Böhm g 20150708_1730_upmc_jussieu_-_room_101_(building_14-24) (conflit lié au codage unicode)

Gisela Böhm & Ann Bostrom

Mental models of climate change: Basis

for risk evaluation, policy support, and

message reception

University of Bergen

(Norway)

University of Washington

(USA)

Böhm & Bostrom. Mental models of climate change: Basis for risk evaluation, policy support, and message reception. Paris, Our Common Future, July 8, 2015

The pivotal role of mental models

http://www.artnet.de/

Mental model

• Causes &

consequences

• Who and what is

affected?

• When and were?

• Why?

Risk

Communication

Risk

Perception

Efficacy

Beliefs

Policy

Preferences &

Behaviors


Study 1: Cognitive mapping

Attitudes

Behaviors

Emissions / Pollution

Environmental Changes I

Environmental Changes II

Negative Consequences

PROFIT LAZY KNOWL CONCERN

TRAFFIC

INDUST

CONSUM

AGRIC

CO2 AIR CFC

g-OZON GREENH OZONHOLE

POLAR CLIMATE UV EROSION

SEA

BALANCE

HEALTH

SPEZIES

DESERT

HABITAT

R-FOREST

Number of participants:

18-39

40-62

more than 62

Böhm & Pfister (in prep.);

N=133, German sample


Study 1: Risk

evaluations

Factors derived from psychometric scales

ARTEN

WUEST

CO2

BEQUEM

EROSION

BOZON

UV

FCKW INDUST

KLIMA

KONSUM

LUFT

WISSEN

BEWUSST

MEER

LANDW

OZONL

POL

PROFIT

WALD

VERKEHR

TREIBH

LRAUM

KRANK

GLEICH

2

1

0

-1

-2 -2 -1 0 1 2

CONSUM

TRAFFIC

AGRIC

LAZY

INDUST

KNOWL

PROFIT

CONCERN

CFC

CO2

g-OZON AIR

R-FOREST OZONHOLE

GREENH CLIMATE

BALANCE

UV

HEALTH

HABITAT

EROSION SPEZIES

DESERT SEA

POLAR

Activities

Neg.Cons.

Contr

ol

Risk Böhm & Pfister (in prep.);

N=133, German sample

Policy support hypotheses: • The more abstract the threat, and the

more concrete the costs, the lower

the support for climate change

mitigation policies.

• Alternatively, in contrast to theories

that psychological distance decreases

support by increasing the abstractness

of climate change, we hypothesize

that cueing abstract thinking could

promote support of climate change

mitigation policies, by promoting a

moral focus.


Study 2: Abstract versus concrete thinking

Mindsets (Construal Level Theory):

• Abstract thinking = focus on morals,

values, desirability.

• Concrete thinking = focus on

feasibility (e.g., Liberman et al. 2002).

Mental models:

• Causal beliefs important

determinants of policy support (e.g.,

O’Connor et al. 1999, 2002)

Risk Communication Theories

(Extended Parallel Process Model):

• Perceived threat, perceived

efficacy, and fear arousal predict

intentions and behaviors, message

responses. (Witte 1992)

Study 2: ~900 U.S. Mturkers randomly assigned to one of 5 conditions

(2 cue abstract thinking with Why? 2 cue concrete thinking with How?, control condition asks

What comes to mind?), then they answer a series of questions.



Abstract thinking appears to promote support

for mitigation policies



Causal thinking about the effects of the policy

has the biggest effects on policy support:

As expected, perceived efficacy of the policy

increases support, and perceived costs of the

policy decrease support.


Study 3: Causality, risk, and policy

Engineering

Solutions

Green

Practices

Carbon

Policies

Bostrom et al. (2012)

International study (total N

= 664): Austria,

Bangladesh, Finland,

Germany, Norway, USA

Support for policy actions, means across all countries (unweighted); 1=Definite No vote, 5=Definite Yes

vote.


Study 3: Causality, risk, and

policy

Support for green policies

Support for carbon policies

Support for engi-neering solutions

Risk characteristics

Threat / dread

� � �

Moral responsibility

� é é

Equity � � �

Known risk é � �

Controllability

ê � �

Consequences Societal é é �

Personal � � �

Causes

Environmental harms

é � é

Carbon emissions

é é ê

Natural cause é

Effectiveness

Green policies é ê �

Carbon policies

ê é ê

Engineering solutions

� � é

Pollution model

Carbon model

Mechanistic model



= 664): Austria,




Study 3: Causality, risk, and policy

0 0,1 0,2 0,3

Perceived Risk

Perceived Consequences

Perceived Causes

Effectiveness of Policies

Country

Incremental Explained Variance

Support for Green Practices

Support for Carbon Policies

Support for Engineering Solutions



= 664): Austria,




Summary and conclusions • A wide variety of causal thinking is evident in mental models

of climate change.

• Mental models are systematically related to risk evaluations and policy preferences.

• Climate communications must relate to people’s mental models of climate change and climate change abatement.

• Promoting an abstract, goal-oriented mindset appears to strengthen policy support (contrary to popular belief).

• Communicating the effects and effectiveness of policy actions may influence support for these actions more than providing other causal knowledge.

• Future research should address the exact mediating roles of mindset, perceived risk, and causal thinking in shaping policy support and the processing of communications.

Gisela Böhm & Ann Bostrom

Mental models of climate change: Basis

for risk evaluation, policy support, and

message reception

University of Bergen

(Norway)

University of Washington

(USA)

Böhm g 20150708_1730_upmc_jussieu_-_room_101_(building_14-24) (conflit lié au codage unicode)

Science