Gifford, R.: “The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation“, American Psychologist, 2011, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
Most people think climate change and sustainability are important problems, but too few global citizens engaged in high-greenhouse-gas-emitting behavior are engaged in enough mitigating behavior to stem the increasing flow of greenhouse gases and other environmental problems. Why is that? Structural barriers such as a climate-averse infrastructure are part of the answer, but psychological barriers also impede behavioral choices that would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental sustainability.
Roberta Maiella et al: “The Psychological Distance and Climate Change: A Systematic Review on the Mitigation and Adaptation Behaviors“, Frontiers in Psychology, Volume 11 2020, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568899
Currently, climate change represents an existential, physical, and psychological threat. Therefore, mitigation and adaptation actions and measures have become increasingly necessary to preserve individual and collective well-being. The psychological distance is one of the main psychological constructs that explains the most concrete or abstract perception of the objects and events surrounding people. This systematic review aims to provide an update of the literature on the role of psychological distance in the commitment to engagement mitigation and adaptation attitudes toward climate change
Rachel I. McDonald et al: “Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: An integrative review“, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 44, December 2015, Pages 109-118, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003
Studies examining personal experiences of climate change-related events highlight the potential to encourage climate action by framing it as happening now, in your neighborhood, and affecting people like you – that is, psychologically close. We compare this literature to studies that examine psychological distance. The review reveals a disconnect: while studies of personal experience suggest merits of reducing psychological distance, other studies present a more nuanced picture in which psychological proximity does not always lead to more concern about or action on climate change.
