A large number of people still downplay the impact of climate change. In addition, they deny that it’s mainly a product of human activity. Why do these deniers still hold on to their beliefs?
One assumption is that these beliefs are fixed in an exact form of self-deception.
Motivated Reasoning
People find it easier to live with their own climate worsening if they don’t believe that things will actually get any worse.
Professor Florian Zimmermann, an economist at the University of Bonn and Research Director at the Institute of Labor Economics briefly explains.
“We call this thought process ‘motivated reasoning.’”
Motivated reasoning helps us to validate our behavior. For instance, individuals backup their denial of human-made climate change because they point out that proof of human-made climate change doesn’t exist.
This example of disagreement is a simple example of motivated reasoning. It’s the slanting of facts until it allows us to maintain a positive image of ourselves while maintaining our harmful behavior.
In essence, an individual may deceive his or herself to preserve a positive self-image.
A recent study by Professor Florian Zimmermann and his colleague, Lasse Stötzer of the University of Bonn and the Institute on Behaviour and Inequality…now part of the Institute of Labor Economics ran a series of online experiments, using a representative sample of 4,000 United States adults.
Their experiment provided some unexpected results on what role this form of self-deception plays in how people think about climate change. Previously, there had been little scientific evidence produced to answer this question.
Self-deception
The heart of the experiments comprised of a donation worth $20. Researcher randomly formed two groups of participants. The members of the first group were able to split the $20 between two organizations — both organizations who were committed to combating climate change.
Conversely, those in the second group could decide to keep the $20 for themselves instead of giving it away. Additionally they would then essentially receive the money at the end.
Zimmermann, who is also a member of the ECONtribute Cluster of Excellence, the Collaborative Research Center Transregio 224 and the Transdisciplinary Research Area “Individuals & Societies” at the University of Bonn says
“Anyone keeping hold of the donation needs to justify it to themselves. One way to do that is to deny the existence of climate change.”
As it turned out, nearly half of those in the second group decided to hold on to the money. The researchers now wanted to know whether these individuals would justify their decision retrospectively by the rejection of climate change.
This experiment comprised of two groups, randomly formed. As a result, without “motivated reasoning,” they should essentially share a similar attitude to human-made global heating. If those who kept the money for themselves justified their actions through self-deception, however, then their group should exhibit greater doubt over climate change.
Zimmermann discloses,
“Yet we didn’t see any sign of that effect.”
Climate Change Misconceptions
Research findings on whether climate change denial is a characteristic of one’s identity led to two additional experiments.
Zimmermann, summed up his work,
“In other words, our study didn’t give us any indications that the widespread misconceptions regarding climate change are due to this kind of self-deception,”
This is good news for policymakers, because the results could mean that it’s certainly possible to correct climate change misconceptions, by merely providing comprehensive information.
However, Zimmermann advises to be cautious:
“Our data does reveal some indications of a variant of motivated reasoning, specifically that denying the existence of human-made global heating forms part of the political identity of certain groups of people.”
Rephrasing Zimmermann — some people may define themselves by the very fact that they don’t believe in climate change. As far as they’re concerned, this way of thinking is an important trait that sets them apart from other political groups, and therefore they’re likely to simply not care what researchers have to say on the topic.
This published study on motivated reasoning is in the journal Nature Climate Change.
