Social Psychological Approaches to Sustainability
Sustainability challenges like climate change are often characterized as collective action problems, however, beyond partisan influences, we know little about how group dynamics impact how people think about these issues. Work in our lab is currently exploring how social identities, inequalities, and intergroup biases shape how people perceive and respond to environmental problems.
Race and income in the US predict exposure to a wide range of environmental hazards linked to persistent health disparities; yet, low-income communities and many communities of color remain underrepresented in environmental sciences, advocacy organizations, federal agencies, and other key decision-making bodies. With collaborators at Cornell and the Environmental Defense Fund, we are currently exploring psychological factors that may contribute to these disparities, such as pervasive racial, ethnic, and class stereotypes that may fuel widely-shared misperceptions about who is concerned about the environment and may lead organizations to overlook low-income communities and communities of color in their advocacy and decision making (see here, here, and here).
Additional studies in our lab have documented differences in how advantaged and disadvantaged groups construe environmental issues, their root causes, and solutions. In qualitative and quantitative studies, we have found that economically disadvantaged communities in the United States conceptualize environmental issues more broadly than members of advantaged groups and are more likely to view social and societal factors that fuel vulnerability, such as racism, poverty, and access to health care, as “environmental” issues (see here and here).
In work with collaborators at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, we have explored implications of these divergent perceptions for the U.S. political divide. Aggregating over a decade of nationally representative survey data, we have found that political polarization around climate change is weaker among low-income communities and communities of color, who are more likely to view climate change as a personal threat (e.g., Ballew et al., 2020; Ballew et al., 2021, Pearson et al., 2021; Schuldt & Pearson, 2016; Pearson et al., 2017).
Additional studies are exploring how cultural factors may influence how different groups respond to climate change and its impacts. We have found that familism – a cultural value reflecting a strong commitment to and prioritization of the family – and concerns about cross-generational harm within the family (e.g., to children and grandchildren) are substantially more predictive of U.S Latinos’ climate beliefs and policy support than factors like one’s political affiliation, ideology, income, age, gender, or education level (Pearson et al., 2021).
Social Climate Science
As each new round of climate negotiations illustrates, how people perceive and engage with the issue of climate change is powerfully shaped by how others – including ingroups and outgroups – respond to the issue. Research in our lab is currently exploring how group memberships, political polarization, social class, and inequality influence how people respond to climate change, and organizations working to address it. Current theories of intergroup relations are often silent in addressing how and when group identities and group hierarchies extend beyond national borders and beyond our own species.
We have developed a conceptual framework for understanding how both individual (e.g., cognitive biases) and group-level (intra- and inter-group) psychological processes shape how people perceive and respond to climate change which is guiding new empirical work in this area (Pearson et al., 2016).
Current studies are exploring optimal ways to inform people about social and economic disparities in climate change impacts (see Pearson et al., 2023; Schuldt & Pearson, 2023). In national-level surveys, we have found that just 22% of US adults – including only one-third of US Democrats, young adults aged 18-34, and those with a 4-year college or post-graduate degree – recognize racial inequities in climate impacts within the United States. Similar findings have been documented beyond the U.S. with only 57% of respondents in a 11-nation survey indicating that negative effects of climate change are worse for Indigenous people and people of color (Ogunbode et al., 2023). Research suggests people are highly attuned to equity and fairness in environmental decision making (Pearson, Tsai, & Clayton, 2021). Nevertheless, psychological research suggests that simply conveying statistics about extreme social disparities (e.g., racial disparities in incarceration rates in the United States) can paradoxically fuel support for policies that exacerbate those disparities by reinforcing stereotypes.
We are currently exploring whether communicating about environmental inequities (e.g., via repeated or chronic exposures) may have similar unintended social psychological effects, such as exacerbating negative stereotypes about disadvantaged communities or reinforcing a belief that hardship can “harden” people to emotional and physical suffering (Cheek & Shafir, 2020), leaving impacted communities in less need of financial support or social services. Our research is currently exploring psychological factors that shape perceptions of resilience and their positive and negative implications for decision making.
For our perspective on what’s “social” about the problem of climate change, see our article, “Social Climate Science,” introductions to the Special Issues, “Climate Change and Intergroup Relations,” and, “Behavioural Climate Policy,” our recent article in American Psychologist, “Climate Change and Health Equity“, and our contribution to the GPIR 25th Anniversary special issue, “Social Psychological Pathways to Climate Justice“