böhm g 20150708_1730_upmc_jussieu_-_room_101_(building_14-24) (conflit lié au codage unicode)
TRANSCRIPT
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
Böhm & Bostrom. Mental models of climate change: Basis for risk evaluation, policy support, and message reception. Paris, Our Common Future, July 8, 2015
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
Böhm & Bostrom. Mental models of climate change: Basis for risk evaluation, policy support, and message reception. Paris, Our Common Future, July 8, 2015
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.
Böhm & Bostrom. Mental models of climate change: Basis for risk evaluation, policy support, and message reception. Paris, Our Common Future, July 8, 2015
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.
Böhm & Bostrom. Mental models of climate change: Basis for risk evaluation, policy support, and message reception. Paris, Our Common Future, July 8, 2015
Study 2: Abstract versus concrete thinking
Abstract thinking appears to promote support
for mitigation policies
Böhm & Bostrom. Mental models of climate change: Basis for risk evaluation, policy support, and message reception. Paris, Our Common Future, July 8, 2015
Study 2: Abstract versus concrete thinking
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.
Böhm & Bostrom. Mental models of climate change: Basis for risk evaluation, policy support, and message reception. Paris, Our Common Future, July 8, 2015
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.
Böhm & Bostrom. Mental models of climate change: Basis for risk evaluation, policy support, and message reception. Paris, Our Common Future, July 8, 2015
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
Bostrom et al. (2012)
International study (total N
= 664): Austria,
Bangladesh, Finland,
Germany, Norway, USA
Böhm & Bostrom. Mental models of climate change: Basis for risk evaluation, policy support, and message reception. Paris, Our Common Future, July 8, 2015
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
Bostrom et al. (2012)
International study (total N
= 664): Austria,
Bangladesh, Finland,
Germany, Norway, USA
Böhm & Bostrom. Mental models of climate change: Basis for risk evaluation, policy support, and message reception. Paris, Our Common Future, July 8, 2015
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.