Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries.

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.

Comparing the motivational underpinnings of sustainable consumption across contexts using a scenario-based approach.

A sample of tourists (N = 780) responded to a survey addressing purchasing intentions and consumption motives in relation to buying sustainable groceries at a local food market. These intentions and motives were contrasted for two consumption contexts: on vacation vs. at home. An initial analysis of the data indicated that self-reported purchasing intentions were weaker for a vacation scenario than for a home scenario. Further analyses suggested that motives associated with purchasing intentions were not universal between contexts. At home, normative motives (i.e., good conscience) were positively associated with intentions, whereas other motives failed to explain significant variance (i.e., value for money, calm and safe, avoid boredom, pleasure, and good impression). On vacation, associations with intentions followed a similar pattern, except for the finding that hedonic motives (i.e., pleasure) added explanatory variance. Despite the increased importance of hedonic motives on vacation compared to at home, normative motives showed the strongest association with purchasing intentions in both consumption contexts. The findings are discussed with reference to the literature on contextual discrepancies in environmental behavior, while noting possible implications for promoting sustainable consumption among tourists.

I Can See Clearly Now: Episodic Future Thinking and Imaginability in Perceptions of Climate-Related Risk Events.

Climate change is statistical, abstract and difficult to comprehend directly. Imagining a specific, personal episode where you experience consequences of climate change in the future (episodic future thinking) may bring climate change closer, thus increasing the perceived risk of climate-related risk events. We conducted an experiment to test whether episodic future thinking increased the perceived risk of climate-related risk events and climate change in general, as compared to thinking about the future in a general, abstract manner (semantic future thinking). We also tested whether this effect is moderated by how easy it is to imagine the specific climate-related risk event initially. Participants were randomly assigned to an episodic future thinking-condition or a semantic future thinking-condition, and two of the risk events in each condition were related to flooding (difficult to imagine) and two were related to extreme temperature (easy to imagine). The results show no main effect of episodic future thinking on perceived risk, and no interaction effect with imaginability. Contrary to expectations and earlier research, this suggests that episodic future thinking may not influence risk perception.

A Terrible Future: Episodic Future Thinking and the Perceived Risk of Terrorism.

Terrorism is a salient risk source in 21st century life and may deter tourists from visiting certain destinations. How people perceive the risk of a future terror attack abroad, and thus their traveling decisions, may be influenced by whether they think about the future in specific and personal terms (episodic future thinking) or in more general, abstract terms (semantic future thinking). In a pre-registered experiment (N = 277) we explored the potential impact of episodic future thinking on the perceived risk of terror attacks abroad. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) An episodic future thinking-condition, where participants were asked to imagine a specific, terror-related personal episode that might occur in the future while traveling abroad; (2) a semantic future thinking-condition, where participants were asked to think more abstractly about terror events that might occur in the future; (3) an episodic counterfactual thinking-condition, where participants were asked to imagine a specific, terror-related personal episode that might have occurred in the past while traveling abroad and (4) a passive control condition. Participants indicated their perceived risk of six different future terror attacks occurring abroad. The manipulation checks suggest that the experimental manipulations functioned as intended. Contrary to the central hypothesis of the study, there were no differences in the perceived risk of terror attacks between the conditions. These results run counter to previous research and do not support the idea that how people think about the future influences their perceived risk of future dramatic events. Potential limitations and implications are discussed.