Cognitive Dissonance and Climate Change Scepticism

According to a poll conducted recently by The Times, 83% of people in the UK “accept.. that the Earth’s climate is changing and that global warming is taking place.” However, according to the same poll, only 41% agrees that this climate change is linked to human activity.

I find this disparity between the two percentages intriguing. I’m guessing (possibly wrongly) that the majority of the people surveyed are no better informed about the actual scientific evidence (for or against) in either case. So how does one explain that so many accept the scientific evidence of climate change but not the scientific evidence for the effects being largely man-made? It could simply be that the media give more coverage to scientists who dispute the link between climate change and human activity.

I think a more likely explanation is cognitive dissonance. When there is a contradiction or inconsistency between the way we behave and our underlying attitudes or beliefs, we tend to alter our attitudes (often unconsciously) to bring them in line with our behaviour, rather than vice versa.

To pick a particular example, if people’s environmental attitudes and their personal car use are at odds, then they are more likely to change their attitude to the environment than change their car use. A study showed that people who were environmentally aware and who were heavy car users actually showed a reduction in their environmental awareness when informed of the impact of their car use on the environment!

So, we can quite happily accept the fact of climate change without creating any dissonance with our own behaviour patterns as long as we reject the claim that climate change is caused by what we do. Once our beliefs about the environment are at odds with our behaviour (as they have to be if we accept that the climate change is linked to human activity), then cognitive dissonance theory predicts that people’s belief in that link will weaken to reduce the contradiction with their behaviour.

So, a more sophisticated piece of research by the Times might show that those whose personal behaviour is the least green will be those who are most sceptical about the link between human activity and climate change.

Unfortunately, the government’s reaction to this kind of poll is to work harder and spend more on “informing the public” about the link in the hopes that they can change the attitudes and thereby change the damaging behaviours. To quote Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary “we know that we still have a way to go in informing people about climate change and that is why we make no apologies about pushing forward with our new Act on CO2 campaign.” If cognitive dissonance holds true, then better information might simply heighten the internal inconsistency with everyday behaviour and result in strengthening, rather than weakening, people’s scepticism about the scientific evidence.

We are involved in a couple of small-scale research projects which are exploring a different approach. Can we find interesting or fun ways to attract people to behave slightly differently (irrespective of attitude) - in ways that are more environmentally responsible? If we can change (or at least disrupt) some habitual behaviours, then cognitive dissonance theory predicts that these people’s attitudes will come into line with, and ultimately strengthen, the new behaviours.

We are encouraged by the findings that some people, who are not environmentally aware, but happen to find themselves living in an eco house, change both their attitudes to the environment and their wider behaviours to bring them into line with the house they now occupy.

Will our approach work? I don’t know but it’s a lot more fun for all concerned than government information campaigns.