climate change, which have subsequently led to the cripplingly expensive introduction of green energy policies.
But the arguments that climate change is caused by humans are considered by many to be convincing. The latest United Nations IPCC report, published in 2014, confirms that climate scientists appear more certain than ever before that human behavior is the key culprit for global warming. Based on all scientific evidence, the report concluded it was 95 % likely that the rise in global temperatures were due to human activity, such as greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation.
Previous IPCC reports on climate impact have been plagued by errors that have damaged the body’s credibility. Most famously, in the 2007 report, it said that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035, a claim it has since withdrawn. One reason for errors in the IPCC reports could be the over-reliance on computer models of predicted data, rather than on physical science.
The recent IPCC report raised the threat of climate change to a whole new level – based on new scientific evidence – warning of sweeping consequences to life and livelihood. The report concluded climate change is already having detrimental effects – melting sea ice in the Arctic, killing off coral reefs in the oceans, and leading to heat waves, heavy rains and mega-disasters. And the worst was yet to come.
But sceptics say almost every global environmental scare of the past half century has been exaggerated – from the population “bomb,” pesticides and acid rain, to the ozone hole, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, sceptics argue, scientists gain a lot of funding from these scares and before quietly agreeing that the problem wasn’t that bad; global warming is no different.
Climate scientists say this is irrelevant. The good news from the IPCC report is that many of consequences of climate change can be reduced by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC report states with high confidence that risks associated with rising global temperatures – such as water scarcity, sea-level rise, heat waves, and floods – can be reduced by cutting human greenhouse gas emissions.
B Climate change and its relation to flooding in the UK
The recent United Nations IPCC report on climate change stated extreme weather patterns, including a higher risk of flooding, are a consequence of rising greenhouse gas emissions – with Europe, Asia, and small island states highlighted as being particularly vulnerable. An author of the latest IPCC report warned, “Britain should brace itself for a rise in floods, heatwaves, and coastal storms. The UK is likely to face a growing number of extreme weather events as a result of global warming.”
However, attributing extreme weather events to human influence is only an emerging area of research, and is acknowledged by climate scientists to be extremely challenging. Computer models used to explore the impacts of different levels of greenhouse gases are weaker on rainfall than on temperature. For example, “Climate and weather is an extraordinarily complex new form of science. I don’t blame the climate scientists for not knowing the answers,” said one senior politician.
But some do clearly believe that the flooding experienced in England this winter was a consequence of climate change. “What we’ve seen this winter with the floods is consistent with what we would expect to see in a changing climate,” said an leading academic. “The floods in Britain, and other weather-related disasters on Earth, are clear indications of the effects of global warming caused by the uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels.”
Yet, others insist that there is no link between the storms that have battered England this winter and global warming. The UK Environment Secretary did not say whether the winter floods were caused by climate change. This argument is supported by a UK academic who said, “Scientists just don’t know whether the persistence of the rainfall this winter was due to climate change or not.”
But, the record rainfall and storms that caused flooding this winter could be part of a trend of unprecedented extreme weather caused by global warming according to some senior scientists. Four of the five wettest years recorded in the UK occurred in the past 14 years. Over that same period, the UK also had the seven warmest years.
But a major factor of the extreme weather this winter was the position of the jet stream. A Met Office expert said, “There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this past winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside scientific knowledge.” Indeed, the recent IPCC report did not mention that climate change had any effect on the jet stream getting stuck.
C Climate change and its consequences for food scarcity and violent conflict
The recent United Nations IPCC report on climate change drew a clear line connecting climate change to food scarcity, and conflict. The report states that climate change will indirectly increase the risk of violent conflict, by increasing hunger and fight over resources. The leader of the World Bank agrees, “Fights over water and food will erupt in the next 5–10 years as a result of climate change.”
But, not all agree with the IPCC’s conclusion. “There is no evidence that global warming directly increases conflict. The causes of conflict are primarily political and economic, not climatic. Warlords may exploit draught, flooding, starvation, or agricultural disasters. What drives their fight is not the rain, the temperature, or the sea level – but power, territory, and money” says one leading academic.
This recent IPCC report, however, highlights that climate change had already cut into the global food supply. Global crop yields were beginning to decline – especially for wheat – raising doubts as to whether production could keep up with population growth. Under some scenarios, the report said, climate change could lead to dramatic drops in global wheat production as well as reductions in maize.
But contradictory evidence is also available. For example, the recent United Nations IPCC report also states that northern parts of Asia will benefit from global warming, resulting in increased production of wheat and other cereals. Furthermore, satellites have recorded a 14 % increase in greenery on the planet in the past 30 years, partially because of greater greenhouse gas emissions, which enable plants to grow faster and use less water.
Some governments are taking this seriously and have started to investigate the national security implications of climate change. The US Defence Department has called climate change a “threat multiplier” that could increase the risk of military conflict. Climate-induced crises, such as drought and mass migration, could topple governments, bolster terrorist movements, and destabilize regions.
However, resource scarcity might encourage cooperation. “When people face climate dangers or scarcity, they may decide to fight, but similarly they may decide to co-operate. For example, a consequence of the 2004 ‘Boxing Day’ tsunami in Southeast Asia was greater cooperation among states and peace in Aceh,” said a university researcher.
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
