Public perceptions of geoengineering.

In the face of unrelenting climate change and insufficient mitigation, experts are increasingly considering using geoengineering - carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management - to manipulate the Earth's climate. So far, most laypeople are unaware of geoengineering, and many are resistant to these technologies when told about them. A growing literature finds that these initial reactions are tied to psychological traits, beliefs, and identities including trust in the actors involved, political and social identities, beliefs about tampering with the natural world, and perceived trade-offs between geoengineering and alternative approaches. Finally, given the lack of existing knowledge of geoengineering, public acceptance is highly susceptible to how these technologies are framed, offering both risks and opportunities for climate communication.

Public perceptions of federal science advisory boards depend on their composition.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides expert advice to inform agency decision-making. Recent regulations have decreased the representation of academic scientists on the EPA SAB and increased the representation of industry scientists. In an experiment, we asked how the US public views the goals and legitimacy of the board as a function of its composition. Respondents perceived SABs with a majority of industry scientists to be more likely to promote business interests than SABs with a majority of academic scientists. Liberals were less likely than conservatives to perceive industry-majority SABs as promoting human health and the environment, and making unbiased and evidence-based decisions. Our findings underscore the potential for politicization of scientific advice to the government.

Industry-Dominated Science Advisory Boards Are Perceived To Be Legitimate But Only When They Recommend More Stringent Risk Management Policies.

In 2017, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was criticized for two controversial directives that restricted the eligibility of academic scientists to serve on the agency's key science advisory boards (SABs). The EPA portrayed these directives as necessary to ensure the integrity of the SAB. Critics portrayed them as a tactic by the agency to advance a more industry-friendly deregulatory agenda. With this backdrop, this research examined board composition and its effect on the perceived legitimacy of risk management recommendations by the SAB. In an experiment, we presented participants with hypothetical EPA SABs composed of different proportions of academic and industry scientists. We then asked participants to rate their satisfaction with, and the legitimacy of, these boards in light of their decisions in scenarios based on actual EPA SAB deliberations. Participants perceived higher levels of satisfaction and legitimacy when SABs made more stringent risk management recommendations. While SABs dominated by industry scientists were perceived to be more strongly motivated to protect business interests, we found no effect of board composition on perceptions of satisfaction and legitimacy. These results are consistent with prior research on decision quality that suggests people use normative outcomes as a heuristic for assessing the quality of deliberations. Moreover, these results suggest that members of the public are supportive of federal SABs regardless of their composition, but only if they take actions that are consistent with normative expectations.

The Aversion to Tampering with Nature (ATN) Scale: Individual Differences in (Dis)comfort with Altering the Natural World.

People differ in their comfort with tampering with the natural world. Although some see altering nature as a sign of human progress, others see it as dangerous or hubristic. Across four studies, we investigate discomfort with tampering with the natural world. To do so, we develop the Aversion to Tampering with Nature (ATN) Scale, a short scale that is the first to directly measure this discomfort. We identify six activities that people believe tamper with nature (geoengineering, genetically modified organisms, pesticides, cloning, gene therapy, and nanoparticles) and show that ATN scores are associated with opposition to these activities. Furthermore, the ATN Scale predicts actual behavior: donations to an anti-tampering cause. We demonstrate that ATN is related to previously identified constructs including trust in technology, naturalness bias, purity values, disgust sensitivity, aversion to playing God, and environmental beliefs and values. By illuminating who is concerned about tampering with nature and what predicts these beliefs, the ATN Scale provides opportunities to better understand public opposition to technological innovations, consumer preferences for "natural" products, and strategies for science communication.

Will Millennials save the world? The effect of age and generational differences on environmental concern.

Are younger people, defined by age, or younger generations, defined by cohort-level measures, more concerned about declines in environmental health when compared to their older counterparts within the United States? Related, are these same people more willing to support policy actions aimed at preventing future losses when compared to older adults? In spite of reporting by the U.S. popular press about the heightened environmental consciousness of Millennials, prior research offers conflicting answers. Scholarship focusing on age effects suggests that the answer to both questions is yes due to the dampening of environmental concern and action in older adults. More recent applied research on climate related risks and risk management options, by contrast, suggest that the answer to both questions is no, and that there is no difference in climate concern and risk mitigation between younger and older adults. In an attempt to disentangle these contradictory viewpoints, we undertook a study in which respondents in the United States characterized by age and generational cohort were presented with small and large hypothetical losses due to climate change. These same participants were then asked to indicate their support for future policy actions aimed at stemming these environmental losses. Overall, our data does not indicate that younger generations experience potential losses as more acute than older generations; neither age nor generational cohort correlated with the perceived severity of environmental losses nor support for future actions to prevent them. More robust predictors of both dependent variables were environmental value orientations (biospherism) and self-reported political orientation.

Cognitive and Interpersonal Features of Intellectual Humility.

Four studies examined intellectual humility-the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs might be wrong. Using a new Intellectual Humility (IH) Scale, Study 1 showed that intellectual humility was associated with variables related to openness, curiosity, tolerance of ambiguity, and low dogmatism. Study 2 revealed that participants high in intellectual humility were less certain that their beliefs about religion were correct and judged people less on the basis of their religious opinions. In Study 3, participants high in intellectual humility were less inclined to think that politicians who changed their attitudes were "flip-flopping," and Study 4 showed that people high in intellectual humility were more attuned to the strength of persuasive arguments than those who were low. In addition to extending our understanding of intellectual humility, this research demonstrates that the IH Scale is a valid measure of the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs are fallible.

The Promise and Limitations of Using Analogies to Improve Decision-Relevant Understanding of Climate Change.

To make informed choices about how to address climate change, members of the public must develop ways to consider established facts of climate science and the uncertainties about its future trajectories, in addition to the risks attendant to various responses, including non-response, to climate change. One method suggested for educating the public about these issues is the use of simple mental models, or analogies comparing climate change to familiar domains such as medical decision making, disaster preparedness, or courtroom trials. Two studies were conducted using online participants in the U.S.A. to test the use of analogies to highlight seven key decision-relevant elements of climate change, including uncertainties about when and where serious damage may occur, its unprecedented and progressive nature, and tradeoffs in limiting climate change. An internal meta-analysis was then conducted to estimate overall effect sizes across the two studies. Analogies were not found to inform knowledge about climate literacy facts. However, results suggested that people found the medical analogy helpful and that it led people-especially political conservatives-to better recognize several decision-relevant attributes of climate change. These effects were weak, perhaps reflecting a well-documented and overwhelming effect of political ideology on climate change communication and education efforts in the U.S.A. The potential of analogies and similar education tools to improve understanding and communication in a polarized political environment are discussed.