否认论者与气候变暖论者的气候变化阴谋论:意识形态根源、心理关联和环境影响。

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Dylan de Gourville, Karen M Douglas, Robbie M Sutton
{"title":"否认论者与气候变暖论者的气候变化阴谋论:意识形态根源、心理关联和环境影响。","authors":"Dylan de Gourville, Karen M Douglas, Robbie M Sutton","doi":"10.1111/bjop.70035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the current research, we use network analysis to examine the structure, ideological foundations and correlates of climate change conspiracy theories, distinguishing between denialist and warmist beliefs. Denialist beliefs, typically endorsed on the political right, claim that climate change is exaggerated, whereas warmist beliefs, more prevalent on the left, allege the suppression of climate science and the downplaying of climate change. Across four studies, these beliefs showed a weak and unstable positive correlation but were reliably connected via indirect associations with general conspiracy beliefs and negatively through opposing relationships with denial of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) and conservatism. General conspiracy beliefs and denial of ACC were not directly connected but were instead related indirectly through climate-specific conspiracy beliefs: positively via denialist and negatively via warmist. We found no evidence across studies for an association between climate change conspiracy beliefs and indices of non-rational thinking. Finally, denialist beliefs were negatively associated with pro-environmental intentions, environmental concern, policy support and collective guilt, whereas warmist beliefs were positively related to these outcomes, except for environmental concern, where no significant relationship emerged. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing ideological variants of climate change conspiracy beliefs to contextualize their psychological significance and potential impacts.</p>","PeriodicalId":9300,"journal":{"name":"British journal of psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Denialist vs. warmist climate change conspiracy beliefs: Ideological roots, psychological correlates and environmental implications.\",\"authors\":\"Dylan de Gourville, Karen M Douglas, Robbie M Sutton\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjop.70035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the current research, we use network analysis to examine the structure, ideological foundations and correlates of climate change conspiracy theories, distinguishing between denialist and warmist beliefs. Denialist beliefs, typically endorsed on the political right, claim that climate change is exaggerated, whereas warmist beliefs, more prevalent on the left, allege the suppression of climate science and the downplaying of climate change. Across four studies, these beliefs showed a weak and unstable positive correlation but were reliably connected via indirect associations with general conspiracy beliefs and negatively through opposing relationships with denial of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) and conservatism. General conspiracy beliefs and denial of ACC were not directly connected but were instead related indirectly through climate-specific conspiracy beliefs: positively via denialist and negatively via warmist. We found no evidence across studies for an association between climate change conspiracy beliefs and indices of non-rational thinking. Finally, denialist beliefs were negatively associated with pro-environmental intentions, environmental concern, policy support and collective guilt, whereas warmist beliefs were positively related to these outcomes, except for environmental concern, where no significant relationship emerged. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing ideological variants of climate change conspiracy beliefs to contextualize their psychological significance and potential impacts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70035\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在当前的研究中,我们使用网络分析来检验气候变化阴谋论的结构、思想基础和相关因素,区分否认论和变暖论的信仰。否认主义信仰通常得到政治右翼的支持,声称气候变化被夸大了,而温暖主义信仰则在左翼中更为普遍,声称压制气候科学和淡化气候变化。在四项研究中,这些信念表现出微弱且不稳定的正相关,但通过与一般阴谋信念的间接关联而可靠地联系在一起,并通过与否认人为气候变化(ACC)和保守主义的负相关关系而负相关。一般的阴谋信念与否认ACC没有直接联系,而是通过气候特定的阴谋信念间接相关:通过否认论者产生积极影响,通过变暖论者产生消极影响。在所有研究中,我们没有发现气候变化阴谋信念与非理性思维指数之间存在关联的证据。最后,否认主义信念与亲环境意图、环境关注、政策支持和集体内疚呈负相关,而温暖主义信念与这些结果呈正相关,但环境关注与这些结果无显著关系。这些发现强调了区分气候变化阴谋信念的意识形态变体以将其心理意义和潜在影响置于背景下的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Denialist vs. warmist climate change conspiracy beliefs: Ideological roots, psychological correlates and environmental implications.

In the current research, we use network analysis to examine the structure, ideological foundations and correlates of climate change conspiracy theories, distinguishing between denialist and warmist beliefs. Denialist beliefs, typically endorsed on the political right, claim that climate change is exaggerated, whereas warmist beliefs, more prevalent on the left, allege the suppression of climate science and the downplaying of climate change. Across four studies, these beliefs showed a weak and unstable positive correlation but were reliably connected via indirect associations with general conspiracy beliefs and negatively through opposing relationships with denial of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) and conservatism. General conspiracy beliefs and denial of ACC were not directly connected but were instead related indirectly through climate-specific conspiracy beliefs: positively via denialist and negatively via warmist. We found no evidence across studies for an association between climate change conspiracy beliefs and indices of non-rational thinking. Finally, denialist beliefs were negatively associated with pro-environmental intentions, environmental concern, policy support and collective guilt, whereas warmist beliefs were positively related to these outcomes, except for environmental concern, where no significant relationship emerged. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing ideological variants of climate change conspiracy beliefs to contextualize their psychological significance and potential impacts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British journal of psychology
British journal of psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.50%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Psychology publishes original research on all aspects of general psychology including cognition; health and clinical psychology; developmental, social and occupational psychology. For information on specific requirements, please view Notes for Contributors. We attract a large number of international submissions each year which make major contributions across the range of psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信