The Associations of Social Dominance Orientation and Ecological Belief in a Just World with Climate Change Denial

Öz

The Climate Change Denial Scale was adapted to Turkish. Moreover, group differences in climate change denial regarding gender and educational level were investigated. Further, it was aimed to examine the relationships between climate change denial, ecological belief in a just world (EBJW), and social dominance orientation (SDO). The sample consisted of 275 participants aged from 18 to 78 years old (M =28.57, SD =10.36; 70.5% women). The results revealed that there was a significant effect of education in climate change denial scores. Participants with a postgraduate degree were less likely to deny climate change than the participants who had a two-year degree and were undergraduates. Further, results showed that climate change denial was positively associated with both EBJW and SDO and SDO mediated the relationship between EBJW and SDO. Implications are discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• climate change,climate change denial,ecological belief in a just world,social dominance orientation,mediation analysis

İKLİM DEĞİŞİKLİĞİ İNKÂRININ SOSYAL BASKINLIK YÖNELİMİ VE EKOLOJİK ADİL DÜNYA İNANCI İLE İLİŞKİSİ

Öz

Bu çalışmada, İklim Değişikliği İnkârı Ölçeği Türkçe alanyazına kazandırılmış olup iklim değişikliği inkârının cinsiyete ve eğitim düzeyine göre değişip değişmediği araştırılmıştır. Ayrıca, iklim değişikliği inkârının ekolojik adil dünya inancı ve sosyal baskınlık yönelimiyle ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Araştırmaya yaşları 18 ile 78 arasında değişen (Ortalama = 28.57, SS = 10.36; % 70,5’i kadın) toplam 275 kişi katılmıştır. Bulgular, iklim değişikliği inkârının eğitim düzeyine göre değiştiğini göstermiştir. Lisansüstü eğitim düzeyindeki katılımcıların iklim değişikliğini inkâr etme eğilimlerinin önlisans öğrencisi, önlisans mezunu ve lisans öğrencisi katılımcıların bulunduğu gruba oranla daha az olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca, iklim değişikliği inkârının ekolojik adil dünya inancı ve sosyal baskınlık yönelimi ile pozitif yönde ilişkili olduğu görülmüştür. Son olarak, sosyal baskınlık yöneliminin ekolojik adil dünya inancı ve iklim değişikliği inkârı arasındaki ilişkide aracı bir role sahip olduğu bulunmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular alanyazın ışığında tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• iklim değişikliği,iklim değişikliği inkârı,ekolojik adil dünya inancı,sosyal baskınlık yönelimi,aracılık analizi

Kaynakça

1. Baier, Monika vd. (2013). “Ecological Belief in a Just World”. Social Justice Research, C. 26, S. 3, s. 272-300.
2. Björnberg, Karin Edvardsson vd. (2017). “Climate and Environmental Science Denial: A Review of the Scientific Literature Published in 1990-2015”. Journal of Cleaner Production, S. 167, s. 229-241.
3. Birleşmiş Milletler İklim Değişikliği Çerçeve Sözleşmesi (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Text. Geneva: UNEP/WMO.
4. Bizer, George Y. vd. (2012). “Belief in a Just World and Social Dominance Orientation: Evidence for a Mediational Pathway Predicting Negative Attitudes and Discrimination Against Individuals with Mental Illness”. Personality and Individual Differences, C. 52, S. 3, s. 428-432.
5. Brenkert-Smith, Hannah vd. (2015). “Climate Change Beliefs and Hazard Mitigation Behaviors: Homeowners and Wildfire Risk”. Environmental Hazards, C. 14, S. 4, s. 341-360.
6. Byrne, Barbara M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York: Routledge.
7. Clayton, Susan vd. (2016). “Justice and Environmental Sustainability”. Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research. Ed: Clara Sabbagh ve Manfred Schmitt. New York: Springer, s. 369-386.
8. Duckitt, John (2001). “A Dual-Process Cognitive-Motivational Theory of Ideology and Prejudice”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, S. 33, s. 41-113.

9. Feygina, Irina vd. (2010). “System Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of ‘System-Sanctioned Change’”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, C. 36, S. 3, s. 326-338.
10. Häkkinen, Kirsti ve Nazar Akrami (2014). “Ideology and Climate Change Denial”. Personality and Individual Differences, S. 70, s. 62-65.
11. Hayes, Andrew F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford.
12. Hayes, Nicky (2011). Doing Psychological Research: Gathering and Analysing Data. New York: Open University Press.
13. Hu, Saiquan vd. (2017). “How Political Ideology Affects Climate Perception: Moderation Effects of Time Orientation and Knowledge”. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, S. 127, s. 124-131.
14. Hu, Li-tze ve Peter M. Bentler (1999). “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives”. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, C. 6, S. 1, s. 1-55.
15. IBM Corporation (2016). SPSS for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, New York: IBM Corp.
16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2014). “Summary for Policymakers”. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ed: Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y .O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea ve L.L. White. Cambridge, United Kingdom, New York: Cambridge University, s. 1-32.
17. Jamieson, Dale (2007). “The Heart of Environmentalism”. Environmental Justice and Environmentalism: To Social Justice Challenge to the Environmental Movement. Ed: Ronald Sandler ve Phaedra C. Pezullo. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, s. 85-101.
18. Jylhä, Kirsti M. ve Nazar Akrami (2015). “Social Dominance Orientation and Climate Change Denial: The Role of Dominance and System Justification”. Personality and Individual Differences, S. 86, s. 108-111.
19. Jylhä, Kirsti M. vd. (2016). “Denial of Anthropogenic Climate Change: Social Dominance Orientation Helps Explain the Conservative Male Effect in Brazil and Sweden”. Personality and Individual Differences, S. 98, s. 184-187.
20. Kals, Elisabeth ve Yvonne Russell (2001). “Individual Conceptions of Justice and Their Potential for Explaining Proenvironmental Decision Making”. Social Justice Research, C. 14, S. 4, s. 367-385.
21. Karaçanta, Hatice (2002). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Baskınlık Yönelimi ve Başka Bazı Değişkenler Açısından Karşılaştırılması. Doktora Tezi. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi.
22. Kiral Ucar, Gözde vd. (2016). “The Ecological Belief in a Just World and Environmental Behavior”. 31st International Congress of Psychology, Yokohama, Japan, 24-29th July 2016. International Journal of Psychology, S. 51, s. 567.
23. McCright, Aaron M. ve Riley E. Dunlap (2011). “Cool Dudes: The Denial of Climate Change Among Conservative White Males in the United States”. Global Environmental Change, C. 21, S. 4, s. 1163-1172.
24. Milfont, Taciano L. vd. (2013). “Environmental Consequences of The Desire to Dominate and Be Superior”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, C. 39, S. 9, s. 1127-1138.
25. Panno, Angelo vd. (2018). “Mindfulness, Pro-environmental Behavior, and Belief in Climate Change: The Mediating Role of Social Dominance”. Environment and Behavior, C. 50, S. 8, s. 864-888.
26. Pratto, Felicia vd. (1994). “Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, C. 67, S. 4, s. 741-763.
27. Reese, Gerhard ve Lisa Jacob (2015). “Principles of Environmental Justice and Pro-Environmental Action: A Two-Step Process Model of Moral Anger and Responsibility to Act”. Environmental Science and Policy, S. 51, s. 88-94.
28. Sano, Junji vd. (2019). “Prediction of Vertical and Horizontal Distribution of Vegetation Due to Climate Change in the Eastern Mediterran Region of Turkey”. Climate Change Impacts on Basin Agro-ecosystems. Ed: Tsugihiro Watanabe, Selim Kapur, Mehmet Aydın, Rıza Kanber ve Erhan Akça. Charm: Springer, s. 201-222.
29. Sidanius, Jim ve Felicia Pratto (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University.
30. Stanley, Samantha K. vd. (2017). “Dimensions of Social Dominance and Their Associations with Environmentalism”. Personality and Individual Differences, S. 107, s. 228-236.
31. Syme, Geoffrey J. vd. (2000). “Ecological Risks and Community Perceptions of Fairness and Justice: A Cross‐Cultural Model”. Risk Analysis, C. 20, S. 6, s. 905-916.
32. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu [TUİK]. “İç Göç İstatistikleri” http://tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1067 (Erişim Tarihi: 15.02.2019).
33. _______ (2016). İstatistiklerle Türkiye 2015. Ankara: TÜİK.
34. _______ (2017). “Seragazı Emisyonları 475,1 Mt CO2 Eşdeğerine Yükseldi” http://tuik.gov.tr/basinOdasi/haberler/2017_22_20170427.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.02.2019).
35. Watson, James E. M. (2014). “Human Responses to Climate Change Will Seriously Impact Biodiversity Conservation: It's Time We Start Planning for Them”. Conservation Letters, C. 7, S. 1, s. 1-2.