psychology’s contributions to understanding and addressing global climate change

7/27/2019 Psychologys Contributions to Understanding and Addressing Global Climate Change

1/10

Psychologys Contributions to Understanding and

Addressing Global Climate Change

Janet K. Swim Pennsylvania State University

Paul C. Stern National Research CouncilThomas J. Doherty Lewis & Clark Graduate School of Education and

CounselingSusan Clayton College of Wooster

Joseph P. Reser Griffith UniversityElke U. Weber Columbia UniversityRobert Gifford University of Victoria

George S. Howard University of Notre Dame

Global climate change poses one of the greatest challenges

facing humanity in this century. This article, which intro-

duces the American Psychologist special issue on globalclimate change, follows from the report of the AmericanPsychological Association Task Force on the Interface

Between Psychology and Global Climate Change. In thisarticle, we place psychological dimensions of climate

change within the broader context of human dimensions of

climate change by addressing (a) human causes of, conse-quences of, and responses (adaptation and mitigation) to

climate change and (b) the links between these aspects ofclimate change and cognitive, affective, motivational, in-

terpersonal, and organizational responses and processes.Characteristics of psychology that cross content domains

and that make the field well suited for providing an under-standing of climate change and addressing its challenges

are highlighted. We also consider ethical imperatives forpsychologists involvement and provide suggestions forways to increase psychologists contribution to the science

of climate change.

Keywords: climate change, interdisciplinary research, hu-manenvironment relations, sustainability, psychologicaldimensions

G lobal climate change poses one of the greatestchallenges facing humanity in this century.Earths climate has changed in many ways overgeological time, but for the first time, over the past century,

human activity has become a significant cause of climatechange. By burning fossil fuels, cutting and burning for-ests, and engaging in other environment-impacting activi-ties, humans have changed the heat balance of Earth suf-ficiently that the global average temperature has movedoutside the range that has characterized the 10,000 years ofrecorded human history (Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-mate Change, 2007a). This climate change poses signifi-cant risks forand in many cases is already affectingabroad range of human and natural systems (National Re-search Council, 2010a, p. 2). Because of physical time lags

in the climate system, the impacts and human conse-quences of climate change will continue for many decades

and, in some cases, many centuries (Solomon, Plattner,Knutti, & Friedlingstein, 2009). Moreover, climate changewill take place in the context of the other sweeping social,technological, and ecological transitions of the 21st century(e.g., increases in population, urbanization, and disparitiesin wealth; Stokols, Misra, Runnerstrom & Hipp, 2009),making confident anticipation of its effects especially prob-lematic. The current state of scientific knowledge on thecauses and consequences of climate change is summarizedin two recent major studies (Karl, Melillo, & Peterson,2009; National Research Council, 2010a).

Climate change is sometimes equated with globalwarming, but it involves much more than temperature

change. The human activities that cause temperaturechange set in motion a series of associated phenomena: sealevel rise, loss of polar sea ice, melting of continentalglaciers, changes in precipitation patterns, progressiveshifting in the habitats of species and the boundaries ofecosystems, acidification of the oceans, and more (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007a, 2007b;National Research Council, 2010b). These changes andimpacts in turn create increasing risks to the planets life

Janet K. Swim, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State Univer-sity; Paul C. Stern, Committee on the Human Dimensions of GlobalChange, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,

National Research Council, Washington, DC; Thomas J. Doherty, Depart-ment of Counseling Psychology, Lewis & Clark Graduate School ofEducation and Counseling; Susan Clayton, Department of Psychology,College of Wooster; Joseph P. Reser, School of Psychology, GriffithUniversity, Gold Coast Campus, Queensland, Australia; Elke U. Weber,Department of Psychology and Center for Research on EnvironmentalDecisions, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University; RobertGifford, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Victoria,British Columbia, Canada; George S. Howard, Department of Psychol-ogy, University of Notre Dame.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to JanetK. Swim, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, 515Moore Building, University Park, PA 16802-3106. E-mail: [email protected]

241MayJune 2011 American Psychologist

2011 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/11/$12.00Vol. 66, No. 4, 241250 DOI: 10.1037/a0023220


2/10

support systems and to a myriad of species, includinghumankind.

The natural sciences have long been engaged in study-ing environmental systems, including the physical andchemical processes that change Earths heat balance, theways in which these processes affect other parts of theglobal climate system, and the consequences of all thesechanges for physical and biological processes on land and

in the waters. However, a second science of climate changehas been developing for over a quarter of a century: thescience of the human dimensions of climate change(Chen, Boulding, & Schneider 1983; National ResearchCouncil, 1992; Stern, 1993). This field of science seeks tounderstand human activities that affect climate change,consequences of climate change that directly and indirectlyaffect people, human responses to anticipated and experi-enced climate change, and ways to help people respondeffectively. Psychological dimensions are integral to hu-man dimensions of climate change and have been a part ofbroader efforts by psychologists, perhaps most noticeablyenvironmental psychologists, over the course of several

decades to understand and address a range of environmen-tal changes and problems (e.g., Gardner & Stern, 2002;Koger & Winter, 2010; Nickerson, 2003; Schmuck &Schultz, 2002; Swim, Markowitz, & Bloodhart, in press). Asummary of relevant psychological research was providedin the report of the American Psychological AssociationTask Force on the Interface Between Psychology andGlobal Climate Change (2009). The articles in this specialissue follow from this task force report. The present articleprovides an overview of these articles, a model that inte-grates this literature with the broader literature on humandimensions of climate change, and some general sugges-tions for psychologists who wish to contribute in this area.

A simple conceptual model distinguishes climate sys-

tems (which are part of environmental systems) from hu-man systems and delineates the connections among them(see Figure 1). As noted on the left-hand side of the figure,people affect climate through activities (e.g., burning fossilfuels, clearing forests) that directly alter environmentalconditions that change the climate. These activities, whichhave been called proximate human causes of climatechange, are a result of a full range of cultural, economic,political, and social conditions and processes, depicted ashuman systems in the figure, and of psychological con-siderations noted in the middle of the figure, which includehuman understanding of climate change, affective re-sponses to climate change, and psychological motivations.

Psychological considerations are often and appropriatelytreated as part of human systems. We separate them here tohighlight them for a psychological audience. As depictedon the right-hand side of the figure, climate systems affectpeople through events that directly alter essential aspects ofthe environment that support humans and other livingthings, for example, by changing the frequency of stormsand droughts, the availability of water, the viability of foodcrops, and the incidence of disease. Human consequencesare also both psychological (e.g., distress) and social (e.g.,intergroup relations) and are influenced by intra-individual

cognitive, affective, and motivational processes as well ashuman systems at a larger scale. Responses to anticipatedand experienced climate change are mitigation and adap-

tation, as depicted in the bottom left and right corners of thefigure. Efforts to mitigate or limit climate change are aimedat directly or indirectly altering the proximate causes ofclimate change. Adapting to climate change includes ad-dressing the psychological and social impacts of both thethreat and the unfolding consequences of climate change.Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes affect mit-igation and adaptation via the influence of psychologicalprocesses on human contributions, systems, and conse-quences. The direct and indirect impacts of these psycho-logical processes on many of the elements shown in thefigure illustrate that human dimensions of climate changeare inherently psychological and social and that psychologycan offer knowledge and concepts that can help explain the

human understanding, causes, and consequences of climatechange as well as inform responses to it and help makethem more effective.

What Does Psychology Have toOffer?

Over the past three decades, a number of research agendashave been developed for the human dimensions of globalchange, including climate change (e.g., Chen et al., 1983;Kates, Ausubel, & Berberian, 1985; National Research

Figure 1Human and Psychological Dimensions of ClimateChange

Note. Adapted from Figure 4-1 (p. 106) in Global Environmental Change:Understanding the Human Dimensions (by National Research Council, 1992,Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Copyright 1992 by NationalAcademy of Sciences.) and Figure 1 (p. 273) in Psychological Dimensions ofGlobal Environmental Change (by P. C. Stern, 1992, Annual Review ofPsychology, 43, 269302. Copyright 1992 by Annual Reviews, Inc.).

242 MayJune 2011 American Psychologist


3/10

Council, 1992, 1999). Many efforts, including that of theAmerican Psychological Associations task force on cli-mate change, have focused on the possible contributions ofpsychology (e.g., American Psychological AssociationTask Force on the Interface Between Psychology andGlobal Climate Change, 2009; Center for Research onEnvironmental Decisions, 2009; Clayton & Brook, 2005;Clayton & Myers, 2009; Cvetkovich & Werner, 1994;

Fischhoff & Furby, 1983; Gifford, 2008; Kazdin, 2009;Sjberg, 1989; Spence, Pidgeon, & Uzzell, 2009; Stern,1992; Uzzell & Rathzel, 2009; Vlek & Steg, 2007). Envi-ronmental psychology provides the most obvious input.Gifford (2007) described several themes in environmentalpsychology that have emerged over the last 50 years thatare relevant to climate change: (a) an interest in informingand aiding public policy; (b) attention to technology both asa contributor to environmental problems and as a means toimprove sustainability; (c) a tendency to value and benefitfrom multidisciplinary collaborations and theories fromother fields; and (d) expansion of interest to include mul-tiple levels of analysis from small-scale studies of individ-

uals and small groups to larger scale issues of sustainabil-ity. Yet, as past reviews have indicated, many othersubfields, such as cognitive, human factors, social, com-munity, clinical, and counseling psychology, to name afew, have also provided valuable insights. Drawing onresearch from environmental psychology and other sub-fields, we elaborate on the model illustrated in Figure 1 bydescribing ways that psychological research has contrib-uted to the understanding and addressing of (a) humancontributions to climate change, (b) psychological and in-terpersonal consequences of climate change, (c) mitigationand adaptation responses to climate change, and (d) humancognitive, affective, and motivational responses to climate

change. Then we consider some overarching characteristicsof psychological research and practice that are common tothese four specific topical contributions.

First, psychology can help describe and explain thehuman causes of climate change. Climate change is aquintessential commons problem: It involves collectiveaction driven by individuals short-term benefits that de-grades a long-term common good (National ResearchCouncil, 2002; for reviews of the psychological literature,see Gifford, 2008, and Kopelman, Weber, & Messick,2002). Human behavioral contributions to climate changeoccur through the use of goods and services that directlyand indirectly result in fossil fuel consumption and theother biophysical changes that alter the climate. Theseactivities, sometimes referred to as environmental consump-tion (Stern, 1997), are linked to consumer spending (economicconsumption), although the two are not the same. As Swim,Clayton, and Howard (2011, this issue) and Stern (2011, thisissue) show, psychologists can help us conceptualize andbetter understand the predictors of environmental and eco-nomic consumption by providing psychological analyses oftypes of consumption behaviors and directing attention tobehaviors that contribute the most to climate-driving emis-sions.

Implicit and explicit individual consumption decisionsprovide a critical link between contextual influences ondecisions and the proximate behavioral causes of climatechange (Swim et al., 2011). Individual-level predictors ofconsumption decisions include personal capabilities (e.g.,income, skills), motivations (e.g., connection to nature,perceptions of needs vs. luxuries, basic psychologicalneeds), and core values and beliefs. By attending to a

variety of individual predictors, researchers can help ex-plain instances in which individual and household behaviordoes not follow simple models of economic benefit maxi-mization, such as when individuals and households fail tomake energy-saving investments that would yield individ-ual benefits at no cost or very attractive rates of financialreturn (Creyts, Granade, & Ostrowski, 2010; Stern, 1986).In addition, individual decisions are influenced by andoperate through the immediate and distal physical andsocial contexts in which they are embedded (Bin & Dow-latabadi, 2005; Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985; Gifford,2006). Contextual-level predictors include aspects of thephysical infrastructure (e.g., the structure of human settle-

ments, which influence the demand for motorized travel),available technology (e.g., machines that enable more rapidharvesting of resources such as trees and fish), geophysicalevents (e.g., drought, disasters, and storms), interpersonalcontexts (e.g., social and cultural norms and comparisons),and cultural, economic, and political conditions (e.g., con-sumerism, a cultures orientation toward time and nature,energy prices, government policies). By attending to theinterface between individual decisions and contextual pre-dictors, psychologists can potentially help explain behaviorin situations where individual behaviors appear constrainedby their cultural contexts and also when households ac-tively attempt to overcome these contexts, such as whenthey join counterconsumer movements (Bekin, Carrigan, &

Szmigin, 2005; Craig-Lees & Hill, 2002).Second, psychology can help describe and explain the

human consequences of climate change. These conse-quences obviously include biological impacts and hazardsto physical health and to human settlements (Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change, 2007b; World HealthOrganization, 2010). As Doherty and Clayton (2011, thisissue) note, they may also include direct and indirect psy-chological and interpersonal impacts. Although all of thesepotential impacts cannot be described with certainty andfull clarity, the cumulative and interacting psychosocialeffects of climate change may well be profound. Heat,extreme weather events, and increased competition for

scarce environmental resources, compounded by preexist-ing inequalities and disproportionate impacts amonggroups and nations, affect interpersonal and intergroupbehavior and can result in increasing stress and anxiety.Even in the absence of direct impacts, anticipation andconcern about the threat of climate change may erodequality of life and threaten mental health. Individual andcontextual features can influence the extent to which indi-viduals and communities experience different impacts.Those who have the fewest social and economic resourcesare likely to be the most vulnerable to physical and psy-



4/10

chological impacts. It may also be useful to attend topossible positive consequences, such as people taking col-lective responsibility for solving a shared problem, thatmay aid individual coping and community responses.

Third, psychology can help describe, explain, and alsoinform our responses to climate change. The consequencesof climate change both affect and are affected by the waysthat individuals and communities adapt. Adaptation ex-

tends beyond making physical and structural adjustments toenvironmental changes. As Reser and Swim (2011, thisissue) note, adaptation also includes a range of copingactions that individuals and communities may take, as wellas psychological processes (e.g., threat and response ap-praisals, emotion management, and cognitive reframingresponses) that both precede and follow behavioral re-sponses. Adapting to, and coping with, climate change isdynamic; it involves many intrapsychic processes that in-fluence reactions to (and preparations for) adverse impactsof climate change, including chronic environmental condi-tions and extreme events. Some relevant psychologicalprocesses include sense-making; causal and responsibility

attributions for adverse climate change impacts; appraisalsof impacts, resources, and possible coping responses; af-fective responses; and motivational processes related toneeds for security, stability, coherence, and control. Theseprocesses are influenced by media representations of cli-mate change and by formal and informal social discoursethat involves social construction, representation, amplifica-tion, and attenuation of climate change risk and its impacts.These processes reflect and motivate both intrapsychicresponses (e.g., emotion management, cognitive adapta-tion, problem solving) and individual and community re-sponses. Individual and cultural variation influence all as-pects of the process, providing context, worldviews, values,concerns, resilience, and vulnerability (Bloodhart & Swim,

2010; Heath & Gifford, 2006; Weber, 2010).Psychologists are well positioned to design, imple-

ment, and assess interventions to ameliorate psychosocialimpacts of climate change (see Doherty & Clayton, 2011).Climate change will be accompanied by and itself epito-mizes both natural and technological disasters of unprece-dented consequence, and climate change has been framedas a truly global disaster and profound challenge for hu-manity (e.g. Spratt & Sutton, 2008). It is important toacknowledge that some of the possible disasters associatedwith global climate change are not under conventionalnational jurisdiction and that responses to them may not becovered by conventional agencies, policies, or procedures.

However, much of the existing and extensive body ofpsychological, social, and health science research and prac-tice on mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery inthe context of natural and technological disasters can stillbe applied and utilized (Elrod, Hamblen, & Norris, 2006;Haskett, Scott, Nears, & Grimmett, 2008; Reyes & Jacobs,2006) The disaster research literature, with its transdisci-plinary orientation, has developed methodologies, mea-sures, and many models and tools particularly apposite tothe domain of psychology and climate change (e.g., Stokolset al., 2009). Psychological research in other areas, such as

intergroup relations and processes, and perceived equityand procedural justice, may be useful when addressingconflicts that may emerge over environmental justice issuesor among social groups as an indirect result of climatechange and when developing and framing policy responsesto climate change (Clayton & Brook, 2005; Spence et al.,2009; Swim & Clayton, 2010).

Psychology can also make important contributions by

informing efforts to mitigate or limit climate change, al-though, as with other responses to climate change, re-sponses are influenced by both individual and contextualfactors. Much policy attention has been given to structuralbarriers to behavioral change, but Gifford (2011, this issue)argues that removing these barriers is not likely to besufficient because of other resistances to change. Some ofthese may relate to a lack of understanding of climatechange, whereas others relate to habitual behavioral pat-terns, bounded rationality, affective processes, personaland social motivations, and interpersonal processes (Gif-ford, 2011; Shogren, Parkhurst, & Banerjee, 2010; Weber& Stern, 2011, this issue). For instance, a few of the many

psychological and social barriers include hyperbolic dis-counting, which gives current outcomes more weight thantemporally distant outcomes even when the latter are ofgreater value; reactance against policies perceived to re-duce individual control; and perceived social norms thatencourage energy use.

Yet, as Stern (2011) notes, psychologists have helpedto design interventions to encourage actions that limit hu-man contributions to climate change at individual, organi-zational, cultural, and policy levels and have broadened ourunderstanding of why people do or do not respond todifferent types of interventions. Psychologists also provideand apply behavioral models that describe human andhousehold behavioral contributions and have helped design

effective interventions and evaluations to further developand improve them. Some of these interventions providepeople with better information so they know which actionshave beneficial outcomes for themselves and for climatemitigation and adaptation. Psychologists design and testsystems that make certain environmental choices morenoticeable (e.g., energy-use feedback) or attractive (e.g.,financial incentives that lower initial costs of energy-efficient equipment or move the financial benefits of theequipment temporally closer) or that make environmentallybeneficial actions more convenient, combining economicand noneconomic inducements to action in highly effectiveways (Vandenbergh, Stern, Gardner, Dietz, & Gilligan,

2010). Psychologists also suggest strategies for engagingvalues that encourage contributions to the public goodbeyond those in an individuals self-interest. They helpdesign informative messages and engage informal net-works (e.g., in communities, on the Internet) that promoteand activate social norms for participating in collectiveefforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions. They are begin-ning to examine behavioral factors in organizations thatenable or inhibit reductions in organizations contributionsto climate change. Finally, they can help design and adaptformal and informal institutions at local to global levels



5/10

that will provide assurance to individual contributors thatothers will also contribute, thereby promoting coordinatedand equitable responses. Not only do psychologists helpimprove public understanding of climate change and helpinform personal and societal choices about proposed tech-nological solutions, they also address (a) how public un-derstanding of the nature and impacts of climate changediffers in important ways from scientific accounts of cli-

mate change (Weber & Stern, 2011) and (b) how suchindividual and societal understandings also serve importantpsychological and cultural needs, with important implica-tions for adaptation and behavior change (e.g., Reser, inpress).

Fourth, psychology can make further important con-tributions to the understanding of how people think and feelabout climate change, which in turn influences their moti-vations and behavioral responses to perceived and objec-tive causes and consequences of climate change. As Gif-ford (2011) notes, individuals perceive climate changedifferently depending on their awareness of the problem,their knowledge and certainty of the facts, and their trust in

experts, among other barriers. Furthermore, as Reser andSwim (2011) and Doherty and Clayton (2011, this issue)note, the threat and unfolding impacts of climate changemay be experienced directly or indirectly. Direct encoun-ters can range from the experience and distress of chronicstressors, such as drought and landscape change, to acuteand cataclysmic weather events such as hurricanes, heatwaves, and floods. Indirect experiences result from contin-uous exposure to multimedia coverage and representations,educational sources, and interpersonal interactions and ex-change. Social constructions and representations of climatechange can both reflect and influence sense-making andwhether or not events are attributed to climate change.Weber and Stern (2011) show that gaining a scientifically

appropriate understanding of climate change is difficultbecause of (a) the difficulties inherent in understanding thephysical phenomena involved and the state of relevantscientific knowledge; (b) psychological tendencies to relyon personal experience and simple mental models (both ofwhich are often misleading; see also Gifford, 2011); and (c)a well-organized and ideologically motivated campaign topromote models of climate change that are at substantialvariance with scientific evidence and the broad scientificconsensus.

Aside from psychological contributions related to el-ements of the model illustrated in Figure 1, there are anumber of characteristics of psychology as a discipline that

make it useful, if not crucial, for adequately addressingglobal climate change and its impacts. The most obviouscontributions of psychology are at the individual level,where, as noted above, it can provide both a theoretical andan empirical understanding of human causes of climatechange, public risk perceptions and understandings of cli-mate change, experienced impacts of climate change, andhuman responses to climate change. This individual levelof analysis also illustrates links between psychologicallyand environmentally significant behaviors and between ad-aptation and mitigation. For instance, individual efforts at

mitigation may also increase psychological adaptation toclimate change.

Psychologists also examine individuals within naturaland constructed physical and social contexts. Interpersonal,social-structural, and technological contexts affect behav-iors that have important impacts on environmental systems(Clayton & Brook, 2005; Gardner & Stern, 2002; Wapner& Demick, 2002). Attention to transactions and relation-

ships between individuals and their natural and human-designed environments has long been a defining feature ofenvironmental psychology (Gifford, 2007). Investigationsat the intersection of psychology and the natural sciences,health sciences, humanities, and other social sciences canbe particularly useful for addressing global climate change(Kazdin, 2009).

Psychologists have also uncovered individual, inter-personal, and social forces capable of explaining andchanging human behavior in ways that others may fail toconsider. Although people are, for the most part, able toarticulate their opinions, beliefs, and preferences accu-rately, they are notoriously poor at recognizing the causes

of their behavior (Li, Johnson, & Zaval, 2010; Nisbett &Wilson, 1977). This finding has been well demonstrated,for example, with regard to the consumption of energy(Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius,2008). Behavioral investigations that employ experimentalmethodologies can identify psychological determinants oftrade-offs and choices made by people (Hardisty, Johnson,& Weber, 2010; Weber et al., 2007) that collectively in-fluence human contributions to climate change, includingenergy-consuming behaviors. These psychological deter-minants can be utilized in communication campaigns or inthe design of decision environments to encourage people toreduce their energy consumption and to prevent such cam-paigns from being ineffective or, worse, inadvertently dis-

couraging behavior change (e.g., Center for Research onEnvironmental Decisions, 2009). Psychological methodol-ogies and measures can also aid in ongoing monitoring ofbehavioral changes, psychological impacts, and psycholog-ical processes that might otherwise be overlooked and thatinfluence individuals and communities willingness andcapacity to engage with adaptive change and the nature andforms of adaptations they select.

Why Should Psychology HelpAddress Climate Change?

Psychologists should help, first of all, because we can. On

the basis of past research efforts and the knowledge base inthe discipline, we believe that further efforts to improveunderstanding of the psychological processes related toclimate change and effective incorporation and utilizationof psychological knowledge in collaborative research andpolicy initiatives can help humanity effectively mitigateand adapt to climate change.

Second, the magnitude and potential irreversibility ofglobal climate change and its likely psychological impactsand effects on quality of life and the environment prompt aconsideration of ethical imperatives for psychologists in-



6/10

volvement. Climate change has the potential to have sig-nificant negative effects on global mental health, and theseeffects will likely be unevenly distributed (Costello et al.,2009; Fritze, Blashki, Burke, & Wiseman, 2008; Page &Howard, 2009). In the near term, climate change probablywill have a disproportionately direct impact on those lesseconomically privileged or with lower social status(Agyeman, Bullard, & Evans, 2003; McMichael, Friel,

Nyong, & Corvalan, 2008), and as with other environmen-tal health issues (Bullard & Johnson, 2000), social justiceimplications will demand consideration (e.g., Brown et al.,2006). Poverty, reduced individual preparedness, and lackof access to community-level resources for disaster reliefare central to vulnerability to environmental risks (Brou-wer, Akter, Bander, & Haque, 2007). Natural disastersexpose the inadequacies of mental health systems at themoment those systems are most needed (Sontag, 2010).Provision of mental health services in many low- andmiddle-income countries is already inadequate (Jacob etal., 2007; Page & Howard, 2010), and improvement inthese services is challenged by economic crises and envi-

ronmental disasters.The American Psychological Associations (APAs)Ethics Code (APA, 2010), mission statement (APA, 2008),and vision statement (APA, 2009) have direct implicationsin these local and global climate change contexts. They allindicate that psychologists are committed to creating, com-municating, and applying psychological knowledge in or-der to benefit individuals and society and facilitate theresolution of global challenges. Because global climatechange presents both direct and indirect threats to individ-ual and community mental health, climate change can beconsidered an appropriate arena of ethical obligation forpsychologists (Doherty & Clayton, 2011). As with othersocial issues on which psychologists have taken a stand

(e.g., poverty, discrimination), climate change is an ex-tremely consequential concern because it can harm psycho-logical functioning, interpersonal and community relations,and human and nonhuman life and because changes inthinking, motivation, and behavior are required for success-ful climate change mitigation and adaptation. APAs ethi-cal principles provide a basis for addressing social justiceissues, such as disparities inherent in climate change im-pacts and threats to the rights and welfare of persons whoor communities which may be most vulnerable to climatechange impacts (APA, 2007, 2010). Increased efforts tohighlight, study, and address the psychological impacts ofclimate change do not pose obvious counter risks (Hansen,

von Krauss, & Tickner, 2008). Indeed, awareness of psy-chological impacts may promote engagement in the issueand subsequent behavioral change.

APA ethical principles and standards also stress thatpsychologists must exercise reasonable judgment and rec-ognize the boundaries of their competence (APA, 2010).This recognition is essential for dealing with novel andcomplex interdisciplinary issues such as global climatechange. The ethical standards also state that, in emergingareas in which recognized standards for training do not yetexist, psychologists should take reasonable steps to ensure

the competence of their work and to protect those theywork with and others from harm (APA, 2010). This alsomeans that work needs to be done to broaden our compe-tencies in the domain of climate change and to continuallydevelop new competencies as our understanding and theimpacts of climate change unfold.

How Can Psychologists Increase Their

Contribution to the Science of ClimateChange?

Psychologists can be dramatically more effective if theyrelate and connect psychological work to constructs andperspectives developed in the broader climate researchcommunity and collaborate with scientists from otherfields. Although psychologists have been investigating cli-mate change and related subjects for decades and the dis-cipline has a unique perspective and body of knowledge tocontribute, the value of psychological contributions is notyet widely accepted, nor are psychological insights andfindings widely applied. The following principles can helpmaximize the value and use of psychological concepts,research, and perspectives for understanding the causes andimpacts of climate change and for informing effectiveresponses to climate change:

1. Become Conversant With Language andResearch Used in Other Social, Engineering,and Natural Science Fields That AddressClimate Change.

Anthropogenic climate change is an interdisciplinary issuewith an emerging interdisciplinary vocabulary and lan-guage. Scientists from many disciplines readily understandhuman interactions with climate change in terms of humancontributions or drivers, impacts or consequences, and re-

sponses. However, some terms have particular meanings orconnotations in certain disciplines or discourses. Beingaware of the language and concepts used by others andusing them when appropriate can aid communication. Dif-ferences between fields in the usage of certain terms andconstructs may also reveal fundamental differences in per-spective. When use of the language of one field mightresult in confusion or a loss of meaning or clarity for across-disciplinary audience, it is important to be explicitabout differences in usage. Adaptation, for example, hasvarying usages across disciplines that reflect differing fa-vored levels of analysis and different conceptualizations ofhuman responses. Clarifying such differences is one way

psychologists can help improve overall understanding ofclimate change, communication between disciplines, andour own approaches to climate change.

Research from other fields can be important for inter-preting the meaning or relevance of psychological vari-ables, because their effects sometimes depend on factorsand parameters that are more thoroughly understood inother fields. The reverse is also true. For example, theeffectiveness of financial incentives for household energyefficiency depends on how people understand the availableinformation and on the level of behavioral effort needed to



7/10

take advantage of the incentive (Stern, 1986). Conversely,the effectiveness of information and persuasion depends onthe economic incentives surrounding the behavior. A thor-ough understanding of the potential of psychological con-tributions to research on and responses to climate changeshould be informed by knowledge from other social sci-ences, such as anthropology, geography, sociology, politi-cal science, communications, and economics, as well as

knowledge from engineering, business, and other fields.For example, individuals understandings of climatechange are affected by the psychological processes thatinfluence seeking out and making sense of information aswell as the activities of social movements and the judg-ments and decisions of journalists, editors, and corporatemedia organizations. Thus, individual understandings ofclimate change are best understood by combining insightsfrom psychology, sociology, communications, and othersocial science fields (Weber & Stern, 2011). This injunc-tion to be interdisciplinary applies, of course, to both psy-chologists and nonpsychologists.

2. Attend to Psychological Contributions That

Address Issues Recognized as Important toClimate Science.

Psychologists must prioritize issues and behaviors recog-nized as important in terms of climate change causes,consequences, or responses. For example, in developingand describing psychological contributions to efforts tomitigate climate change, greater emphasis should be placedon changes that have large potential effects on emissions(e.g., using more fuel-efficient means of transportation)than on changes that have smaller potential effects in termsof their technical potential (e.g., recycling householdwaste) and behavioral plasticity (e.g., traveling by carpool)(see Stern, 2011). The general public is not always aware of

such differences in effectiveness (Attari, DeKay, Davidson,& Bruine de Bruin, 2010). If findings about lower impactbehaviors are deemed important, that importance should bedescribed in terms of the implications for climate changeoverall, perhaps by making the case that a principle estab-lished in studies of low-impact behaviors is generalizableto higher impact behaviors. Similarly, when studying psy-chological consequences of climate change, psychologistsshould be prepared to indicate the broader importance andrelevance of these consequences. For instance, the impor-tance of affective or risk-as-feelings responses (Loewen-stein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001) may need to be ex-plained to nonpsychologists. Such an explanation could

potentially be made in terms of how affective responsesinfluence risk perceptions and subsequent willingness tochange behaviors or support policies; how debilitatingmental health outcomes influence preparation for, or re-sponses to, the climate change impacts; or how the mag-nitude of these outcomes compares with the magnitude ofother social phenomena (Ferguson & Branscombe, 2010;Fritze et al., 2008; Weber & Stern, 2011).

In psychological research, findings typically are pre-sented in terms of statistical significance, effect size, pro-portion of people whose behavior changed (behavioral

plasticity), or amount of behavioral change measured asfrequency or duration. However, what matters in the con-text of global climate change is the impact of causes oreffects in environmental terms. For example, a good indi-cator of the impact of psychological variables in under-standing human contributions to climate change is theamount of greenhouse gas emissions those variables canexplain. The impact (I) of a behavioral change on climate

change depends on the combined effects of the number ofindividuals (n) who might change their behavior, multi-plied by the technical potential (t) of the behavior to alteremissions and the plasticity (p) of the behavior (the I tpnequation, see Stern, 2011). This is not to diminish thepsychological significance and multiple benefits of takingpersonally meaningful actions in the context of climatechange, and indeed such psychological significance medi-ates and enhances environmental significance. To demon-strate the importance of psychological variables for under-standing the human consequences of climate change, it ishelpful to show how these variables affect the anticipationor experience of specific aspects of climate change and how

these reactions affect major or widespread human conse-quences that are generally considered important.

3. Explain Psychological Contributions ThatAre Missing From Others Analyses and ThatMay Be Misunderstood by Others, but Be

Aware of the Limitations of This Research.

Psychologists can provide climate researchers from otherdisciplines with psychological constructs that are relevantto understanding problems that other disciplines alreadyrecognize, and they can correct misunderstandings andmisuse of psychological constructs when these are encoun-tered. For instance, psychologists can describe how thepsychological processes of risk perception and stress man-

agement may alter peoples willingness to make anticipa-tory adaptations to climate risks (Weber, 2006). As anotherexample, disciplines vary in their tendency to focus ondifferent levels of analysis. Psychologists can provide par-ticular insight into the usefulness and importance of indi-vidual-level and experience-informed analyses and canmake connections between this level and more macro-levelanalyses (Winkel, Saegert, & Evans, 2009).

However, we must be cognizant of the possibility thatpsychological phenomena are context dependent. Psycho-logical principles often are established in narrowly definedcontexts: laboratory experiments, small-scale field experi-ments, and surveys of particular populations. To apply

these principles to climate change, one must consider theirexternal validity: That is, one must consider whether theprinciples are applicable in other cultures or economies, inplaces with very different physical infrastructures or gov-ernment regulations, or in vastly changed technologicalcontexts that might appear a generation in the future. Forexample, the effectiveness of an intervention to changecommuting behavior (and therefore energy use) amongcollege students has been demonstrated (Heath & Gifford,2002). However, without further research, the effectivenessof the intervention beyond the population and time period



8/10

studied may be questionable. Psychologists must be carefulnot to claim that findings from any specific group havegeneral applicability without evidence or strong theory tosupport such claims. Another example is the foot-in-the-door effectthe process by which inducing a small be-havioral change can set in motion psychological changesthat lead, over time, to larger behavioral changes. Efforts tochange environmentally relevant behaviors with small en-

vironmental impacts (e.g., recycling) could possibly lead tochange in more environmentally consequential behaviors(e.g., travel mode choice). Yet the available evidence raisesquestions about whether this effect operates with behaviorsthat affect climate (Thgersen & Crompton, 2009).

In speaking outside the discipline, we must be explicitabout the extent to which psychological phenomena havebeen shown to operate in climate-relevant contexts, and ifthey have not been shown to do so, we must be cautiousabout extrapolation from the contexts in which the phe-nomena were established. Psychologists expertise aboutpreparing for and responding to natural disasters is likelyapplicable to climate change disasters. Yet some inferences

may be required if one considers climate change disastersto be both natural and technological (see Doherty & Clay-ton, 2011). When considering psychological consequencesof climate change, extrapolation is usually necessary be-cause, except for the consequences of warnings about cli-mate change, the most significant consequences lie in thefuture. Thus, in their extrapolations, psychologists shouldbe explicit about their evidence base and its likely appli-cability to projected future events.

4. Be Mindful of Social Disparities and Ethicaland Justice Issues That Interface WithClimate Change Appraisals, Responses, andImpacts.

Much of the psychological research related to climatechange has been conducted in the United States and Eu-rope. Other populations may have different understandingsof climate change and of the choices they face, which canin turn influence the social and psychological impacts ofclimate change. Understandings of, and responses to, cli-mate change will be influenced by worldviews, cultures,and social identities (Bloodhart & Swim, 2010; Clayton &Myers, 2009; Heath & Gifford, 2006; Swim & Becker,2010; Weber, 2010). Much climate science research inother disciplines has taken place in regions of the worldsuch as parts of Africa, Asia, the Andes, Australia, andAlaska, where climate change impacts are far more evident

and salient. Local populations in these areas have culturalvantage points, economies, and lifestyles far removed fromthose found in the urban-based, highly industrialized, set-tings of much of North America and Europe. The influenceof the mass media and contemporary information technol-ogies also varies considerably across regions of the world.Other relevant differences within all countries reflect vari-ation in demographic group membership (such as age,gender, and education), social identities, and the combina-tions of these factors. For example, gender differences inexperiences with climate change and in climate change

responses can vary by race, ethnicity, age, disabilities,religion, and so forth.

For both climate change adaptation and mitigation,cultural contexts and differences are likely to be importantelements of the human dimensions of global climatechange. Acknowledging different cultural insights, per-spectives, and experiences with disasters and adaptationcan advance our understanding of the human causes of

climate change, its impacts, and the means of responding toit. Cultural considerations will also be critical in the pro-vision of suitable interventions and resources for commu-nities that are experiencing dramatic upheavals as a resultof global climate change. Different cultural meanings andsocial justice concerns can limit the applicability of exist-ing research and may require attention when speaking withdifferent populations. Finally, in attending to social andcultural differences, psychologists can further research bysuggesting new ways of thinking about basic psychologicalprocesses and by advancing interventions through the for-mation of sensitive cross-cultural and collaborative initia-tives.

ConclusionGlobal climate change provides an opportunity for greaterintegration of approaches within psychology as well astransdisciplinary cooperation with the other social sciencesand the physical sciences. Such integration and collabora-tion typically most often occur around a common goal orproblem. Global climate change presents a shared problemand daunting challenges, but these alone do not ensurecooperation among disciplines. This article and this specialissue are intended to help psychologists become moreknowledgeable about how their disciplinary knowledgeand expertise can inform collaborative discussions, re-search, and policy initiatives related to climate changeadaptation and mitigation. More intensive engagement withnonpsychologists will likely highlight the urgency, chal-lenges, and importance of global climate change as a prob-lem for psychological research; encourage us to teach ourstudents about the psychological aspects of climate changeand humanenvironment transactions; and most important,help us find ways to make our contributions more useful.Psychology has already made notable contributions in ad-dressing climate change, but it can do much more, partic-ularly in collaboration with others from diverse fields ofinterest and other countries.

REFERENCES

Agyeman, J., Bullard, R., & Evans, B. (2003). Just sustainabilities:Development in an unequal world. London, England: Earthscan/MITPress.

American Psychological Association. (2007). The road to resilience.Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience.aspx

American Psychological Association. (2008). Mission statement. Re-trieved from http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/chapter-6.aspx#mission-statement

American Psychological Association. (2009). Vision statement. Retrievedfrom http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/chapter-6.aspx#mission-statement

American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psy-



9/10

chologists and code of conduct (2002, Amended June 1, 2010). Re-trieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

American Psychological Association Task Force on the Interface BetweenPsychology and Global Climate Change. (2009). Psychology and globalclimate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of chal-lenges. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx

Attari, S. Z., DeKay, M. L., Davidson, C. I., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2010).Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 1605416059. doi:10.1073/

pnas.1001509107Bekin, C., Carrigan, M., & Szmigin, I. (2005). Defying marketing sover-

eignty: Voluntary simplicity at new consumption communities. Quali-tative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(4), 413429.doi:10.1108/13522750510619779

Bin, S., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2005). Consumer lifestyle approach to USenergy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy, 33(2),197208. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00210-6

Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextualinfluences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 70, 321. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.3

Bloodhart, B., & Swim, J. K. (2010). Equality, harmony, and the envi-ronment: An ecofeminist approach to understanding the role of culturalvalues on the treatment of women and nature. Ecopsychology, 2,187194. doi:10.1089/eco.2010.0057

Brouwer, R., Akter, S., Brander, L., & Haque, E. (2007). Socioeconomic

vulnerability and adaptation to environmental risk: A case study ofclimate change and flooding in Bangladesh. Risk Analysis, 27, 313326.doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00884.x

Brown, D., Tuana, N., Averill, M., Baer, P., Born, R., Brandao, C. E. L.,. . . Westra, L. (2006, November 8). White paper on the ethical dimen-sions of climate change. Report presented at the United Nations ClimateChange Conference, Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved from The PennsylvaniaState University Rock Ethics Institute website: http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/whitepaper/edcc-whitepaper.pdf

Bullard, R., & Johnson, G. S. (2000). Environmental justice: Grassrootsactivism and its impact on public policy decision-making. Journal ofSocial Issues, 56, 555578. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00184

Center for Research on Environmental Decisions. (2009). The psychologyof climate change communication: A guide for scientists, journalists,educators, political aides, and the interested public. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cred.columbia.edu/guide/

Chen, R. S., Boulding, E., & Schneider, S. H. (Eds.). (1983). Socialscience research and climate change: An interdisc plinary appraisal.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.

Clayton, S., & Brook, A. (2005). Can psychology help save the world? Amodel for conservation psychology. Analyses of Social Issues andPublic Policy, 5(1), 87102. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2005.00057.x

Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2009). Conservation psychology. Oxford,England: Wiley-Blackwell.

Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., Ball, S., Bell, S., Bellamy, R., . . .Patterson, C. (2009). Managingthe health effects of climate change: Lancetand University College London Institute for Global Health Commission.

Lancet, 373, 16931733. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60935-1Craig-Lees, M., & Hill, C. (2002). Understanding voluntary simplifiers.

Psychology & Marketing, 19(2), 187210. doi:10.1002/mar.10009Creyts, J., Granade, H. C., & Ostrowski, K. J. (2010, January). U.S.

energy savings: Opportunities and challenges. McKinsey Quarterly.Retrieved from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/US_energy_

savings_Opportunities_and_challenges_2511Cvetkovich, G. T., & Werner, R. (1994). How can psychology help save

the planet? A research agenda on environmental problems [Statementdistributed by the APA Taskforce on Psychology and EnvironmentalProblems]. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Doherty, T. J., & Clayton, S. D. (2011). The psychological impacts ofglobal climate change. American Psychologist, 66, 265276. doi:10.1037/a0023141

Elrod, C. L., Hamblen, J. L., & Norris, F. H. (2006). Challenges inimplementing disaster mental health programs. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 152170. doi:10.1177/0002716205285186

Ferguson, M. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2010). Collective guilt mediates

the effect of beliefs about global warming on willingness to engage inmitigation behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 135142. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.010

Fischhoff, B., & Furby, L. (1983). Psychological dimensions of climaticchange. In R. S. Chen, E. Boulding, & S. H. Schneider (Eds.), Socialscience research and climate change: An interdiscplinary appraisal

(pp. 180203). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Fritze, J. G., Blashki, G. A., Burke, S., & Wiseman, J. (2008). Hope,

despair and transformation: Climate change and the promotion ofmental health and wellbeing. International Journal of Mental Health

Systems, 2(13). doi:10.1186/1752-4458-2-13Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and

human behavior (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom.Gifford, R. (2006). A general model of social dilemmas. International

Journal of Ecological Economics & Statistics, 5, 2340.Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology and sustainable develop-

ment: Expansion, maturation, and challenges. Journal of Social Issues,63(1), 199212. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00503.x

Gifford, R. (2008). Psychologys essential role in alleviating the impactsof climate change. Canadian Psychology, 49(4), 273280. doi:10.1037/a0013234

Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers thatlimit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist,66, 290302. doi:10.1037/a0023566

Hansen, S. F., von Krauss, M. K., & Tickner, J. A. (2008). The precau-tionary principle and riskrisk tradeoffs. Journal of Risk Research, 11,

423464. doi:10.1080/13669870801967192Hardisty, D. J., Johnson, E. J., & Weber, E. U. (2010). A dirty word or adirty world? Attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory.Psychological Science, 21, 86 92. doi:10.1177/0956797609355572

Haskett, M. E., Scott, S. S., Nears, K., & Grimmett, M. A. (2008). Lessonsfrom Katrina: Disaster mental health service in the Gulf Coast region.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 9399. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.39.1.93

Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2002). Extending the theory of planned behavior:Predicting the use of public transportation. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 32, 21542189. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02068.x

Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2006). Free-market ideology and environmentaldegradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environmentand Behavior, 38, 48 71. doi:10.1177/0013916505277998

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007a). Climate change2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I tothe Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-

mate Change (S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis,K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H. L. Miller, Eds.). New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007b). Climate change2007: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working

Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof,P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson, Eds.). New York, NY: Cam-bridge University Press.

Jacob, K. S., Sharan, P., Mirza, I., Garrido-Cumbrera, M., Seedat, S.,Mari, J., . . . Saxena, S. (2007). Mental health systems in countries:Where are we now? Lancet, 370, 10611077. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61241-0

Karl, T., Melillo, J. M., & Peterson, T. C. (Eds.). (2009). Global climatechange impacts in the United States: A state of knowledge report fromthe U.S. Global Change Research Program. New York, NY: Cam-

bridge University Press.Kates, R. W., Ausubel, J., & Berberian, M. (Eds.). (1985). Climate impact

assessment: Studies of the interaction of climate and society. NewYork, NY: Wiley.

Kazdin, A. E. (2009). Psychological sciences contributions to a sustain-able environment: Extending our reach to a grand challenge of society.

American Psychologist, 64, 339356. doi:10.1037/a0015685Koger, S. M., & Winter, D. D. (2010). The psychology of environmental

problems: Psychology for sustainability (3rd ed.). New York, NY:Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.

Kopelman, S., Weber, J. M., & Messick, D. M. (2002). Factors influenc-ing cooperation in commons dilemmas: A review of experimentalpsychological research. In National Research Council (E. Ostrom, T.



10/10

Dietz, N. Dolsak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. U. Weber, Eds.), Thedrama of the commons (pp. 113156). Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Li, Y., Johnson, E. J., & Zaval, L. (2011). Local warming: Daily temper-ature deviation affects beliefs and concern about climate change.

Manuscript submitted for publication.Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, E. (2001). Risk

as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267286. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267

McMichael, A. J., Friel, S., Nyong, A., & Corvalan, C. (2008). Global environ-mental change and health: Impact, inequalities, and the health sector.

British Medical Journal, 336, 191194. doi:10.1136/bmj.39392.473727.ADNational Research Council. (1992). Global environmental change:

Understanding the human dimensions (P. C. Stern, O. R. Young, &D. Druckman, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sci-ences.

National Research Council. (1999). Human dimensions of global environ-mental change: Pathways for the next decade. Washington, DC: Na-tional Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2002). The drama of the commons (E. Ostrom,T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. U. Weber, Eds.).Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2010a). Advancing the science of climatechange. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2010b). Adapting to the impacts of climatechange. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Nickerson, R. S. (2003). Psychology and environmental change. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know:Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231259. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231

Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevi-cius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Person-ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913923. doi:10.1177/0146167208316691

Page, L., & Howard, L. (2010). The impact of climate change on mentalhealth (but will mental health be discussed at Copenhagen?) Psycho-logical Medicine: A Journal of Research in Psychiatry and the AlliedSciences, 40, 177180. doi:10.1017/S0033291709992169

Reser, J. P. (in press). Public understandings of climate change: Reflec-tions and reframing. Risk Analysis.

Reser, J. P., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Adapting to and coping with the threat

and impacts of climate change. American Psychologist, 66, 277289.doi:10.1037/a0023412

Reyes, G., & Jacobs, G. A. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of internationaldisaster psychology (Vols. 14). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Schmuck, P., & Schultz, W. P. (Eds.). (2002). The psychology of sustain-able development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Shogren, J. R., Parkhurst, G., & Banerjee, P. (2010). Two cheers and aqualm for behavioral environmental economics. Environmental and

Resource Economics, 46(2), 235247. doi:10.1007/s10640-010-9376-3Sjberg, L. (1989). Global change and human action: Psychological

perspectives. International Social Science Journal, 41, 413432.Solomon, S., Plattner, G., Knutti, R., & Friedlingstein, P. (2009). Irre-

versible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106(6), 17041709. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812721106

Sontag, D. (2010, March 20). In Haiti, mental health system is in collapse.

The New York Times, p. A1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/world/americas/20haiti.html?hpSpence, A., Pidgeon, N., & Uzzell, D. (2009). Climate change: Psychol-

ogys contribution. The Psychologist, 21(2), 108 111.Spratt, D., & Sutton, P. (2008). Climate code red: The case for a

sustainable emergency. Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia: Friends of theEarth.

Stern, P. C. (1986). Blind spots in policy analysis: What economics

doesnt say about energy use. Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage-ment, 5, 200227. doi:10.2307/3323541

Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmentalchange. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 269 302. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.001413

Stern, P. C. (1993, June 25). A second environmental science: Humanenvironment interactions. Science, 260, 18971899. doi:10.1126/science.260.5116.1897

Stern, P. C. (1997). Toward a working definition of consumption forenvironmental research and policy. In National Research Council (P. C.

Stern, T. Dietz, V. R. Ruttan, R. H. Socolow, & J. L. Sweeney, Eds.),Environmentally significant consumption: Research directions (pp. 1235). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stern, P. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climatechange. American Psychologist, 66, 303314. doi:10.1037/a0023235

Stokols, D., Misra, S., Runnerstrom, M. G., & Hipp, A. (2009). Psychol-ogy in an age of ecological crisis. American Psychologist, 64, 181193.doi:10.1037/a0014717

Swim, J. K., & Becker, J. (2010). Individuals efforts to mitigate globalclimate change: A comparison of U.S. versus German residents en-

gagement in direct and indirect energy reduction behaviors. Manu-script submitted for publication.

Swim, J. K., & Clayton, S. (2010). SPSSI policy statement: SPSSI andglobal climate change. Retrieved from http://www.spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseactionpage.viewpage&pageid1455

Swim, J. K., Clayton, S., & Howard, G. S. (2011). Human behavioral

contributions to climate change: Psychological and contextual drivers.American Psychologist, 66, xxxxxx. doi:10.1037/a0023472Swim, J. K., Markowitz, E. M., & Bloodhart, B. (in press). Psychology

and climate change: Beliefs, impacts, and human contributions. In S.Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conserva-tion psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Thgersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The limita-tions of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal of ConsumerPolicy, 32, 141163. doi:10.1007/s10603-009-9101-1

Uzzell, D., & Rathzel, N. (2009). Transforming environmental psychol-ogy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 340350. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.005

Vandenbergh, M. P., Stern, P. C., Gardner, G. T., Dietz, T., & Gilligan, J.(2010). Implementing the behavioral wedge: Designing and adoptingeffective carbon emissions reduction programs. Environmental Law

Reporter, 40, 1054510552.Vlek, C., & Steg, L. (2007). Human behavior and environmental sustain-

ability: Problems, driving forces, and research topics. Journal of SocialIssues, 63(1), 119. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00493.x

Wapner, S., & Demick, J. (2002). The increasing contexts of context in thestudy of environment behavior relations. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Church-man (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 314). Hobo-ken, NJ: Wiley.

Weber, E. U. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptionsof long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). ClimaticChange, 77, 103120. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3

Weber, E. U. (2010). What shapes perceptions of climate change? WileyInterdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3). doi:10.1002/wcc.41

Weber, E. U., Johnson, E. J., Milch, K., Chang, H., Brodscholl, J., &Goldstein, D. (2007). Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice:A query theory account. Psychological Science, 18, 516523. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01932.x

Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate

change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66, 315328.doi:10.1037/a0023253

Winkel, G., Saegert, S., & Evans, G. W. (2009). An ecological perspectiveon theory, methods, and analysis in environmental psychology: Ad-vances and challenges. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 318328. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.02.005

World Health Organization. (2010). Climate change and human health.Retrieved from http://www.who.int/globalchange/en/


psychology’s contributions to understanding and addressing global climate change

Documents