This document discusses psychological limitations that prevent proper understanding and action on climate change. It addresses two key issues: 1) The "grasping problem" where values do not necessarily lead to behaviors due to factors like the value-action gap, low-impact bias, and conformity. 2) How moral grounding norms around issues like authority, purity and loyalty can be incompatible with climate-related values like care/harm and fairness, limiting policy action. The conclusion is that while the grasping problem is broadly psychological, the focus should be on policy over individual behaviors, though policy will still be limited by clashes between norms across cultural groups.

1. The Implications of Psychological Limitations
for the Ethics of Climate Change
T.J. Kasperbauer, 06/30/13
Texas A&M University
B1 A2

2. Grasping Problem
“our psychologies prevent us from
processing climate change as an
ethical issue in the right way.”
-Stephen Gardiner (2011)

3. Addressing the Grasping Problem
1) Justifying Reasons:
- “the underlying reason for moral complaint”
2) Motivating Reasons:
- “the underlying motive for action”

4. Addressing the Grasping Problem
1) Justifying Reasons:
- “the underlying reason for moral complaint”
2) Motivating Reasons:
- “the underlying motive for action”

5. Addressing the Grasping Problem
1) Justifying Reasons:
- “the underlying reason for moral complaint”
2) Motivating Reasons:
- “the underlying motive for action”

6. • How do people understand and process the relevant
justifying reasons?
• Should the barriers to proper motivation change our
ethical approach to climate change?
The Grasping Problem is More
Broadly Psychological

7. Psychological Limitations
Individual Group (Societal)

8. Value-Behavior Gap
Bamberg & Moser, 2007; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002; Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012
Values
Attitudes
Intentions
Behavior
0.30

9. Low Impact Bias
Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985; McKenzie-Mohr, Nemiroff, Beers, Desmarais, 1995; Stern, 1992

10. Single Action Bias
Weber, 2006

11. Conformity
Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, Griskevicius (2007)


12. Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, Griskevicius (2007)
AVERAGE

13. Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, Griskevicius (2007)


AVERAGE

14. Summary of Individual Limitations
1) Knowledge and endorsement of proenvironment
values tend not to lead to behavior change.
2) Behaviors that are adopted are usually low impact
and short-lived.
3) Any changes that are made are likely to recidivate
unless the surrounding society approves of the
changes.

15. Grounding Norms (Haidt)
Care/H
arm
Liberty/
Oppression
Fairness/
Cheating
Loyalty/
Betrayal
Authority/
Subversion
Sanctity/
Degradation

17. Liberals
Care/H
arm
Liberty/
Oppression
Fairness/
Cheating
Loyalty/
Betrayal
Authority/
Subversion
Sanctity/
Degradation

19. Grounding Norms and Climate Change
•People with egalitarian values tend to see global warming as a
risk while those with individualistic or hierarchical values do not
(Heath & Gifford, 2006; Leiserowitz, 2006).
•Hierarchical attitudes across a wide variety of countries predicts
generally negative views towards the environment (Kasser,
2011).
•Social dominance orientation and authoritarianism also predict
negative views towards the environment (Son Hing, Bobocel,
Zanna, & McBride, 2007).
•Conservatives score higher in “system justification,” which
predicts denial of climate change (Feygina, Jost, & Goldsmith,
2010).

20. Incompatible Norms
Care/Har
m
Liberty/
Oppression
Fairness/
Cheating
Loyalty/
Betrayal
Authority/
Subversion
Sanctity/
Degradation

21. Risk Assessment
Germany U.S.
Sunstein, 2005
Environment Terrorism

22. Reason for Optimism
1. Overlapping grounding norms.

23. Conclusions
1. Grasping problem is broadly psychological.
2. Focus on policy, not individual behaviors.
3. Policy will be limited by incompatible grounding
norms.