PSYC200 Research Assignment 2017

Part A: Annotated bibliography (45 marks)

Goal: The goal of Part A is to develop your research skills by learning to construct
an annotated bibliography on a topic. To do this, you will locate, summarise, and
comment on several journal articles. It relates to Learning Outcomes 1, 2, and 3,
which are:
1. demonstrate coherent theoretical and technical knowledge in the topic area of
social psychology;
2. assess the evidence for a range of theories in social psychology;
3. independently read and evaluate scientific articles in social psychology.
Product: An annotated bibliography reporting four empirical social psychology journal
articles that are relevant to the topic at hand. At the end of each bibliography entry,
you will provide a table that displays the research design and main results of one
study from that paper. The word limit, which excludes the title page, citations and
table headers, is 1200 words. A word of caution, do NOT copy Abstracts into the
annotated bibliography. An Abstract serves a different purpose to an annotated
bibliography, and copying or closely paraphrasing an Abstract would be an act of
plagiarism.
Format: You are required to find four empirical psychology articles that have been
published in reputable psychology journals and are relevant to your research topic.
You will then produce an annotated bibliography in which the articles are placed in
alphabetic order. For each article, you should provide the citation information at the
top, followed by a brief summary of the article which includes an assessment of its
usefulness and/or limitations for your research topic. The journals that your articles
are drawn from must be indexed in the PSYCINFO, PSYCARTICLES or Proquest
Psychology databases, which you can access from the UNE library at
http://une.au.libguides.com/psychology_databases).
You should use the example at the end of page 2 of the TaLS Fact Sheet titled
“Writing an Annotated Bibliography” (attached to this handout) as a guide to what
each bibliography entry should include. Include steps 1-5 described on the fact sheet
in each bibliography entry, but additional to this, at the end of each bibliography
entry, you should include a table that breaks down the design of a study from that
article, as explained in Lecture 2 (Methods). This table is not the same as the one on
page 2 of “Writing an annotated bibliography”! Your table should include (in your
own words):
 The main research question tested in the study, underlining and identifying
independent variables (IVs) and dependent variables (DVs) where present.
E.g., The research question in the research by Crandall and White
(2016; see Lecture 1) could be stated as:
“What was the effect of Donald Trump’s election campaign on
Democrat and Republican supporters’ (IV) beliefs about the
acceptability of disparaging social groups that were derogated during
Trump’s election campaign (DVs)?”
If there are no IVs and DVs (as in a correlational design), underline the
variables that were measured in the study and state in parentheses after each
(VAR), so that we know what that variables in the design were. Note this is a
little different to what was described in Lecture 2 – we are presenting the
paper’s main research question rather than a hypothesis, as not all papers
provide a hypothesis.
 Type of design.
E.g., experimental, cross-sectional, etc. as explained in your textbook,
chapter 2.
 Major result.
E.g., the major result from Crandall and White (2016) could be stated
as: “For groups disparaged by Trump, Trump and Clinton supporters
showed significantly higher perceived acceptance of discriminatory
speech after the election. This was not found for groups not
disparaged by Trump.”
Example table breaking down Crandall and White’s (2016) research design. This
would go at the end of an annotated bibliography entry for their article:
 Main research question Type of Major result
Design
What was the effect of Donald Experimental For groups disparaged by
Trump’s election campaign on Trump, Trump and Clinton
Democrat and Republican supporters showed significantly
supporters’ (IV) beliefs about higher perceived acceptance of
the acceptability of disparaging discriminatory speech after the
social groups that were election. This was not found for
derogated during Trump’s groups not disparaged by
election campaign (DVs)? Trump.
The annotated bibliography is to be presented in 12-point Times New Roman
font (black), with 2.5 cm margins and sized for A4 paper. It must be submitted
together with Part B of the assignment as one document in .pdf format with the
filename as follows: PSYC200_Topic Number (from list)_Surname_Firstname.pdf
Marking Part A of the assignment will be assessed out of 45 according to level of
criteria: achievement in the following criteria (you will receive one overall set of comments
for Part A):
Overall list (marked out of 5 )
 Title page clearly states the research topic and shows word count for
annotated bibliography
 The bibliography is ordered alphabetically
 The citations are in APA style, and with hanging indents
 The annotated bibliography is presented in 12-point Times New Roman font,
with 2.5 cm margins sized for A4 paper.
 A penalty of up to 3 marks will be deducted from the overall mark for the
assignment for incorrect spelling and grammar in this section.
 A penalty of up to 3 marks will deducted from the overall mark for the
assignment for exceeding the word count for this section.
Individual entries (each entry is marked out of 10, with an overall mark out of 40).
 Purpose: The article is relevant to the research topic
 Format: The entry includes (i) a short statement of the author’s viewpoint; (ii)
a short summary of the theory, research findings, or argument; (iii) comments
on the usefulness and/or limitations of the article for your research topic; (iv)
an evaluative comment on the work, taking into account how it will fit into
 your research on the topic. These are described in steps 1-5 of the attached
TaLS fact sheet
 Writing style (as per section 3 in the attached TaLS fact sheet)
 Table: Student accurately presents the main research question, type of design
and main results, and identifies IVs, DVs, and measured variables.

Part B: Opinion piece (55 marks)

Goal: This assignment aims to develop your ability to engage with the research
findings on a social psychology topic and communicate them to the general public.
To do this, you will write an opinion piece (also referred to as a column or an op-
ed) that presents social psychology research on a topic to the general public. It
relates to Learning Outcomes 1, 2, 3, and 4 for this unit:
1. demonstrate coherent theoretical and technical knowledge in the topic area
of social psychology;
2. assess the evidence for a range of theories in social psychology;
3. independently read and evaluate scientific articles in social psychology;
and
4. transmit your knowledge in written form using proper convention for an
empirical report in psychology using the American Psychological
Association (APA) referencing style.
Product: A tightly argued opinion piece (also referred to as a column or an op-ed)
that presents social psychology research on a topic to the general public. The topic
can be selected from a list that will be provided in Week 2 of the
trimester. Alternatively, if there is another social psychology topic that you would
prefer to write about in your opinion piece, you can propose your idea to the unit
coordinator by no later than March 31 (extensions will not be available on the
basis of a late start due to formulating your own topic). Please wait for approval
before starting work on it. Your opinion piece must refer to at least three of the
empirical studies that are summarised in the tables in the annotated bibliography.
Format: You are required to write an 800-word (+/- 10%) science-based opinion
piece that brings relevant psychological research to bear on an important social
problem. The opinion piece is to be written as if it were targeted at the Australian
edition of The Conversation. The Conversation is an online newspaper located at
https://theconversation.com/au which aims to provide independent journalism that
is based on authenticated research findings. Your task is to locate social
psychology research that is relevant to your topic, and write an opinion piece that
makes sense of the research and communicates it in a sensible way to the general
public. You are to assume that your audience is educated to the level of a
Bachelor’s degree, but has no specific knowledge of psychology.
Although opinion pieces come in many forms, a good opinion piece has the
following features: it identifies a specific puzzle (e.g., “Why are obesity rates
increasing?”), it examines the issue in the light of current scientific thinking
(theory) and evidence (research findings), and communicates some novel insight
about the nature of the problem or proposes a solution based on the available
evidence. Your opinion piece should show your own thinking on the issue,
informed by research evidence, and the ability to form an opinion that shows an
unbiased consideration of the relevant research findings.
Your arguments should be supported by citing published articles from
psychology journals that are indexed in the Psychology databases PSYCINFO,
PSYCARTICLES, or Proquest Psychology (all can be accessed from
http://une.au.libguides.com/psychology_databases), and they should be referenced
in APA referencing style. You must cite three of the studies that are tabulated in
your annotated bibliography (Part A of this assignment).
The attached article titled “How to Write an Op-Ed or Column” provides
guidelines for the writing of an opinion piece. Two examples of articles in The
Conversation, titled “What underlies public prejudice towards asylum seekers”
(Pedersen & Hartley, 2014) and “What does ‘belief’ in climate change really
mean” (Reser, 2012) are also provided. You can find many more examples at The
Conversation website. A practical to be held in Week 4 of the trimester will
discuss forms of writing in psychology, including communicating with the general
public.
The opinion piece is to be presented in 12-point Times New Roman font
(black), with 2.5 cm margins and sized for A4 paper. Referencing is to use APA
style, and a references list should be provided at the end of the opinion piece, but
does not contribute to the word count. It is submitted together with Part A of the
assignment as one document in .pdf format with the filename as follows:
PSYC200_Topic Number (from list)_Surname_Firstname.pdf. Only one title page is
needed and should give the name of the topic you are addressing. You may create your
own title for the opinion piece, which is included at the top of the first page of Part B.
Topic list. Each topic (except Topic 5) is accompanied by an example and includes a
Choose one suggested reading from Social and Personality Psychology Compass. This is a
of the journal that presents summaries of areas of recent research and/or theory, and is a
following: good starting point when coming to grips with a new topic. I am suggesting these
articles simply as a starting point for your reading and do I do not recommend that
you include them in your annotated bibliography.
1. What is the relationship between intention and behaviour? Choose a topic
where people might have good intentions that they do not carry through, and
apply research findings to shed light on it.
 For example, people often make a New Year’s resolution to get fit,
get slim, or study hard during the year to come. What are the
factors involved in carrying through on that resolution?
 Suggested reading: Sheeran, P. & Webb, T. L. (2016). The
intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 10(9), 503-518.
2. Choose a group that is a target of prejudice in Australia, and discuss from a
social psychological perspective how to increase liking for that group.
 For example, given the current global climate of negativity towards
immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, how can we
encourage local residents to respond positively to immigrants from
Muslim-majority countries when they first arrive in Australia?
 It would help to read the section in your textbook titled “How can
prejudice be reduced?” pp. 460-467
 There are many prejudice-reduction methods, one of which is
perspective-taking. Suggested reading: Todd, A. R., & Galinsky,
A. D. (2014). Perspective‐Taking as a Strategy for Improving
Intergroup Relations: Evidence, Mechanisms, and
Qualifications. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7),
374-387.
3. What are the effects of making an apology? You may choose a particular
instance or circumstance, or may talk more generally about apology, and
consider from the social psychology research literature (i) how to elicit the
most forgiveness; and / or (ii) what its effects would be.
 For example, sometimes a transgressor is required to write a letter
 of apology for an act. What should the letter say to have maximum
impact?
 For example, in the national context, from a social psychological
perspective, what are the effects of an event such as Australia’s
2008 apology to the Indigenous Australian “stolen generation”?
 Suggested reading: Blatz, C. W., & Philpot, C. (2010). On the
outcomes of intergroup apologies: A review. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 4(11), 995-1007.
4. Effects of implicit bias. Implicit bias can influence people’s behaviour outside
their conscious control, and can have very serious effects. One example is the
tragic shooting of Amidou Diallo, in the USA, which we discussed in Lecture 3.
You should choose a particular implicit bias and consider how its effects could
be reduced.
 For example, how can we reduce the effects of implicit bias in
policing?
 Suggested reading: Spencer, K. B., Charbonneau, A. K., & Glaser,
J. (2016). Implicit bias and policing. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 10(1), 50-63.
5. You may determine your own topic, but it must be approved by the unit
coordinator. If you wish to do this, contact Sue Watt before March 31 to
discuss your topic (sooner is better than later!).
Marking Part B of the assignment will be assessed according to level of achievement
criteria: in the following criteria (you will receive one overall set of comments for Part B):
Topic and thesis: (out of 18 marks)
 The topic is clearly defined
 An argument or central thesis relevant to the topic is developed
 There is evidence of original, critical thinking
Research findings: (out of 17 marks)
 The opinion piece is grounded in up-to-date solid research (i.e., not flimsy
findings). As part of this criterion, the research must be published in
journals that are indexed in the Psychology databases PSYCINFO,
PSYCARTICLES, or Proquest Psychology
(http://une.au.libguides.com/psychology_databases).
 At least three studies that were tabulated in the annotated bibliography are
 cited
 An opinion emerges from the research findings; that is, it is based on the
research findings
Style: (out of 20 marks)
 There is an interesting and relevant title
 An opening “hook” is used in the first sentence to capture the reader’s
attention
 There is a strong ending that has been foreshadowed by preceding
statements
 A coherent and on-topic argument is developed
 A clear and engaging style is used
 The opinion piece is presented in 12-point Times New Roman font, with
2.5 cm margins sized for A4 paper
 A penalty of up to 3 marks will be deducted from the overall mark for the
assignment for incorrect spelling and grammar in this section.
 A penalty of up to 3 marks will deducted from the overall mark for the
assignment for exceeding the word count for this section.

Additional assessment requirements

 Students are required to successfully complete the Academic Integrity Module prior to
submitting assignment
 I recommend you do a Turnitin Originality Self-Check (link is available in the "Assignment
Help" section to the right of this screen). Assignments will be checked for plagiarism using
Turnitin when they are submitted.
 Late assignments are penalised at 2% of the assessment task’s identified value per day for
two weeks (maximum deduction of 28%) after which a mark of zero is recorded. Late
assignments are returned with reduced feedback
 Extensions are granted subject to BCSS’s Extensions and Late Penalties Policy at
http://www.une.edu.au/about-une/academic-schools/bcss/current-students/assignment-
information. If you need an extension, please complete the extension request form located
under “Assessments” on the PSYC200 Moodle site and forward it to the email address
specified on the form.
Communications Program
www.hkscommunicationsprogram.org
Twitter: @hkscommprog

HOW TO WRITE AN OP-ED OR COLUMN

An op-ed piece derives its name from originally having appeared opposite the editorial page in a newspaper. Today, the
term is used more widely to represent a column that represents the strong, informed, and focused opinion of the writer on
an issue of relevance to a targeted audience.

Distinguishing Characteristics of an Op-Ed or Column

Partly, a column is defined by where it appears, but it shares some common characteristics:

• Typically, it is short, between 750 and 800 words.

• It has a clearly defined point.
• It has a clearly defined point of view.
• It represents clarity of thinking.
• It contains the strong, unique voice of the writer.

Questions to Ask Yourself When Writing an Op-Ed or Column

• Do I have a clear point to make?

• What is it?
• Who cares? (Writing with a particular audience in mind can inform how you execute your column. Who is it that
you are trying to convince? Why are you targeting that specific reader?)
• Is there substance to my argument?

Topic and Theme

Every successful op-ed piece or column must have a clearly defined topic and theme.

• Topic: the person, place, issue, incident, or thing that is the primary focus of the column. The topic is usually
stated in the first paragraph.
• Theme: another level of meaning to the topic. What’s the big, overarching idea of the column? What’s your point?
Why is your point important? The theme may appear early in the piece or it may appear later when it may also
serve as a turning point into a deeper level of argument.

Research

While columns and op-ed pieces allow writers to include their own voice and express an opinion, to be successful the
columns must be grounded in solid research. Research involves acquiring facts, quotations, citations, or data from
sources and personal observation. Research also allows a reader to include sensory data (touch, taste, smell, sound, or
sight) into a column. There are two basic methods of research:

• Field research: going to the scene, interviews, legwork; primary materials, observations, and knowledge
• Library, academic, or internet research: using secondary materials, including graphs, charts, and scholarly articles

Openings

The first line of an op-ed is crucial. The opening “hook” may grab the reader’s attention with a strong claim, a surprising
fact, a metaphor, a mystery, or a counter-intuitive observation that entices the reader into reading more. The opening also
briefly lays the foundation for your argument.

Endings
Every good column or op-ed piece needs a strong ending which has some basic requirements. It:

• Echoes or answers introduction

• Has been foreshadowed by preceding thematic statements
• Is the last and often most memorable detail
• Contains a final epiphany or calls the reader to action

There are two basic types of endings. An “open ending” suggests rather than states a conclusion, while a “closed ending”
states rather than suggests a conclusion. The closed ending in which the point of the piece is resolved is by far the most
commonly used.

Voice

Having a strong voice is critical to a successful column or op-ed piece. Columns are most typically conversational in tone,
so you can imagine yourself have a conversation with your reader as you write (a short, focused conversation). But the
range of voice used in columns can be wide: contemplative, conversational, descriptive, experienced, informative,
informed, introspective, observant, plaintive, reportorial, self-effacing, sophisticated, humorous, among many other
possibilities.

Sometimes what voice you use is driven by the publication for which you are writing. A good method of perfecting your
voice is to get in the habit of reading your column or op-ed out loud. Doing so gives you a clear sense of how your piece
might sound – what your voice may come off as – to your intended reader.

Revision Checklist

Some things to remember as you revise your op-ed or column before you submit it for publication:

• Check clarity.
• Check coherence and unity.
• Check simplicity.
• Check voice and tone. (Most are conversational; some require an authoritative voice.)
• Check direct quotations and paraphrasing for accuracy.
• Check to make sure you properly credit all sources though formal citations are not necessary.)
• Check the consistency of your opinion throughout your op-ed or column.

Resources

Below are links to some online resources related to op-ed and column writing:

The Op-Ed Project (http://www.theopedproject.org) is a terrific resource for anyone looking to strengthen their op-ed
writing. It provides tips on op-ed writing, suggestions about basic op-ed structure, guidelines on how to pitch op-ed pieces
to publications, and information about top outlets that publish op-eds. Started as an effort to increase the number of
women op-ed writers, The Op-Ed Project also regularly runs daylong seminars around the country.

“How to W rite an Op-Ed Article” (http://newsoffice.duke.edu/duke_resources/oped), which was prepared by

David Jarmul, Duke's associate vice president for news and communications, provides great guidelines on
how to write a successful op-ed.

”How to Write Op-Ed Columns” (http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/pressroom/media_outreach/OpEdGuide.doc),

which was prepared by The Earth Institute at Columbia University, is another useful guide to writing op-eds. It contains a
useful list of op-ed guidelines for top-circulation newspapers in the U.S.

“And Now a Word from Op-Ed” (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/opinion/01SHIP.html?pagewanted=all) offers some

advice on how to think about and write op-eds from the Op-Ed editor of The New York Times.

The Harvard Kennedy School Communications Program regularly runs workshops on writing op-eds and columns as well
as classes focusing on the topic. You can find out more about these by checking the HKS Communications Program’s
website (http://www.hkscommunicationsprogram.org).
(Seglin, August, 2012)
2/6/2017 What underlies public prejudice towards asylum seekers?

Academic rigour, journalistic flair

What underlies public prejudice towards asylum seekers?

May 12, 2014 11.47am AEST

Authors

Anne Pedersen
Associate Professor in Psychology,
Murdoch University

Lisa Hartley
Lecturer, Centre for Human Rights
Education, Curtin University

Many Australians feel the government should maintain a tough policy on asylum seekers who arrive by
boat. Hadi Zader/Flickr, CC BY

According to a poll taken last December, 60% of those surveyed think the Australian government
should “increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers”. What’s behind this negative
sentiment (otherwise known as prejudice) towards asylum seekers in Australian society?“

One very important and consistent predictor of prejudice is the acceptance of inaccurate information,
or myths, as true. A 2006 study, carried out by one of this article’s authors, identified three frequently
cited myths that depicted asylum seekers as "queue jumpers”, “illegals” and not having a genuine
reason to seek asylum. This study found that people who were high in prejudice were significantly
more likely to accept these myths as being true.

These beliefs have been linked with government rhetoric about asylum seekers under the previous
Howard government. Under the Abbott government, there has been no shortage of hostile rhetoric.
The punitive asylum seeker policies of the Labor government under Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd
have also continued.

The ugly side of nationalism and perceptions of consensus

Some research links extreme levels of nationalism to prejudice towards asylum seekers. In one study
into the phenomenon of flying Australian flags on one’s car for Australia Day, researchers from the
University of Western Australia and Curtin University surveyed 501 people in public spaces in the
week leading up to and on Australia Day in 2011.

http://theconversation.com/what­underlies­public­prejudice­towards­asylum­seekers­23974 1/3
2/6/2017 What underlies public prejudice towards asylum seekers?

The study found car­flag flyers rated more highly on measures of patriotism and nationalism and
were significantly more likely to express prejudiced views against asylum seekers than non­flag flyers.
Of those who flew flags, only 9.9% held positive views towards asylum seekers, compared to 24.7% of
non­flag flyers.

Research suggests a correlation between nationalism and prejudice against asylum seekers. Flickr/Brian Costelloe, CC BY

We have found that people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers are also notably more
likely to over­estimate support in the community for these views compared with those more accepting
of asylum seekers.

A 2008 study carried out by one of the authors found while both groups over­estimated their support
in the community, the effect was much more pronounced among people holding prejudiced views.

This finding is of concern because other research finds people who see themselves as having a
“majority voice” are more likely to be vocal and less flexible in their views than others who see
themselves as having a “minority voice”.

People who seek to be tolerant and accepting of asylum seekers often find it difficult to speak out. This
compounds the problem: prejudiced people’s influence can be disproportionate to their numbers.

The role of emotion

In addition to these cognitive factors that underlie prejudice, some studies indicate community views
about asylum seekers are strongly linked with emotions. Research in 2010 found people who are
positive towards asylum seekers are more likely to feel empathy for them, to feel moral outrage at their
situation and to express disgust and embarrassment at Australia’s policy stance.

Our recent unpublished study found people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers were
more likely to feel threatened by them. This was the case in regard to perceived threats to both security
and “Australian values”.
http://theconversation.com/what­underlies­public­prejudice­towards­asylum­seekers­23974 2/3
2/6/2017 What underlies public prejudice towards asylum seekers?

Prejudiced participants were also more likely to be angry at asylum

seekers for their mode of entry. Once emotions are involved, the issue
becomes even more difficult to resolve.

Participants were significantly more prejudiced against asylum seekers

who arrive by boat compared with refugees who were accepted offshore
and resettled through Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program.
So, although racism – prejudice based on race – is clearly involved, it is
not the whole story.

Countering the myths that fuel prejudice

The fact our participants were more negative towards boat arrivals
relates to a myth touched on above: “queue jumping”. The term queue
implies that an orderly resettlement process exists, but this is far from
reality.

It may also be the case many Australians are quite sensitive to what they Hostile rhetoric from our politicians can build prejudice against
asylum seekers. AAP/Daniel Munoz
see as rule­breaking. Our 2012 study on prejudice against Muslim
Australians found a strong predictor of resentment was a perceived lack
of conformity with Australian culture. Asylum seekers are often seen as Muslim even though they
come from a range of religions, including Christianity and Hinduism.

Our finding also relates to the “not genuine” myth. Yet, over the last decade, more than 90% of boat
arrivals have been found to be refugees. These myths, among others, need to be refuted if we are to
reduce prejudice.

Levels of prejudice in Australian society can be reduced. Studies of both university students and older
Australians in the community show attitudes can become more positive. This is important, as
individuals can turn into a critical mass that can change social norms and government policy.

 Refugees Asylum seekers Prejudice Political psychology

http://theconversation.com/what­underlies­public­prejudice­towards­asylum­seekers­23974 3/3
2/6/2017 What does 'belief' in climate change really mean?

What does ‘belief’ in climate change really mean?

Academic rigour, journalistic flair

August 10, 2012 2.24pm AEST

V7qbfg8d 1344489256

Many Australians think they have experienced events associated with climate change. AAP Image/Tony McDonough

Where one stands on “climate change” has been such a vexed and often confusing Author
issue, at dinner parties, over coffee, with the taxi driver, and in terms of media
reporting of where the Australian public is at.

A simple reality is that most people are trying to make some reasonable sense of this
seemingly profound threat, quite complex phenomenon, “the science”, and what Joseph Reser
Adjunct Professor, School of Psychology,
seems to be happening in terms of global and local weather patterns and extreme Griffith University

weather events. And the myriad information lines available to us are often not much
help, and the messages often confusing and conflicting. All, of course, further
complicated by the contested politics, the carbon tax, and how to survive a climate
change conversation. Not to mention, of course, the mediated nature of the average person’s
encounters with climate change.

Looking through a psychological window sheds some light on all of this. We are all adaptively hard­
wired to make reasonable sense of possible environmental threats. We keep a “weather eye” on
noteworthy changes, the strange, the curious. When consequential environmental events or changes
take place, we try (and need) to impose some sense and meaning on what is happening and why. We
want to know who, if anyone, was responsible.

Sense making is very much about causal explanation or attribution, in human terms, and in ways
that both answer the question of why and let us feel that we live in a coherent and reasonably ordered,
and not too dangerous or unpredictable world.

http://theconversation.com/what­does­belief­in­climate­change­really­mean­8746 1/4
2/6/2017 What does 'belief' in climate change really mean?

Humans try to impose a sense of meaning on environmental events. We want to know why things happen. AAP

So let’s look at “climate change”. What exactly is it that has been so exhaustively covered by the
media? Is it the phenomenon of changing weather patterns linked to atmospheric gases and their
relative makeup. Is it the implied consequences of such changes? Is it the intertwined environmental,
social, or political issues, or the debate about “the science”?

In this context, language like “attitudes about” or “beliefs in” climate change seems a bit strained. The
issue is whether one accepts the earth’s climate has taken a different direction, influenced by recent
human activities. Related questions are why is this happening, and what can or should be done about
it?

This is where causal attribution ­ and human agency and responsibility ­ comes in. The science tells
us that greenhouse gas emissions have “forced” the changes that are taking place. This sense­
conferring explanation does not suggest that there are not many natural forces and atmospheric
dynamics at play, but it does point to a rather pivotal human influence.

This human agency has real implications in terms of what can be done about this, how the problem
and threat can be best addressed, and whether what is now set in train can be turned around. A level
of human causality and agency also raises issues of responsibility, and a spectrum of emotions,
including deep concern, felt loss, pessimism, and guilt.

We know that when human actions or technology are implicated in environmental changes, or
disturb “natural” processes, the risk and danger becomes more elevated, more disturbing, more

http://theconversation.com/what­does­belief­in­climate­change­really­mean­8746 2/4
2/6/2017 What does 'belief' in climate change really mean?

sinister. Climate change has something of this hybrid natural/technological disaster character, with
human society likely poised to reap a bitter harvest and a dramatically altered environment.

But back to the starting question. What are we talking about when we talk about climate change?
Documentaries like the ABC’s “I can change your mind about climate” tell us that “everyone agrees
that climate is warming” and within a minute or two that “50% of Australians do not believe that
climate change is happening.”

Is this reasonable, logically or psychologically? When people are discussing climate change, is the
subject matter climate variability or contemporary, anthropogenic climate change? Would we really
be having all of these discussions and debate about climate variability?

When humans are implicated in environmental change, the risk becomes more sinister. shek graham/Flickr

Why does this matter? When researchers are examining public risk perceptions and understandings
about climate change, how they’re changing, and the psychological and social impacts that the threat
of climate change might be having, it doesn’t make sense to ask whether respondents believe in or
accept climate variability, and to treat the matter of human causality as something quite different.

It also does not make much sense to ask about or frame an individual’s risk perceptions or
understandings in terms of believing or not believing in climate change, or asking whether climate
change is exclusively caused by natural processes or by human activities and impacts. This latter has
never been the climate change science question.

The great majority of our survey respondents, across two very substantial national surveys (N=7443
in total) accepted that climate change was happening (74%), and that its impacts were currently
being felt in Australia (52%). As well, 45% reported personally encountering environmental changes

http://theconversation.com/what­does­belief­in­climate­change­really­mean­8746 3/4
2/6/2017 What does 'belief' in climate change really mean?

they thought were likely due to climate change, and 59% thought where they lived was vulnerable to
the impacts of climate change.

When asked about the respective contributing roles of human activity impacts and natural causes in
contemporary climate change, 84% said it was a combination of both.

So why is this matter and language of climate change “belief” so emotion­laden and polarising? Is it
that this is a particularly disturbing threat and looming global disaster? Is it because such questions
are not really about climate change per se, but about how we see ourselves, our political and social
identity, and our own relationship with and felt responsibility for this shared world in which we live?
Do responses reflect a new form of political correctness, depending on one’s party affiliation?

Many psychologists would argue that there is a good deal of defence and “terror management” taking
place with respect to the spectre of climate change, with the world views and belief systems of some
being rather badly shaken by current scientific assessments and projections, and frantically shored
up, by discrediting the science, the scientists, and confronting documentaries.

The debate and conversational footwork about “where one stands” will continue, but our survey
findings are actually very reassuring. They tell us that the Australian public by and large is making
very reasonable and adaptive sense out of the somewhat chaotic and contradictory picture of climate
change.

They are mostly very concerned, think that it is very important, feel a personal responsibility to be
doing something about their own carbon footprint, and want their government to take clear and
effective policy measures. They are taking action, trying to make a difference, and in the process
reframing how they see themselves, their environment, and climate change.

This sounds more like psychological and behavioural adaptation to me than a matter of belief or
conviction. It is a coming to terms with and acceptance of a significantly altered world and climate
regime that we bear some responsibility for.

_The final report from the ARGP Project: Public Risk Perceptions, Understandings and Responses to
Climate Change in Australia and Great Britain is now available for download from the NCCARF
website.

 Climate change Psychology Climate change and public opinion

http://theconversation.com/what­does­belief­in­climate­change­really­mean­8746 4/4