How Hope and Doubt Affect Climate Change Mobilization
How Hope and Doubt Affect Climate Change Mobilization
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fcomm.2019.00020
复制
发表时间：
2019-05-21
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Maibach, Edward
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Marlon, Jennifer R.;Bloodhart, Brittany;Maibach, Edward
人为气候变化造成的严重威胁使希望和功效感成为有效气候传播的关键要素。然而，人们对是什么使个人成功或者相反，是什么使个人怀疑人类可以减少问题，或者希望与行动主义之间的关系知之甚少。这项研究使用了两项全国性调查的混合方法，以（1）确定是什么让人们对人类将解决问题充满希望或怀疑（研究1，N = 674），以及（2）充满希望和怀疑的评价是否与行动主义或政策支持有关（研究2，N = 1，310）。在研究1中，对开放式问题的回答揭示了公众缺乏希望。对于那些有希望的人来说，最常见的原因与社会现象有关--看到别人的行动或相信集体意识正在上升（“建设性希望”）。然而，对一些人来说，希望源于相信上帝或自然会解决问题，而不需要人类干预（我们称之为“虚假希望”）。最普遍的怀疑是低优先级，贪婪和组间冲突（即，为成功解决这一问题，需要在不同规模开展合作）。我们确定了“建设性的”和“宿命论的”怀疑。建设性的怀疑是担心人类不会有效地解决问题，而宿命论的怀疑是相信我们不能解决问题，即使我们想，因为它是在上帝或大自然母亲的手中。在研究2中，我们使用这些新兴的希望和怀疑的评价，制定调查措施。回归分析表明，建设性的希望和怀疑预测增加政策支持和政治参与，而虚假的希望和宿命论的怀疑预测相反。在预测政治行为意图时，建设性希望和怀疑之间存在相互作用，这表明，对人类将减少气候变化抱有希望，沿着认识到人类做得不够，也可能是建设性的，并激励政治行动。气候变化传播者可能会考虑关注建设性的希望（例如，人类进步，清洁能源的兴起），加上建设性怀疑的因素（例如，威胁的现实，采取更多行动的必要性），动员对气候变化采取行动。
The severe threats posed by anthropogenic climate change make hope and a sense of efficacy key ingredients in effective climate communication. Yet little is known about what makes individuals hopeful-or in contrast, doubtful-that humanity can reduce the problem, or how hope relates to activism. This study uses mixed-methods with two national surveys to (1) identify what makes people hopeful or doubtful that humanity will address the problem (Study 1, N = 674), and (2) whether hopeful and doubtful appraisals are related to activism or policy support (Study 2, N = 1,310). In Study 1, responses to open-ended questions reveal a lack of hope among the public. For those with hope, the most common reason relates to social phenomena-seeing others act or believing that collective awareness is rising ("constructive hope"). Hope for some, however, stems from the belief that God or nature will solve the problem without the need for human intervention (which we call "false hope"). The most prevalent doubts are low prioritization, greed, and intergroup conflict (i.e., the need for cooperation at various scales to successfully address the issue). We identified both "constructive" and "fatalistic" doubts. Constructive doubts are concerns that humanity won't address the problem effectively, while fatalistic doubts are beliefs that we can't address the problem even if we wanted to because it is in the hands of God or Mother Nature. In study 2, we used these emergent hope and doubt appraisals to develop survey measures. Regression analyses suggest that constructive hope and doubt predict increased policy support and political engagement, whereas false hope and fatalistic doubt predict the opposite. An interaction exists between constructive hope and doubt in predicting political behavioral intentions, which suggests that having hope that humans will reduce climate change, along with recognition that humans are not doing enough may also be constructive and motivate political action. Climate change communicators might consider focusing on constructive hope (e.g., human progress, the rise of clean energy), coupled with elements of constructive doubt (e.g., the reality of the threat, the need for more action), to mobilize action on climate change.