Getting people to care about climate change and the imminent threat of damage to the reef depends on a certain concept of distance
 |
| This photo released on 20 April, 2016 by XL Catlin Seaview Survey shows a turtle swimming over bleached coral at Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef. Photograph: STR/AFP/Getty Images |
The government’s actions have been described as Soviet in style and intent but the political thuggery pales compared to the activation of a subtler and more powerful effect known as psychological distance.
Psychological distance is a construct that measures the “distance” of an event or object in terms of geography, time, cultural similarity and factual certainty. If something is nearby, likely to occur soon, involves people like you, and the facts are certain, that “something” is considered psychologically close. The closer it is, the more likely you are to perceive it as concrete and be willing and able to act on it.
Work by our environmental psychology research group at the University of New England shows that alternatively, as psychological distance increases, an object is perceived more abstractly and is less likely to be acted on.
Saving for retirement is a classic example. In our 20s, the facts of retirement are uncertain: it will occur in the distant future, and possibly in a different location and cultural context. Other more concrete concerns capture our attention.
By the time we reach our 50s the abstract has become concrete. We likely know when we’ll be retiring, where to and with who, all with relative certainty. As a result, we’re more likely to save every spare dollar.
But of course with retirement savings – like climate change and coral bleaching – we can’t wait until the last minute to act.
To that end, our research indicates that psychological distance is a significant predictor of climate change concern and intention to act in ways such as reducing household energy use.
We’ve also found that we can increase or decrease psychological distance by framing climate change messages in different ways. When we presented messages designed to increase psychological distance, our participants became less concerned about climate change and more disengaged. When we reduced psychological distance, our participants became more concerned and more willing to take action.
Which brings us back to the federal government’s “bleaching” of UN documents. By requesting that references to reef damage be removed from the Unesco report, the government is, intentionally or otherwise, increasing the psychological distance of climate-related threats to the reef.
Geographic and cultural distances are increased: climate change might be killing coral but there’s no indication that it’s happening in Australia. Therefore it must be happening elsewhere to people who are different to us.
The perception of time, as it relates to psychological distance, is also stretched. Many Australians have heard that climate change will affect our reef, but it’s not happening yet, apparently.
Finally, the release of an authoritative climate change report that doesn’t mention the Great Barrier Reef contrasts with other reports that do mention it. This type of inconsistency creates a level of factual uncertainty that only further increases psychological distance.
Of course we’ve learned that nearly a quarter of the coral on the Great Barrier Reef is now dead, according to two government agencies. How is it possible for almost a quarter of our reef to die without it triggering unprecedented, national concern and debate?
Sadly, those of us who work with the psychology of climate change don’t find this surprising in the least. Psychological distance is one of the many “dragons of inaction” that we wrestle with, psychological barriers that hinder environmental action.
But we also have cause for optimism. Our research suggests that reports of environmental damage that include graphic images can decrease psychological distance, and be an effective mechanism for increasing public concern and engagement. However, for that to occur people must read the articles and see the pictures.
And so it becomes apparent that the government’s very own bleaching event is truly masterful, if the goal is to prevent meaningful action on climate change.
The dying of the Great Barrier Reef is a national tragedy. In a democracy it is mandatory that the electorate be informed about matters of national significance. In this case the opposite has occurred, and the psychological damage done may already be more profound than most realise.
Links
- The Great Barrier Reef: a catastrophe laid bare
- Australia scrubbed from UN climate change report after government intervention
- How the Great Barrier Reef got polluted – from farms and fossil fuels to filthy propaganda
- Ellen DeGeneres urges Australians to help save Great Barrier Reef
- Ellen DeGeneres campaigns for Great Barrier Reef protection – video
No comments :
Post a Comment