What we think about when we try not to think about Global Warming
by Per Espen Stoknes
Stoknes asks why, after decades of overwhelming evidence that global warming is a really significant threat, most people simply don’t see it as urgent enough to take meeting for action.
He describes five psychological barriers – the 5 Ds - that we use to avoid confronting the need for climate action:
1. Distance: it’s far away in space or time so it doesn’t feel as relevant as things that are close or current
2. Doom: if it’s an encroaching disaster that requires loss or sacrifice, we simply avoid the topic. This is one of the most powerful lessons for those of us keen to see action on the climate crisis: if the message makes people feel bad, they simply avoid the messenger
3. Dissonance: it’s what we know conflicts with what we do it creates dissonance, which encourages us to doubt or downplay in order to reduce the dissonance
4. Denial: by denying or ignoring the evidence we avoid the fear and guilt that come from facing up to the reality
5. iDentity: We inevitably filter information through our sense of identity, looking for what confirms our existing values and filtering away what challenges them. Consequently we resist anything that challenges or requires us to change our self-identity
He goes on to outline how to combat these barriers, all good principles of influencing:
1. Make the issue feel near, human, personal and urgent
2. Use supportive framings do not backfire by creating negative feelings e.g. talk about opportunity, not loss or sacrifice
3. Reduce dissonance by providing opportunities for consistent and visible action. For example make it easy for people to do the right thing
4. Avoid triggering the emotional need for denial through fear, guilt or self protection. Essentially, don’t attack people
5. Reduce cultural and political polarisation. As soon as you make the issue about in-groups vs out-groups, you lose people need to protect their sense of identity and tribalism will almost always win out over logic
Naturally the implications go beyond communication about global warming.
It’s a good book but I think he’s actually better when interviewed for this youarenotsosmart podcast. Certainly more concise.