The Psychology of our Responses to Climate Change
by Sophie Fleet
Over the last few years, waves of harrowing climate footage have swept the media. A polar bear dragging its skeletal body across a barren and iceless landscape. Colossal surges of water, tearing through Himalayan towns and villages, everything from trees to houses swept up by the destructive rampage. Or thick black smoke, broken by flickers of red as vibrant forest ecosystems are enveloped by darkness. People watch this, perhaps with a pang of sadness, then return to their everyday lives of indifference. It can feel impossible to understand how they cannot care.
Nepal/Tibet Glacier Collapse Flood - August 2026 - image The Guardian/Navesh Chitrakar/Reuters
However, I believe that, as a whole, we do care. In order to understand why compassion often fails to translate into tangible climate action, we need to understand how our brains are wired against us. This article seeks to unpick the psychology of our responses to climate change and how we can use this psychology to drive action and progress.
In order to comprehend the psychology of climate denial and inaction, we first need an awareness of the means by which we form opinions and beliefs. According to dual process theory popularised by Daniel Kahneman’s ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’1, the process of decision and judgement-making can be divided into two systems. System1 is efficient but reckless, whereas System2 is rational yet lazy. When faced with a new situation, System1 works rapidly, activating a variety of related concepts, from ideas to emotions, in an associative network of concept connections. This associative network, formulated throughout our life, is remarkably unique to us and our own experiences, with inherent bias as the consequence. The activations ripple out from the focal idea ‘epicentre’ like seismic waves in an earthquake.
Examples of System 1 & System 2. Mclntyre, Peter. “52 Concepts To Add To Your Cognitive Toolkit.” Peter Mclntyre. N.p., 30 Dec. 2015. Web. 23 Sept. 2016
Based on this process, System1 arrives at a conclusion, which, unable to consider alternatives, it views as undoubtedly correct. System2, our conscious self, can then review the conclusion of System1. However, its lazy temperament usually results in acceptance of the decision, without critical consideration.
Applied to opinion formation2, when faced with information, System1 initiates intuitive emotional processing, via the associative network, forming an initial belief. Whilst this belief can then be analytically considered by rational System2, in cases where the belief aligns with our network of both self and the social groups we belong to, this step is often bypassed. Whilst our beliefs often feel like objective, indisputable fact, unpicking the psychology shows how initial information has been subjectively distorted from the lens of our own unique personal experiences. In the context of climate change, a 2025 study into the attitudes of European farmers towards climate change found that 42% of non-farmers believe climate change is primarily human caused compared to just ~32% of farmers3. This is in spite of the tangible results of climate change being experienced in the crop yields of farmers, with the majority of European countries set to see declines in cereal and crop production in 20264. Perhaps this suggests that farmers reject the notion of anthropogenic climate change and its long lasting repercussions, not because they doubt or misunderstand the data, but rather acceptance threatens their sense of self, economic stability and culture.2
A dried-out field of maize crops in Tarn-et-Garonne, France in August 2026. Credit: Abaca Press / Alamy Stock Photo
Our values also play a critical role in our predisposition to certain beliefs. In regards to climate change, there are four essential values whose importance to an individual can be powerful indicators of receptibility to climate science.5 Two of these values influence the extent to which an individual is driven by the personal consequences of their actions: hedonic values which strive for pleasure and ease, and egoistic values which seek resources and assets. Conversely, the other two values influence the extent to which an individual is motivated by collective cost and benefit: altruistic values, which focus on increasing the welfare of others, and biospheric values, which drive us to protect nature and the environment. None of these values are inherently good or bad and in general, as individuals, we endorse all four to an extent. However, both individuals and cultures with disproportionately strong hedonic and egoistic values are more likely to deny anthropogenic climate change and less likely to engage in climate mitigation actions, particularly when it comes at the cost of money or comfort. There is a general perception of public transport as less comfortable than driving a car, and installing solar panels or adopting a more plant-based diet as expensive. This makes these actions undesirable in the eyes of someone with stronger regard for personal benefit, as opposed to individuals with stronger biospheric values, who tend to be more willing to make the trade off. Environmental self identity loops, where individuals who either recognise they have engaged in or rejected climate action, contribute to the consequent strengthening or weakening of biospheric values. This feeds back into an individual's beliefs about climate change and the extent to which they deny its anthropogenic nature.5
But what happens when our beliefs are challenged?2 The more tightly integrated a belief is to our personal values, and strongly enforced by our social connections (which in turn reinforce our values), the stronger our defense against attack. When the attack resonates deeply, a common response is cognitive dissonance; this is the tension resulting from incoming facts conflicting with pre-existing morals and beliefs. Emotional distress creates a strong urge to dissipate the tension through motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning often displays as biases in the way the aforementioned System1 processes incoming fact attacks.
One example is confirmation bias6, where System1 gives disproportionate weight to information which aligns with our pre-conceived opinion. In the context of climate psychology, this could emerge as a tendency of climate sceptics to both consciously and unconsciously seek out and give higher status to information which is sceptical of climate change. Critically, this issue is perpetuated further by a hyperconnected modern world, rife with misinformation.7 This misinformation varies from narratives denying (anthropogenic) climate change, conspiracy theories about climate change being used to push a nefarious agenda to greenwashing, where fossil fuel and animal agriculture corporations falsely present themselves as environmentally sustainable. Not only does this misinformation solidify the beliefs of climate deniers but is also incredibly confusing to the average person. A 2025 study by the European Union found that 49% of EU citizens8 found it difficult to distinguish between reliable information and disinformation (deliberate misinformation) about climate change on social media.
Two other prominent and interlinked cognitive biases are the present bias, the tendency to prioritise immediate over distant benefit, and the status-quo-bias6, which resists change by sticking to the status quo. Together, these could contribute to attitudes against large-scale, national and international climate action, with people both overvaluing the immediate costs of the investments (renewable energy systems, e.t.c) and deterred by the uncertainty of change.
Whilst there are countless other cognitive biases, affecting our actions unbeknown to the conscious mind, the final bias I want to explore is the halo effect.9 The halo effect is where an initial positive impression of something is generalised to assume the presence of other positive qualities. Applied to the animal agriculture industry, for instance, an individual may see meat as a vital part of their cultural identity, which creates a positive halo, making that individual more susceptible to denial of the role of animal agriculture in anthropogenic climate change. Or another individual, living in a community which is reliant on fossil fuels for the economy may be ‘blind’ to the negative effects.
The Halo Effect explained simply - Berman, Foehl, Trower 2018
Now that we understand the psychology, how can we use it to drive climate action?
Vitally, effective communication begins by targeting the way people form beliefs: through personal values and emotions. If we can frame climate science from this personal lens, emphasising how a stable climate is imperative to what people already care about, from health and livelihood to the future of their children, people tend to be significantly more receptive to the message.2 This is something we can do at a micro-scale, simply with conversations with friends and family. Emphasising the co-benefit of climate actions in ways that are salient for that individual will inevitably go further than insensitive condemnation. In regards to misinformation, calmly explaining why the misinformation isn’t true and filling the gap with the truth, framed to highlight alignment with the values of the individual can minimise the sense of cognitive dissonance and feelings of personal attack.10 However, both of these strategies, whilst hopefully leading to a more receptive attitude to climate science, do not directly address climate inaction.
NRN / Long Mead Foundation Community Day September 25 - image Anna Collins
Among the most effective climate action initiatives, at a local scale, are community projects.5 Not only do these offer co-benefit, by providing social benefits, for example by supporting good mental health, but they also bring together people from a common community, helping to alter beliefs by changing perceptions of social identity and therefore sense of self. This strengthens biospheric actions, which in turn, as mentioned earlier, helps motivate further action, be it at a community or personal level. Whilst these actions alone may seem insignificant, it is their cascading effect which holds promise. Not only in terms of their cumulative impact environmentally on greenhouse gas emissions, but also the wider impression they give to governments and corporations. The people care and they want to see change.
References:
1 - Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. (2012) Penguin Books
2 - Climate Change Denial as Identity Defence: Understanding Resistance Beyond Ignorance - PMC
4 - How this summer’s heat and drought impacted crops in Europe – in six charts - Carbon Brief
5 - Psychology of Climate Change | Annual Reviews
6 - A framework to address cognitive biases of climate change - ScienceDirect
7 - Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review
8- Climate change - June 2025 - - Eurobarometer survey