IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v40y2020i4p758-770.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement

Author

Listed:
  • Haoran Chu
  • Janet Z. Yang

Abstract

Construal‐level theory suggests that high‐level abstract features weigh more in people's decision‐making at farther distance, while low‐level concrete features weigh more at closer distance. Based on this, we propose that psychological distance will influence the effect of risk versus efficacy framing on climate change engagement. In particular, risk perception related to the end‐state expectancy of climate change mitigation should influence people's climate change engagement at farther distance. In contrast, efficacy perception related to the perceived feasibility of attaining end‐state goals should influence engagement at closer distance. Results from an experimental survey based on a national sample that is both demographically and geographically representative (N = 1,282) supported our proposition. At closer spatial distance, perceived efficacy boosted by efficacy framing increased participants’ intention to perform climate mitigation behaviors. In contrast, at farther distance, risk framing increased behavioral intention through heightened risk perception. Based on these findings, we suggest that when communicating distant and abstract risks, highlighting their disastrous impacts may better motivate action. In contrast, when communicating impending and concrete risks, stressing the feasibility of action may have stronger motivational potential.

Suggested Citation

  • Haoran Chu & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 758-770, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:4:p:758-770
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13446
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13446?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susanne C. Moser, 2016. "Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 345-369, May.
    2. Z. Janet Yang & Mihye Seo & Laura N. Rickard & Teresa M. Harrison, 2015. "Information sufficiency and attribution of responsibility: predicting support for climate change policy and pro-environmental behavior," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 727-746, June.
    3. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "The Psychological Distance of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 957-972, June.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2005. "American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1433-1442, December.
    6. James N. Druckman & Mary C. McGrath, 2019. "The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 111-119, February.
    7. Charlotte Jones & Donald W. Hine & Anthony D. G. Marks, 2017. "The Future is Now: Reducing Psychological Distance to Increase Public Engagement with Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 331-341, February.
    8. Robert E. O'Connor & Richard J. Bard & Ann Fisher, 1999. "Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 461-471, June.
    9. Wen Xue & Donald W. Hine & Anthony D. G. Marks & Wendy J. Phillips & Patrick Nunn & Shouying Zhao, 2016. "Combining threat and efficacy messaging to increase public engagement with climate change in Beijing, China," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 43-55, July.
    10. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    11. Connie Roser-Renouf & Edward Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz & Xiaoquan Zhao, 2014. "The genesis of climate change activism: from key beliefs to political action," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 163-178, July.
    12. Julie Davydova & Adam R. Pearson & Matthew T. Ballew & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2018. "Illuminating the link between perceived threat and control over climate change: the role of attributions for causation and mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 45-59, May.
    13. Teresa Myers & Matthew Nisbet & Edward Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2012. "A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 1105-1112, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zijian Harrison Gong & Haoran Chu, 2022. "Seeing Risks or Solutions: Psychological Distance and Ecological Worldview Moderated the Effect of Disgust Images on Attention to Environmental Messages," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, June.
    2. Ming-Xing Xu & Shu Li & Li-Lin Rao & Lei Zheng, 2023. "The Relationship between Distance and Risk Perception in Multi-Tier Supply Chain: The Psychological Typhoon Eye Effect," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-25, May.
    3. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2021. "The Impact of Psychological Distance on Judging Satisfaction with Nuclear Energy Policy via Knowledge Calibration and an Integrated Causal Path Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-11, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trisha R. Shrum, 2021. "The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Stefan Linde, 2020. "The Politicization of Risk: Party Cues, Polarization, and Public Perceptions of Climate Change Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2002-2018, October.
    3. Liang-Chu Ho & Yu-Hsien Sung & Chia-Chun Wu & Pei-Shan Lee & Wen-Bin Chiou, 2020. "Envisaging Mitigation Action Can Induce Lower Discounting toward Future Environmental Gains and Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-12, November.
    4. D. Liliana González-Hernández & Raúl A. Aguirre-Gamboa & Erik W. Meijles, 2023. "The role of climate change perceptions and sociodemographics on reported mitigation efforts and performance among households in northeastern Mexico," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1853-1875, February.
    5. Robyn S. Wilson & Adam Zwickle & Hugh Walpole, 2019. "Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 777-791, April.
    6. Meifen Wu & Ruyin Long & Hong Chen & Jiaqi Wang, 2023. "The influence of risk perception on climate change communication behavior: a dual perspective of psychological distance and environmental values," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 118(1), pages 785-806, August.
    7. Timmons, Shane & Lunn, Pete, 2022. "Public understanding of climate change and support for mitigation," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS135, June.
    8. Nicholas Smith & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2014. "The Role of Emotion in Global Warming Policy Support and Opposition," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 937-948, May.
    9. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    10. Jing Shi & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2015. "Public Perception of Climate Change: The Importance of Knowledge and Cultural Worldviews," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(12), pages 2183-2201, December.
    11. Jialing Huang & Janet Z. Yang & Haoran Chu, 2022. "Framing Climate Change Impacts as Moral Violations: The Pathway of Perceived Message Credibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-19, April.
    12. Piyapong Janmaimool & Jaruwan Chontanawat, 2021. "Do University Students Base Decisions to Engage in Sustainable Energy Behaviors on Affective or Cognitive Attitudes?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-18, September.
    13. Anne K. Armstrong & Marianne E. Krasny, 2020. "Tracing Paths from Research to Practice in Climate Change Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, June.
    14. Jessica R. Murfree, 2023. "Exploring Major League Baseball Fans’ Climate Change Risk Perceptions and Adaptation Willingness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, May.
    15. Shane P Singh & Meili Swanson, 2017. "How issue frames shape beliefs about the importance of climate change policy across ideological and partisan groups," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, July.
    16. Bumsub Jin, 2023. "The Antecedents of Collaborative Behavior for Climate Change Mitigation among South Koreans: The Moderation Analyses of a Sense of Community as Responsibility, Neighborliness, and Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-15, August.
    17. Sedighe Pakmehr & Masoud Yazdanpanah & Masoud Baradaran, 2021. "Explaining farmers’ response to climate change-induced water stress through cognitive theory of stress: an Iranian perspective," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 5776-5793, April.
    18. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    19. Emőke Kiss & Dániel Balla & András Donát Kovács, 2022. "Characteristics of Climate Concern—Attitudes and Personal Actions—A Case Study of Hungarian Settlements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, April.
    20. Hussey, Lucia Kafui & Arku, Godwin, 2019. "Conceptualizations of climate-related health risks among health experts and the public in Ghana," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 40-50.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:4:p:758-770. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.