Field interventions for climate change mitigation behaviors: A second-order meta-analysis.

Behavioral change is essential to mitigate climate change. To advance current knowledge, we synthesize research on interventions aiming to promote climate change mitigation behaviors in field settings. In a preregistered second-order meta-analysis, we assess the overall effect of 10 meta-analyses, incorporating a total of 430 primary studies. In addition, we assess subgroup analyses for six types of interventions, five behaviors, and three publication bias adjustments. Results showed that climate change mitigation interventions were generally effective (dunadjusted = 0.31, 95% CI [0.30, 0.32]). A follow-up analysis using only unique primary studies, adjusted for publication bias, provides a more conservative overall estimate (d = 0.18, 95% CI [0.13, 0.24]). This translates into a mean treatment effect of 7 percentage points. Furthermore, in a subsample of adequately powered large-scale interventions (n > 9,000, k = 32), the effect was adjusted downward to approximately 2 percentage points. This discrepancy might be because large-scale interventions often target nonvoluntary participants by less direct techniques (e.g., "home energy reports") while small-scale interventions often target voluntary participants by more direct techniques (e.g., face-to-face interactions). Subgroup analyses showed that interventions based on social comparisons or financial incentives were the most effective, while education or feedback was the least effective. These results provide a comprehensive state-of-the-art summary of climate change mitigation interventions, guiding both future research and practice.

Oil and gas companies invest in legislators that vote against the environment.

Do campaign contributions from oil and gas companies influence legislators to vote against the environment, or do these companies invest in legislators that have a proven antienvironmental voting record? Using 28 y of campaign contribution data, we find that evidence consistently supports the investment hypothesis: The more a given member of Congress votes against environmental policies, the more contributions they receive from oil and gas companies supporting their reelection.

Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science.

Climate change is an urgent global issue, with demands for personal, collective, and governmental action. Although a large body of research has investigated the influence of communication on public engagement with climate change, few studies have investigated the role of interpersonal discussion. Here we use panel data with 2 time points to investigate the role of climate conversations in shaping beliefs and feelings about global warming. We find evidence of reciprocal causality. That is, discussing global warming with friends and family leads people to learn influential facts, such as the scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is happening. In turn, stronger perceptions of scientific agreement increase beliefs that climate change is happening and human-caused, as well as worry about climate change. When assessing the reverse causal direction, we find that knowing the scientific consensus further leads to increases in global warming discussion. These findings suggest that climate conversations with friends and family enter people into a proclimate social feedback loop.

Systems thinking as a pathway to global warming beliefs and attitudes through an ecological worldview.

Prior research has found that systems thinking, the tendency to perceive phenomena as interconnected and dynamic, is associated with a general proenvironmental orientation. However, less is known about its relationship with public understanding of climate change and/or whether this relationship varies across people with different political views. Because climate change is a highly politicized issue, it is also important to understand the extent to which systems thinking can foster acceptance of climate science across political lines. Using an online sample of US adults (n = 1,058), we tested the degree to which systems thinking predicts global warming beliefs and attitudes (e.g., believing that global warming is happening, that it is human-caused, etc.), independent of an ecological worldview (i.e., the New Ecological Paradigm). We found that although systems thinking is positively related to global warming beliefs and attitudes, the relationships are almost fully explained by an ecological worldview. Indirect effects of systems thinking are consistently strong across political ideologies and party affiliations, although slightly stronger for conservatives and Republicans than for liberals and Democrats, respectively. We did not find evidence of the converse: Systems thinking does not seem to mediate the relationship between an ecological worldview and global warming beliefs and attitudes. Together, these findings suggest that systems thinking may support the adoption of global warming beliefs and attitudes indirectly by helping to develop an ecological ethic that people should take care of and not abuse the environment.

Predictors of PrEP Uptake Among Patients with Equivalent Access.

Increasing PrEP adoption for eligible individuals is critical, but limited research has examined individual-level factors that might be amenable to educational or behavioral intervention. Using data from a PrEP demonstration project conducted at a community health center, we examined differences in behavioral and psychosocial factors between patients offered PrEP who chose to accept it and those who declined. In a multivariable model, the odds of accepting PrEP were higher among those with an HIV-positive main partner, greater risk behavior in the past 3 months, and higher HIV risk perception. PrEP adoption was positively associated with PrEP adherence self-efficacy and negatively associated with perceived sensitivity to medicines. These psychological variables were associated with measures of PrEP- and HIV-related stigma. In the multivariable model, there were no differences in PrEP adoption by demographic factors or socioeconomic status. Data suggest that patients' decisions about PrEP uptake may be impacted not only by objective and subjective HIV risk, but also by psychological variables such as stigma beliefs, medication beliefs, and self-efficacy.

Climate change belief systems across political groups in the United States.

Beliefs and attitudes form the core of public opinion about climate change. Network analysis can reveal the structural configuration of these beliefs and attitudes. In this research, we utilize a belief system framework to identify key psychological elements, track change in the density of these belief systems over time and across political groups, and analyze the structural heterogeneity of belief systems within and between political groups in the United States. Drawing on fifteen waves of nationally representative survey data from 2010 to 2021 (N = 16,742), our findings indicate that worry about climate change is the most central psychological element. Interestingly, we find that among politically unaffiliated individuals, the connections between psychological elements have strengthened over time, implying an increase in the consistency of belief systems within this group. Despite the political polarization in beliefs about climate change between Republicans and Democrats, our findings reveal that the ways these two groups organize and structure climate change beliefs systems are not markedly different compared to those of other groups. These findings provide theoretical and practical insights for climate change experts and communicators.

Validity of energy social research during and after COVID-19: challenges, considerations, and responses.

Measures to control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are having unprecedented impacts on people's lives around the world. In this paper, we argue that those conducting social research in the energy domain should give special consideration to the internal and external validity of their work conducted during this pandemic period. We set out a number of principles that researchers can consider to give themselves and research users greater confidence that findings and recommendations will still be applicable in years to come. Largely grounded in existing good practice guidance, our recommendations include collecting and reporting additional supporting contextual data, reviewing aspects of research design for vulnerability to validity challenges, and building in longitudinal elements where feasible. We suggest that these approaches also bring a number of opportunities to generate new insights. However, we caution that a more systemic challenge to validity of knowledge produced during this period may result from changes in the kinds of social research that it is practicable to pursue.