Felt responsibility and climate engagement: Distinguishing adaptation from mitigation |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States;2. Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, NY 10458, United States;1. Cornell University, USA;2. University of Maine, USA;3. University at Buffalo, USA;1. Department of Environmental Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy, Studentų str. 11, Akademija, LT, 52261, Kaunas Dist, Lithuania;2. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Vytautas Magnus University, Vileikos 8, 44404, Kaunas, Lithuania;1. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 195 Marstellar St., West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States;2. Michigan State University, Environmental Science and Policy Program and School of Criminal Justice, 655 Auditorium Road, East Lansing, MI 48823, United States;3. The Ohio State University, School of Environment and Natural Resources, 210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | Policy makers and citizens must choose from among a growing variety of strategic options as they try to cope optimally with climate change. As a means of more accurately predicting different types of climate change engagement, we empirically distinguish individuals’ felt responsibility for mitigation (FRm) from felt responsibility for adaptation (FRa), and assess support for different climate action strategies (mitigation and adaptation). We surveyed two U.S. samples two months apart, and the replication study confirmed Study 1′s findings of differing predictive powers for FRm vs. FRa. Each type of felt responsibility, controlling for the other, served as a mediator between belief in global warming (as well as belief in anthropogenic cause of climate change) and its corresponding climate action strategy (mitigation vs. adaptation). FRa predicted adaptation measures but not mitigation measures, while FRm predicted mitigation measures more strongly than it predicted adaptation but did predict both action strategies. We also found important individual differences: people’s disposition toward behaving proactively correlated positively with all types of climate engagement, and political orientation (liberal/conservative ideology) interacted with climate action strategy (mitigation vs. adaptation) in predicting all engagement variables. Comparing levels of support across the political spectrum, the mitigation measures were highly polarizing, while the adaptation measures were less divisive. |
| |
| Keywords: | Climate change Mitigation Adaptation Responsibility Proactivity |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
