İklim Değişikliğiyle Mücadeleye Etki Eden Psikolojik Engellerin İncelenmesi

Year 2024, , 382 - 403, 31.03.2024

Ezgi Kaşdarma

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1344616

Abstract

İklim değişikliği çağımızın önemli sorunlarından birisi olmakla birlikte, psikoloji disiplininde iklim değişikliğinin incelenmesi yakın bir geçmişe sahiptir. İklim yanlısı davranışların gerçekleştirilmesini engelleyen psikolojik unsurların anlaşılması, iklim değişikliğine yönelik görgül çalışmaların ve psikolojik müdahalelerin gerçekleştirilmesini mümkün kılacaktır. Bu çalışmada öncelikle, çevreci davranışların gerçekleştirilmesini açıklayan temel kuramsal modeller tanıtılmıştır. Bu kuramsal modellerden ilki Değer-Eylem Boşluğu Modeli iken, diğeri Kapsamlı Eylem Belirleme Modelidir. Ardından, sistematik bir literatür taraması gerçekleştirilerek iklim yanlısı davranışlarla ilişkili psikolojik engeller incelenmiştir. Mevcut çalışmada, Gifford (2011) tarafından kapsamlı biçimde sunulan psikolojik engellerin tanımı yapılarak her bir engele ilişkin kanıt sunan çalışmalar gözden geçirilmiştir. Daha sonrasında Gifford’un tanımladığı psikolojik engellerin sınandığı görgül çalışmaların bulguları aktarılmıştır. Bu çalışmaların birisinde söz konusu engellerin yapı geçerliği incelenerek psikolojik engellere ilişkin bir ölçüm aracı literatüre kazandırılmıştır. Elde edilen beş adet psikolojik engel boyutu şunlardır; değişimin gereksiz görülmesi, çatışan amaçlar ve arzular, kişiler arası ilişkiler, bilgi eksikliği ve tokenizm. Yapı geçerliği sağlanan bu engellerin incelendiği çalışmalar sayıca azdır. İki çalışmanın bulgularına göre psikolojik engellerin her birisinin iklim yanlısı davranışlar üzerindeki yordayıcı etkisi ve iklim yanlısı tutum ile davranışlar arasındaki aracı etkisi, incelenen davranışın türüne bağlı olarak değişmektedir. Psikolojik engellerin tek boyut altında incelendiği bir çalışmada bazı kişisel değişkenler ile iklim yanlısı davranış arasındaki ilişkide psikolojik engellerin aracı etkisi saptanmıştır. Psikolojik engellerin tek boyutta analiz edildiği bir diğer çalışmada iklim yanlısı tutum ile davranışlar arasındaki ilişkide psikolojik engellerin düzenleyici etkisi saptanmıştır. Sonuçta, psikolojik engellerin iklim yanlısı davranışlar üzerindeki aracı ve düzenleyici etkilerinin gelecekteki çalışmalarda detaylı olarak incelenmesi gerekmektedir. Ayrıca, farklı ülkelerdeki bazı çalışmaların bulguları psikolojik engellerin beş faktörlü yapısının değişkenliğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu nedenle psikolojik engellerin kültürel farklılıklara duyarlı olabileceği tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

İklim Değişikliği, İklim Krizi, Psikolojik Engeller, Davranış, Tutum

Investigation of Psychological Barriers to Coping with Climate Change

Abstract

Although climate change is one of the most crucial problems in today’s world, the study of climate change within the discipline of psychology has recently begun. Understanding the psychological factors that prevent climate-mitigating behaviors will make it possible to conduct empirical studies and psychological interventions for climate change. In this study, firstly, the main theoretical models explaining the actualization of pro-environmental behaviors are introduced. While one of these theoretical models is the Value-Action Gap Model, another is the Comprehensive Action Determination Model. This was followed by a systematic literature search and examination of the psychological barriers associated with pro-climate behavior. A comprehensive definition of psychological barriers, as described by Gifford (2011), was provided and studies providing evidence for each barrier were presented. This is followed by a presentation of the results of the empirical studies that tested the psychological barriers defined by Gifford. One study examined the construct validity of these barriers and introduced a measurement tool for psychological barriers to the literature. The five dimensions of psychological barriers are as follows; change unnecessary, conflicting goals and aspirations, interpersonal relations, lacking knowledge, and tokenism. There are a limited number of studies in the literature that examine these validated barriers. Two studies found that the predictive effect of psychological barriers on pro-climate behaviors and the mediating effect between pro-climate attitudes and behaviors vary based on the type of behavior. In a study examining psychological barriers as a single dimension, psychological barriers were found to mediate the relationship between personal variables and pro-climate behavior. In another study, analyzed psychological barriers as a single dimension, the moderating effect of the psychological barriers on the relationship between pro-climate attitudes and behaviors was found. Therefore, future studies should investigate the mediating and moderating effects of psychological barriers on pro-climate behavior. Furthermore, studies carried out in different countries have shown the variability of the five-factor structure of psychological barriers. This suggests that psychological barriers may be sensitive to cultural differences.

Keywords

Climate Change, Climate Crisis, Psychological Barriers, Behavior, Attitude

References

• Agrawal, A. (2011). Effect of global warming on climate change, flora and fauna. Journal of Ecophysiology and Occupational Health, 11, 161-174.
• Aquino, K., Steisel, V. ve Kay, A. (1992). The effects of resource distribution, voice, and decision framing on the provision of public goods. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(4), 665-687.
• Arkes, H. R. ve Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124-140.
• Arkes, H. R. ve Hutzel, L. (2000). The role of probability of success estimates in the sunk cost effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(3), 295-306.
• Barr, S. (2006). Environmental action in the home: investigating the ‘value-action’gap. Geography, 91(1), 43- 54.
• Barr, S., Gilg, A. W. ve Ford, N. (2005). The household energy gap: examining the divide between habitual-and purchase-related conservation behaviours. Energy Policy, 33(11), 1425-1444.
• Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value‐action gap’in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257-278.
• Bosone, L., Chaurand, N. ve Chevrier, M. (2022). To change or not to change? Perceived psychological barriers to individuals’ behavioural changes in favour of biodiversity conservation. Ecosystems and People, 18(1), 315-328.
• Brayshay, M., Rob, K. ve Nigel, T. (2009). Capitalism and division of labor. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (IEHG), 1, 390-400.
• Bruchmann, K., Chue, S. M., Dillon, K., Lucas, J. K., Neumann, K. ve Parque, C. (2021). Social Comparison Information Influences Intentions to Reduce Single-Use Plastic Water Bottle Consumption. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-7.
• Burke, E. E. ve Roe, G. H. (2014). The absence of memory in the climatic forcing of glaciers. Climate Dynamics, 42, 1335-1346.
• Callery, P. J., Goodwin, C. C. ve Moncayo, D. (2021). Norm proximity and optimal social comparisons for energy conservation behavior. Journal of Environmental Management, 296, 1-8.
• Chung, S. S. ve Leung, M. M. Y. (2007). The value-action gap in waste recycling: the case of undergraduates in Hong Kong. Environmental Management, 40(4), 603-612.
• Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. ve Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
• De Groot, J. I. ve Steg, L. (2007). Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: Validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 38(3), 318-332.
• de Kwaadsteniet, E. W., van Dijk, E., Wit, A., De Cremer, D. ve de Rooij, M. (2007). Justifying decisions in social dilemmas: Justification pressures and tacit coordination under environmental uncertainty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(12), 1648-1660.
• Desrochers, J. E. ve Zelenski, J. M. (2023). Why are males not doing these environmental behaviors?: Exploring males’ psychological barriers to environmental action. Current Psychology, 42(29), 25042-25060.
• Dimitropoulos, A., Oueslati, W. ve Sintek, C. (2018). The rebound effect in road transport: A meta-analysis of empirical studies. Energy Economics, 75, 163-179.
• Fage-Butler, A., Ledderer, L. ve Nielsen, K. H. (2022). Public trust and mistrust of climate science: A meta-narrative review. Public Understanding of Science, 09636625221110028.
• Fang, W. T., Huang, M. H., Cheng, B. Y., Chiu, R. J., Chiang, Y. T., Hsu, C. W. ve Ng, E. (2021). Applying a comprehensive action determination model to examine the recycling behavior of taipei city residents. Sustainability, 13(2), 1-18.
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
• Feygina, I., Jost, J. T. ve Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 326-338.
• Fung, J. M. ve Au, W. T. (2014). Effect of inequality on cooperation: Heterogeneity and hegemony in public goods dilemma. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(1), 9-22.
• Gaspar, R. (2013). Understanding the reasons for behavioral failure: A process view of psychosocial barriers and constraints to pro-ecological behavior. Sustainability, 5(7), 2960–2975.
• Ghadge, A., Wurtmann, H. ve Seuring, S. (2020). Managing climate change risks in global supply chains: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Production Research, 58(1), 44-64.
• Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290-302.
• Gifford, R., Lacroix, K. ve Chen, A. (2018). Understanding responses to climate change: Psychological barriers to mitigation and a new theory of behavioral choice. S. Clayton, C. Manning (Eds.), In Psychology and climate change (pp. 161-183). Academic Press.
• Gifford, R., Scannell, L., Kormos, C., Smolova, L., Biel, A., Boncu, S., ... & Uzzell, D. (2009). Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: An 18-nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 1-12.
• Häkkinen, K. ve Akrami, N. (2014). Ideology and climate change denial. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 62-65.
• Hatfield, J. ve Job, R. S. (2001). Optimism bias about environmental degradation: The role of the range of impact of precautions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 17-30.
• Heath, Y. ve Gifford, R. (2002). Extending the theory of planned behavior: Predicting the use of public transportation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 2154-2189.
• Hine, D. W. ve Gifford, R. (1996). Individual restraint and group efficiency in commons dilemmas: The effects of two types of environmental uncertainty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(11), 993-1009.
• Holland, G. ve Bruyère, C. L. (2014). Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change. Climate Dynamics, 42, 617-627.
• Huang, E., Gregoire, M. B., Tangney, C. ve Stone, M. K. (2011). Sustainability in hospital foodservice. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 14(3), 241-255.
• Islam, T. ve Chandrasekaran, U. (2016). Religiosity and ecologically conscious consumption behaviour. Asian Journal of Business Research, 5(2), 18-30.
• Jost, J. T. ve Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 260-265.
• Kaiser, F. G. ve Gutscher, H. (2003). The proposition of a general version of the theory of planned behavior: Predicting ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(3), 586-603.
• Kasser, T., Kanner, A. D., Cohn, S. ve Ryan, R. M. (2007). Psychology and American corporate capitalism: Further reflections and future directions. Psychological Inquiry, 18(1), 60-71.
• Kay, A. L., Davies, H. N., Bell, V. A. ve Jones, R. G. (2009). Comparison of uncertainty sources for climate change impacts: flood frequency in England. Climatic Change, 92(1), 41-63.
• Kleemann, S., O’Riordan, T. ve Jaeger, C. C. (2001). The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups. Global Environmental Change, 11(2), 107-117.
• Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1028-1038.
• Klöckner, C. A. ve Blöbaum, A. (2010). A comprehensive action determination model: Toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 574-586.
• Klöckner, C. A. ve Oppedal, I. O. (2011). General vs. domain specific recycling behaviour—Applying a multilevel comprehensive action determination model to recycling in Norwegian student homes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(4), 463-471.
• Kollmuss, A. ve Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
• Kuiper, J. J., Janse, J. H., Teurlincx, S., Verhoeven, J. T. ve Alkemade, R. (2014). The impact of river regulation on the biodiversity intactness of floodplain wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 22, 647-658.
• Lacroix, K., Gifford, R. ve Chen, A. (2019). Developing and validating the Dragons of Inaction Psychological Barriers (DIPB) scale. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 9-18.
• Liu, Y., Veríssimo, D. ve Farhidi, F. (2016). Using social norm to promote energy conservation in a public building. Energy and Buildings, 133, 32-36.
• Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S. ve Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17(3-4), 445-459.
• Maclean, I. M. ve Wilson, R. J. (2011). Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(30), 12337-12342.
• Maggini, R., Lehmann, A., Kéry, M., Schmid, H., Beniston, M., Jenni, L. ve Zbinden, N. (2011). Are Swiss birds tracking climate change?: Detecting elevational shifts using response curve shapes. Ecological Modelling, 222(1), 21-32.
• Maniates, M. F. (2001). Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world?. Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 31-52.
• McCright, A. M. ve Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1163-1172.
• Nema, P., Nema, S. ve Roy, P. (2012). An overview of global climate changing in current scenario and mitigation action. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(4), 2329-2336.
• Nolan, J. M. (2021). Social norm interventions as a tool for pro-climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 120-125.
• Nordfjærn, T., Şimşekoğlu, Ö. ve Rundmo, T. (2014). The role of deliberate planning, car habit and resistance to change in public transportation mode use. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 90-98.
• Nordlund, A. M. ve Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 740-756.
• Obradovich, N. ve Guenther, S. M. (2016). Collective responsibility amplifies mitigation behaviors. Climatic Change, 137, 307-319.
• Ofstad, S. P., Tobolova, M., Nayum, A. ve Klöckner, C. A. (2017). Understanding the mechanisms behind changing people’s recycling behavior at work by applying a comprehensive action determination model. Sustainability, 9(2), 1-17.
• Opotow, S. ve Weiss, L. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Denial and the process of moral exclusion in environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 475-490.
• Pahl, S., Harris, P. R., Todd, H. A. ve Rutter, D. R. (2005). Comparative optimism for environmental risks. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1), 1-11.
• Rode, J. B., Dent, A. L. ve Ditto, P. H. (2022). Climate change consensus messages may cause reactance in conservatives, but there is no meta-analytic evidence that they backfire. Environmental Communication, 1-7.
• Schmitt, M. T., Neufeld, S. D., Mackay, C. M. ve Dys‐Steenbergen, O. (2020). The perils of explaining climate inaction in terms of psychological barriers. Journal of Social Issues, 76(1), 123-135.
• Sobotová, B., Šrol, J. ve Adamus, M. (2024). Dragons in action: Psychological barriers as mediators of the relationship between environmental value orientation and pro-environmental behaviour. PsyArXiv, 1-32.
• Sohrabi, C., Franchi, T., Mathew, G., Kerwan, A., Nicola, M., Griffin, M., ... ve Agha, R. (2021). PRISMA 2020 statement: what's new and the importance of reporting guidelines. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 1-4. Staats, H., Harland, P. ve Wilke, H. A. (2004). Effecting durable change: A team approach to improve environmental behavior in the household. Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 341-367.
• Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J. W., Keizer, K. ve Perlaviciute, G. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104-115.
• Tam, K. P. ve Chan, H. W. (2023). Conspiracy theories and climate change: A systematic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 91, 1-15.
• Uzzell, D. L. (2000). The psycho-spatial dimension of global environmental problems. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(4), 307-318.
• Wang, C., Geng, L. ve Casallas, J. D. R. (2022). Mindfulness to climate change inaction: The role of awe,“Dragons of inaction” psychological barriers and nature connectedness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84, 1-10.
• Webb, J. (2012). Climate change and society: The chimera of behaviour change technologies. Sociology, 46(1), 109-125.
• Vainio, A., Mäkiniemi, J. P. ve Paloniemi, R. (2014). System justification and the perception of food risks. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(4), 509-523.
• Vieira, J., Castro, S. L. ve Souza, A. S. (2023). Psychological barriers moderate the attitude-behavior gap for climate change. Plos one, 18(7), 1-24.