Running head: THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING?

Annotated Bibliography

The Climate Game: Why Arent We Acting? Lets Talk Psychology.

Anne Wade
UWRT 1103
October 24, 2016

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING?

Achenbach, J. (2015, March 15). Why do many reasonable people doubt science. Retrieved
October 13, 2016, from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/sciencedoubters/achenbach-text
In his article Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? National Geographic
author Joel Achenbach investigates the psychological and social reasons that the public
rejects sound scientific discoveries. Achenbach looks at the history of doubt, from
heliocentric theory to modern day controversies surrounding climate change. Achenbach
cites nave beliefs and confirmation bias as reasons that generally intelligent people
ignore new discoveries (Achenbach, 2015). He states that humans tend to believe stories
rather than statistics and that average people suffer from a science communication
problem that keeps them from seeking to understand ideas that they view as too
complex (Achenbach, 2015). This source is incredibly useful and comes from a reliable
institution. Of course, National Geographic, being a magazine centered around the
appreciation of nature and history, is inherently biased against climate change deniers.
The goal of this source is to relate relevant and useful information to a curious public. It
allows those who believe in climate change to see why those on the opposing side of the
argument act in the way that they do. This source advocates for understanding and
provides specific psychological terms to explain behaviors. Unlike some of the other
sources, this source is written in a manner that is relatable and easy to understand and
use. This source will likely be very helpful. It provides specific information in an
educated and objective manner that can be used to support my overarching argument that
psychology and climate change inaction are inexorably linked. This source is a useful
starting place for research that will ultimately become more complex and scientific. This

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING?

article was, in fact, the starting point of my research, a gateway to the topic that I
eventually decided to research. I am likely to include information from this resource in
my final product.
Balukjian, B. (2014, November 19). Why doesn't everyone believe humans are causing climate
change. Retrieved October 13, 2016, from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/climate-change-acceptance/
Brad Balukjian, a writer for PBSs Nova Next, argues that a wisdom deficit is
responsible for the general publics distrust of the scientific discoveries surrounding
climate change (Balukjian, 2014). Balukjian describes the research efforts of Michael
Ranney and Dan Kahan, both respected scientists from UC Berkley and Yale University,
respectively. These scientists believe that the wisdom deficit is also impacted by the
politicization of the topic of climate change in general discourse. This source is
incredibly useful and very reliable, coming from PBSs well respected NOVA Next
website (which provides additional information for the NOVA television program). This
source, like the National Geographic article, is inherently biased against climate change
deniers because it is a program devoted to understanding and respecting the natural
world. The ultimate goal of this source is to educate and provide clarification about the
actions taken by the American Congress as pertaining to climate change legislation. This
source is easily understandable and is enjoyable to read, as compared to some of the more
complicated articles contained within my research. This source is very helpful to me
because it provides insight into the reasons behind public policy decisions and provides
some information on the politics of climate change legislation. It also introduces the idea
of the wisdom deficit which is a topic that I will want to elaborate on in my paper. This

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING?

article forced me to approach the problems with climate legislation as multifaceted, not
only based on psychology, but also on the availability of information. I am very likely to
include this source in my final product.
Chen, X. (2014). Why are we reluctant to act immediately on climate change? From ontological
assumptions to core cognition. Perspectives on Science, 22(4), 574-592.
doi:10.1162/posc_a_00150
In his article Why Are We Reluctant to Act Immediately on Climate Change? From
Ontological Assumptions to Core Cognition Xiang Chen argues that climate change
inaction is based on a misunderstanding of the basic scientific facts surrounding the topic.
He claims that this misunderstanding is based on a belief that heat is a material-like
object (Chen, 2014). This object bias causes human beings to view climate change in
a way that is very different from actual fact (Chen, 2014). In fact, Chen relates that many
students (even graduate students at MIT) do not understand the complex workings of the
earth. Instead, they believe that the earth works like a basic machine with an input and an
output that is instantaneous. They forget that all systems of the earth are interconnected
and hard to predict. This article is a very useful and seemingly reliable resource. The
explanations of a rather complex idea are well-supported by relevant data. This source is
likely biased against those who do not believe in climate change, but is extremely factual
and attempts to be as objective as possible. The goal of this source is to communicate one
mans well-researched opinion on the idea of climate change inaction (what Chen calls
the wait and see problem). This source is harder to understand than some of the other
sources because of the wealth of scientific facts and statistics. Overall, Chens article is
very helpful to me. It offers a different perspective on the problem of climate change

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING?

inaction, attributing the problems to an object bias. It also supports the idea of the
wisdom deficit mentioned in several of the other sources. Additionally, this article
forced me to consider another way of thinking, while also giving me the information that
I needed in order to support one of the key parts of my argument.
Climate Access. (2011). Retrieved October 18, 2016, from http://climateaccess.org/
This website is a conglomeration of different articles from various climate-based
organizations across the country and the world. The overarching purpose is to place all
relevant information about climate change research and activities in one easy to reach
resource for the benefit of interested parties. The site has over 2,000 contributors from 57
countries around the world and is updated with relevant information on a daily basis. This
site also includes contact information for various organizations devoted to improving
climate change awareness and provides networking and collaboration resources for these
organizations. This site is a reliable resource because of the depth and variety of the
information provided. All of the organizations cited are valid organizations and the
articles are relevant and written formally. Additionally, there are links to various peerreviewed scholarly articles on the topic of climate change which increases the sites
credibility. This site is likely biased against anyone who does not believe that mankind is
responsible for climate change. Because the site is devoted to centralizing information
from various countries, there is likely to be bias against political groups who stand
opposite to a more liberal way of thinking. Overall, this source is useful to me because it
offers a global perspective on a global problem. Much of my research has been centered
around views of climate change in the United States, and this source offers me a much
wider scope to investigate. Also, having a large sum of information about current climate

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING?

action and research, along with contact and activity information on various organizations,
is likely to be helpful in my continued search for understanding. I am likely to use this
source in my final product.
Johnson, D., & Levin, S. (2009). The tragedy of cognition: Psychological biases and
environmental inaction. Current Science, 97(11), 1593-1603.
This article by authors Dominic Johnson and Simon Levin attributes climate change
inaction to inherent biases and an inability for humans to contemplate events that they
believe are too far in the future. The authors cite positive illusions, cognitive dissonance,
fundamental attribution error, prospect theory, and in-group/out-group bias as likely
causes of climate change inaction and explain each bias in a detailed manner (Johnson
and Levin, 2009). One of the most interesting theories that the authors present is the idea
that a desire to remain a part of the in-group keeps people from acting in a productive
manner. In this way, a desire to keep the status quo is what prevents productive change.
This article is incredibly detailed and is very helpful to me as a researcher. It even
provides easy-to-understand charts explaining the complicated terms used by the authors.
It is likely biased against climate change deniers simply because it is an academic paper
on climate change inaction. The goal of this source is to educate the reader in the most
helpful and expedient way possible. The paper is structured in a manner that is easy to
follow and is written in a way that is engaging while also educational. This source is
likely to be referenced often in my paper. It is brilliantly and helpfully written, and is easy
to understand, even for a student with only a basic knowledge of psychology. The
authors arguments are rational and engaging. In fact, the rationality of the arguments

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING?

made me fearful for the future on my first reading. This source provides many new biases
that will complement the data that I have already located in other sources.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research,
8(3), 239-260.
In their article Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the
Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior?, researchers Anja Kollmuss and Julian
Agyeman cite four main reasons for the differences between attitude and behavior as it
pertains to climate change. These four reasons are as follows: direct versus indirect
experiences, normative influences, temporal discrepancy, and attitude-behavior
measurement (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). The direct versus indirect hypothesis
postulates that attitude-behavior discrepancies are caused by a lack of personal
experience as it pertains to a goal. This hypothesis states that learning about climate
change in school is very different from seeing the dead fish in the river (Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002). This source is remarkably useful and seemingly reliable. It provides a
series of easy to understand reasons for climate change inaction. These reasons are then
broken down further in the article. In fact, each reason is provided its own section. This
source is probably biased against climate change deniers, and likely assumes that the
reader supports positive climate change legislation. Comparatively, this source is one of
the most intensive informationally and because of this it will likely be very useful to me.
The specific and intensive information will allow me to further support my arguments
with specific and comprehensive data. This source provides information on the idea of
direct versus indirect experiences which is striking to me and will likely be a large part

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING?

of my argument. Overall, this article forced me to think about my topic in specific pieces
rather than as a whole.
Maibach, E., Kreslake, J., Roser-Renouf, C., Rosenthal, S., Feinberg, G, & Leiserowitz, A.
(2015) Do Americans understand that global warming is harmful to human health?
Evidence from a national survey. Annals of Global Health, 81(3), 396-409. doi:
10.1016/j.aogh.2015.08.010.
In a study from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, authors Maibach,
Kreslake, Roser-Renouf, Rosenthal, Feinberg, and Leiserowitz provide specific data on
the number of average Americans who understand that climate change is bad for human
health. The study reports that most respondents (an overwhelming 61%) had given little
or no thought to how global warming might affect people's health (2015). This study
provides an interesting look, and specific statistical data, for a phenomenon that many of
the other authors merely discuss. This source is both useful and reliable as it originated at
Yale University and is spearheaded by many noteworthy climate scientists. The ultimate
goal of this survey was to provide statistical data for a problem based in psychology. The
Yale researchers wanted to know how average Americans truly felt about climate change,
and then wanted to use their results as a relative wake up call for the scientific
community. This article is fairly objective, though one could argue that the researchers
are biased against those who do not believe in climate change simply because they are
seasoned climate scientists. This source is almost more useful than some of the other
sources because it provides specific statistical data and, because of this, was extremely
helpful to me in my research process. This source provides specific data that is
comparative and trustworthy which will ultimately lend credence to the claims that I

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING?

make throughout my paper. This study actually caused me concern when I first
encountered it simply because of the alarming data it presented, but it is a useful resource
for my project. I intend to cite it in my final paper.