What? The Earth is Sick? Undergraduate Student Awareness of Environmental Problems: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

A great deal of information about potential catastrophic global change has emerged through multiple media sources in the past several years, yet little change has been forthcoming from the populace at large. To assess penetration and effect of this information, an inductive qualitative study was performed. Nineteen college-aged men and women from a medium-sized Midwestern university participated in three interviews which asked questions relating to their awareness of global climate problems, population size, and personal resource usage. Nine themes emerged from the data, each suggesting that the individuals interviewed were somewhat aware of current and potential problems, yet showed little concern, and were, overall, not invested in changing their behaviors to address the perceived environmental problems. Further research may include a wider demographic sample and questions designed to assess the psychodynamics of participant responses.

As environmental events of increasing magnitude continue to be reported via mass media (e.g., BP oil spill, H1N1 influenza pandemic, rampant wildfires, rising ocean levels and temperatures, changing global weather patterns), the importance of environmental consciousness and responsibility has also begun to gain greater attention within the psychological literature (Beattie, 2010; Feinberg & Willer, 2011; Friedman, 2008; Li et al., 2011; Oskamp, 2000). However, the general U.S. response appears to be mixed (Leiserowitz et al., 2010, 2011), which likely contributes to a lack of clear action (Cosier, 2009). Given the gravity of global climate change and the potential to impact all humans, it is important to more closely examine the apathy and individual awareness of environmental issues as potential factors in lack of action toward environmental activism.

Previous researchers have found that how the message of climate change and related issues is conveyed to the public may be contributing to apathy. Uggla (2008) explains that for the public to understand and accept global warming, there need to be better and more efficient ways of expressing the message; he states the media projects a complex and nuanced message of the problem, when a clear and unambiguous message needs to be spoken. Specific to overpopulation, Howard asserts that technically correct information is released to promote incorrect conclusions, and reduces awareness of the ongoing problem. Similarly, Filho et al. (2010) report that the message of climate change is being given, but incorrectly being given to the public. They assert that the reasons for behavior change are not transmitted in understandable and action-oriented ways, leading to inactivity and a disconnection from cultivation of a necessary sustainable development ethic. Specifically, they contend:

Sustainable development cannot thrive in a context where citizens feel more comfortable with having someone to decide, think, and provide for them. Long-term achievements in sustainable development require individuals who are critical thinkers equipped with the required knowledge, skills, and attitudes that promote action toward sustainable lifestyles. This can only be achieved by a well-planned and implemented educational strategy (p.144).

When individuals do not have “buy in” to the problem, and feel as if it is a message being given vs. taking ownership of the problems and solutions, disconnection occurs. As programs to stimulate increased stewardship are designed and discussed, it will be important for leaders to be open to new innovations and accommodations in the planning process, allowing for development of ideas and increasing individual and collective/public investment (Shandas & Messer, 2008).

Personal experience has also been shown to play a role in shaping individuals' perceptions of environmental issues (Borick & Rabe, 2010; Weber & Stern, 2011), as those who experience firsthand some large-scale environment-related event tend to have beliefs, positive or negative, that greatly differ from the norm. Also, it appears that people who do not “see” the climate change happening in their immediate geographical area do not believe that climate change is occurring and are less aware of an international climate crisis and its personal impact (Borick & Rabe, 2010; Garcia-Mira et al., 2005; Lorenzoni et al., 2006). For example, Lorenzoni et al. (2006) found that individuals from both the United States and Great Britain rarely associated climatic change with local events and overall did not associate climate changes with any of its causes or its solutions. Moser & Dilling (2004) assert that obstacles to environmental action include the nature of environmental concerns being long-term processes, having complexities not easily captured, not posing immediate threat, being a lower priority, and lacking clearly communicated causes and proposed solutions. Internal factors influencing proenvironmental behavior have been cited as motivation, knowledge, values, attitudes, awareness, emotional involvement, and locus of control (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Another aspect that may be influencing proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors is that of affinity for the natural world. Empathy toward (Schultz, 2000), connectedness to (Mayer & Frantz, 2004), secure attachment to (Jordan, 2009), satisfaction with, and investment in (Davis et al., 2011) nature have each been shown to influence environmentally sustainable behavior.

Researchers have also investigated environmental behaviors and awareness within college populations. Shih-Jang (2004) analyzed the effects of an undergraduate course focusing on environmental education, issue investigation-evaluation, and action training on Taiwanese college students. Findings indicate that the course significantly improved the students' “responsible environmental behavior, locus of control, environmental responsibility, intention to act, perceived knowledge of environmental issues, and perceived knowledge of and skills in using environmental action strategies” (p. 44). Der-Karabetian et al. (1996) investigated similar topics with British and U.S. college students and found that higher perception of environmental risk and greater world-minded value orientation are associated with higher levels of environmental activism. Specifically, they assessed risk perception in terms of the participant's emotional and cognitive aspects and found that higher levels of environmental activism were associated with risk perception in terms of emotional aspects (Der-Karabetian et al., 1996). Kirk & Thomas (2003) tested the impact of the Lifestyle Project, an exercise to reach the cause of our environmental problems (i.e., the consumer), at Skidmore College. After the students completed the project, the author found that 81% of them permanently changed their habits to reduce resource use. Student-participants voiced having greater awareness of a wider variety of environmental issues as a result of participation in the project. Specific to the African American collegiate population, Lee's (2008) investigation found that within her sample environmental attitudes were slightly proenvironmental but were lower than those of college students from majority cultures.

Of the existent studies reporting environmental awareness, attitude, and behavior in college students, many focus on a population other than the United States. (Fernandez-Manzanal et al., 2007; Liberty & Wu, 2010; Miiderrisoglii & Altanlar, 2011; Ozil et al., 2008). Further, research within the United States has used quantitative methodology to assess the aforementioned constructs. Authors designed the current study with the idea that use of qualitative research would yield more comprehensive information regarding student perception of environmental awareness. Given the dearth of information regarding U.S. collegiate student awareness and perception of environmental issues, this study sought to explore U.S. collegiate students' knowledge of environmental issues and proenvironmental behavior. The overall primary purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore the dimensions and dynamics of environmental knowledge and behavior, specifically where human impact is concerned. The secondary purpose of this study was to examine awareness of human impact on our climate within a college population. The authors believe that as psychologists and psychologists-in-training, we have an opportunity to foment change and that, as Nance (2009) states, “higher education is the level at which we can weave environmental sustainability into every level of academia and the students will [hopefully] listen and respond (p. 9).” However, the first step should be an assessment of the depth of impact (if any) catastrophic climate models are having on individuals. Thus, the intent of this study is to examine (1) if college age individuals are aware of human-induced climatological problems and to what extent, (2) to investigate beliefs relating to overpopulation, (3) to explore awareness of individual resource usage, and (4) to assess possible ontogenic factors associated with the development of responsible stewardship of the environment.

Methods

Sample and participant selection

One-hundred twenty-two General Psychology students from the University of Central Missouri were asked to complete a form indicating their interest in participating in this study following a brief lecture regarding ecological psychology, global warming/global dimming, and the nature and methodology of this study. Lecture material included a 10-minute definition of global warming, including human-environment interactional factors, anthropogenic effects upon climate and the effects of carbon dioxide and methane on global temperature increase, and global dimming, including the effect of atmospheric particulates on reducing aggregate global temperature. While the lecture remained neutral in tone, citing commonly held scientific beliefs regarding global climate change, the intent was to raise interest enough to participate in the study. Ninety-six students indicated an interest, of whom 19 (10 males and 9 females), ranging in age between 18 and 22 years, met inclusion criteria. To be included, students must have (1) indicated a willingness to participate in this study, (2) had a schedule conducive to participation in this study and (3) endorsed either of the following statements: “I am passionate about the environment” or “I am not passionate about the environment” and endorsed either “I engage in environmentally sustainable behavior” or “I do not engage in environmentally sustainable behavior.” The inclusion criteria were set with the intention of avoiding bias from individuals who may have only been proenvironmental, and to ascertain varied levels of awareness; therefore, we sought to interview people from a wide spectrum of environmental attitudes and behaviors. Given the nature of qualitative research, no predictions or hypotheses were constructed prior to data collection and analysis.

Qualitative interviewing and analysis

Participants engaged in a series of three individual interviews, each designed to address a different component of environmental awareness and action. The first interview was designed to elicit information about awareness of global climate problems, the second to assess awareness of population burdens, and the third to assess awareness of personal resource usage. The interviews consisted of a trained interviewer asking and tape-recording the responses to a series of questions relating to the participants' cognitive and emotional experiences relative to awareness of resource usage and environmental problems. Sample questions, upon which follow-up questions were based, from each of the three interviews follow.

Interview one:

(1) Are you aware of the global warming/global dimming theory?

(2) Do you believe the research supporting the global warming/dimming theory? Why or why not?

(3) What feelings are you experiencing while we are talking about global warming?

(4) What thoughts come up for you as we are talking about global warming?

Interview two:

There are projections that suggest the world population in 2050 will be 9.5 billion people.

(1) What are your thoughts about this projection?

(2) What feelings are you having when thinking of this projection?

(3) What steps (if any) should all humans take regarding these projections?

(4) What are you willing to do about your feelings and beliefs?

Interview three:

(1) How many gallons of water do you use in a day? A week? A month?

(2) Where does your water come from?

(3) Where does your waste water go and how is it processed?

(4) How many kilowatts of electricity do you use in a day? A week? A month?

(5) How is your electricity produced and where?

(6) Do you drink bottled water? Soda?

The interviews were then transcribed and an inductive thematic analysis of the data was employed. Thematic analysis is an exploratory tool used to identify, analyze, and interpret themes and aspects of a research topic (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Stages of this thematic analysis were (1) transcription and rereading of data, (2) initial coding of data, (3) identifying themes, and (4) reviewing and refining themes to create a thematic map of the data set. Through discussion as a research team prior to conducting the interviews with participants, three initial researcher biases were identified: potentially catastrophic climatological forecast models are accurate, unusual change in the climate is human-induced, and individuals have some awareness of environmental issues. An additional bias borne of the interview, transcription, and analysis process was one of researchers' frustration with participants' lack of awareness of environmental problems.

Results

Several themes emerged from the interviews during the data analysis process that describe factors that hold people back or motivate people forward in environmentally responsible behavior.

Awareness of Global Climate Problems

Theme 1: Participants expressed naïve awareness of global climate changes and their contribution to environmental problems. For example, one asked, “Where is this coming from?” Another participant stated, “Um, the Earth is warming up due to heat getting trapped in and warming up the planet and causing many different problems and stuff like that.” Answers were vague and general, and did not seem to be based on scientific evidence or research. It seemed that the bits of information the participants did know had come from various media sources or word of mouth from peers. Many of the participants responded to several questions with the answer, “I don't know,” or gave generic, ambiguous responses.

Theme 2: Participants expressed contradictory thoughts and feelings. For example, one participant stated, “The problem with the environment is natural and happens on its own…we might be causing (Global Warming) but it's not that big of deal in my opinion.” Many participant answers appeared to contradict themselves throughout the interview process. Participants would start out with a particular stance (i.e., human-induced climate problems) and then end the same interview stating that many of the climate problems are natural or part of an earthly cycle. The stated feelings of the participants were also inconsistent throughout the interview process. During some periods of the interviews, participants would indicate remorse or guilt for harming the environment, and at other times these same individuals expressed a more blasé attitude about environmentally damaging behavior. For example, one participant stated, “It's unfortunate that we can't come together and do something that will matter,” then later noted, “I don't talk about this kind of stuff with my friends.” Another shared, “It makes me sad to think that future generations may not have access to the same resources we do now,” then later stated she is uncertain how she could reduce personal resource consumption.

Theme 3: Participants expressed an externalizing locus of control. The word “they” was used by many participants, indicating the problem to be one beyond personal control and responsibility. For example, one participant stated, “I would definitely let them know about it and see in what ways we can change…seeing if they can do something about it.” Another shared, “If it does become that big of a deal then I am sure someone will come up with a plan to fix it or change it.” Some participants expressed a belief that the environmental problems are due to human impact while other participants expressed that the problems are due to natural earth cycles. For example, one participant stated, “I think that it is just natural because there was ice ages before; it's natural for the Earth to be doing what it's doing right now.” The majority of participants made statements that placed the responsibility on others instead of themselves, a theme that ties in with the previous theme of contradictory ideas. It seemed that when the participant realized that as individuals we have not been attending to our environment, he/she would then switch to the idea that these are natural earth cycles or is just what the earth does.

Theme 4: Several participants expressed “should-ing” on the Earth. In other words, participants articulated awareness that actions should be taken to increase environmental stewardship, both by others and personally, while also expressing having taken no action. For example, one participant stated, “I definitely think we should recycle and I definitely think that we should find a way to get our vehicles to stop using gas,” while another participant exclaimed, “I should care more about (the environment), I should do something more about it but I don't really.” Some participants suggested that they should read current research regarding environmental problems to become better informed. The vast majority of participant responses indicated a sense of need to change environmentally toxic behavior, despite also expressing a lack of action toward change.

Theme 5: Several participants expressed a “so what!?” attitude, implying lack of concern for environmental problems. The participants appeared to believe that the problem is not immediately, personally, and painfully relevant. For example, one participant stated, “As long as I'm going to be here, (the environment) will be good for me.” Some participants also expressed that they minimally invested (e.g., not much thinking, no planning, no behavior) to better the environmental problems. For example, one participant said “I don't really think (Global Climate Change is) that big of a deal because I don't think of it that much.” Many expressed that lack of concern stems from believing that major, detrimental impact to the environment and the earth will not be seen in their lifetime. The general theme expressed was a belief that if participants were unable to see bad things happening to the earth then either nothing is happening, or if it is, it does not have personal impact.

Awareness of problematic population size

Theme 6: Participant expression of entitlement. The dominant theme which emerged from a focus on population size was similar to those previously reported, but with a slightly greater investment. It is notable that this particular issue may have been seen as more personal and relevant to many, which likely increased the level of investment. In fact, those who expressed the most extreme views relative to other participants also conveyed that they would feel unhappy and possibly purposeless if they were unable to have children. Particularly, participants expressed stronger feelings regarding having children and maintaining control over the right to do so. For example, one participant stated, “It's my choice to have two kids, I would be upset if someone told me I couldn't have how many kids I wanted”; another expressed, “Freedom to reproduce…it's not written down in the Constitution but that's just a freedom you can't take away from people.” The majority of participants expressed an opinion regarding personal prerogative with childbearing and rearing. Many participants expressed their choice to have children even if the earth were damaged and chaotic.

Awareness of personal resource use

Theme 7: Participant expression of resource usage being comfort-driven. Participants expressed using resources to keep them comfortable. For example, when asked about the environmental business practices of manufacturers of products consumed, one participant stated, “I just drink the stuff I like and if I don't like it I don't buy it, so I don't know if Pepsi or Coke people get rid of their aluminum or what they do with it.” Amount and type of resources consumed served to maintain participants' lifestyles; therefore, reduction of resource usage was deemed unimportant. Another participant stated, “I don't recycle unless I just happen to see a bin.” The notion of being satisfied with current lifestyle was also relevant; one participant shared, “I don't change because I'm comfortable with how I am, and I don't want to change.” Another stated, “One reason I don't change is that it's too inconvenient,” and yet another voiced that environmental change is “not immediate,” which keeps him from taking action.

Theme 8: Participants expressed naïve awareness about type and amount of personal resource usage. Participants appeared largely unaware of the amounts of their personal resource use, and many answered this set of questions by stating, “I don't know.” For example, when asked how many kilowatts of electricity used in a day, several participants responded, “I don't even know, probably a lot,” or made similar statements indicating lack of thought about personal usage. When asked about clothing manufacturers' consumed, and chosen manufacturers' business practices being environmentally sound, multiple participants responded, “I have no idea on either of those questions.” Many participants admitted they had little insight into their own resource consumption and the environmental impact of their consumption.

Theme 9: Expressed lack of concern regarding environmental impact of personal resource usage. Many participants were aware of ways in which they overuse and waste resources, but were not concerned about the consequences of doing so. One participant shared, for example, that he commonly leaves all of the lights on in his home, but gives no thought to what happens as a result of doing so. Another exclaimed, “I do not care where the oil comes from that goes in my car, or where my water comes from; as long as I know it's okay then I don't really care.” Many participants stated that they probably could do a better job at limiting their resource use, but expressed a blasé attitude toward minimizing usage. One participant stated, “Personally, I think I do a pretty good job, I try not to waste too much water; I think I could cut down on gas use, but it's kind of hard sometimes.” Still another participant stated, “It doesn't seem like I need to be doing anything (to curb use of resources) right now.” When queried about obstacles to being concerned, one respondent stated, “Laziness, I guess.” Researchers also found it noteworthy that upon being interviewed about resource usage, the majority of participants made no comments suggesting a need to change behavior by reducing their current resource use.

Discussion

Overall findings

Participants of this study appeared to demonstrate minimal awareness of and concern about global climate problems, population burdens, and personal resource usage. In addition to the overall lack of concern was a noted sense of apathy. One possibility for this apathy could be, as Lertzman (2008) suggests, an underlying sense of fear and grief, borne of feeling overwhelmed by the magnitude of the environmental situation. It may also be a sense of noninvestment due to a belief that the situation will “take care of itself.” Generally, participants appeared complacent about their lack of information regarding current environmental trends and how their behaviors impact the environment. Within the domain of awareness of global environmental problems, the themes of naïve awareness, contradiction of expressed thoughts and feelings, exhibiting an externalized locus of control, expressing that the situation “should be” different, and possessing a blasé attitude emerged from the data. Collectively, these suggest a defensive posture which may be brought about by the magnitude of the problem, or a psychodynamic historical component (i.e., “my parents didn't have to deal with this; I won't have to deal with this”). All of these factors may be indicative of a new form of narcissism, born of fear and fed by convenience. Awareness of a problematic population size yielded an additional theme of participant entitlement. A possibility worth considering is the influence of participant sociocultural values; participant responses may be reflective of affiliations which place value upon family expansion. Within the domain of awareness of personal resource usage, themes of having a naïve awareness of resource usage, resource use being comfort-driven, and a lack of concern regarding resources used emerged from the data. One explanation for the lack of awareness of resource usage is that as college students, especially if living in on-campus residence halls, it may be difficult to track individual usage of utilities, and it likely gets subsumed within other college concerns. Resources on campuses tend to be plentiful, as well, which may simulate a misleading view of the need for resource conservation. Further, there may exist sociocultural forces which might denigrate the importance of being aware of consumed resources.

Many of these themes have been borne out in the existent research. Gifford (2011) describes how conflicting values, goals, and aspirations may lead to ambivalence toward action. This seems to overlap with the theme of contradictory thoughts and feelings identified in the current study; competing thoughts and feelings are not always compatible with each other or environmental action. External locus of control as a barrier to environmental action has also been identified. Those who are better informed about issues and hold higher confidence in government experts feel less responsible for environmental problems; those with an external locus of control feel their actions are insignificant and tend to be less likely to act (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). The sense of entitlement identified in this study is similar to that expressed by at least one participant in Marcus et al.'s (2011) qualitative look at environmentalism in relation to community. Individuals' nonsustainable lifestyle choices have been linked with the desire to maintain a familiar comfort level (Wall, 1995). Even when concern for the environment was present, environmental behaviors were shown to remain low, unless an environmental issue was of immediate personal concern, or the cost of compliance was low enough to maintain perceived comfort level.

Other themes identified in the current research appear to be novel, yet also overlapping. The notion of naïve awareness of both existent environmental problems and of personal resource usage, expression that “things should be different,” and the blasé attitude toward both the existent problems and personal resource usage are themes that college students in this study are expressing. Though this less invested view of the environment is reported elsewhere as a whole (Leiserowitz et al., 2011), the present study takes a first step toward identifying elements of the waning enthusiasm for activism.

If forecasts of catastrophic global climate change are accurate and we, as residents and stewards of our planet, can act to avert said catastrophe, then our first priority should be to present a message that can be heard with the gravity deserved. The current messages being broadcast regarding environmental stewardship appear to not have the impact that is needed to create immediate and dramatic change; therefore, as psychologists and environmental stewards we must work to either change the message or facilitate public understanding of the messages, cultivating environmental awareness and encouraging change. We as psychologists need to explore the best way to deliver a message of environmental urgency, challenge environmentally damaging behavior, and find more effective ways of promoting a message of environmental stewardship. When scientific environmental information is to be dispersed, the potential for misinterpretation is high. Lack of clearly communicated causes for and proposed solutions to environmental change have been cited as obstacles to action (Gifford, 2011; Moser & Dilling, 2004; Weber & Stern, 2011). Additionally, those dispersing the information often have a stake in how the information is reported. An investment in partnership between communication scientists and environmental scientists may increase accuracy of information and aid lay-person understanding (Fischhoff, 2011).

Beyond facilitating message delivery, a need exists to dig beneath the surface and explore the emotional contributors to apathy, which in turn, may be leading to paralyzation. Inactivity may be perpetuated by a reaction of fear, anxiety, or perceived powerlessness (Lertzman, 2008); addressing how these feelings contribute to lack of action, on a public scale, may be useful to stimulate change and lessen the gap between public awareness and environmental action. Further, these emotional elements may also be contributing to the denial of climate change and prevent human connection around the growing issue (Gifford, 2011; Moser, 2007). Rather than side-stepping the emotional components, it may be more helpful to address them head-on. For example, challenging and changing fear-inducing messages which lead to repression or denial will likely aid psychologists and other social scientists in reaching a broader population with the message.

Limitations of the present study

Identified limitations of this study include the sample, researcher bias, and interview question selection. Participants for the study were from one university; further, the university is located in the rural Midwest. Though enrollment in the university is diverse, this sample may not be representative of the broader population within a similar age group elsewhere. Inclusion criteria were denoted earlier as assessing dichotomies between being passionate about the environment or not, and engaging in sustainable behavior or not, which, if utilized in conjunction with the qualitative data, could have yielded important information about those differences; unfortunately, this was beyond the scope of this study. As previously indicated, several researcher biases were identified at the inception of and during the study. In retrospect, it may have been beneficial to address these biases in ongoing research team dialogue, to minimize potential impact on individual interviews and consequent themes derived from interviews. Also important to acknowledge is the potential for participants to have been influenced (positively or negatively) by the introduction lecture prior to becoming enrolled in the study. Additionally, valuable information may have come from interview questions which explored specific ontogenic factors (e.g., family/developmental dynamics) and how these may impact environmental awareness. Questions regarding what students have heard about environmental concerns, and from where they received the information, may also have been of value to the study. As this study was designed to capture individual college student awareness of environmental concerns and action toward reduction of human impact upon the environment, additional questions addressing the gap between the two may have been informative. For example, students who identified some level of awareness but also reported little investment in action could have been queried regarding what they perceive as contributing to apathy.

Suggestions for future research and action

Based upon this exploratory study of environmental awareness among college students, areas for further research are numerous. Foremost of these is finding what may contribute to the low awareness of environmental issues among the college population, a question which may be addressed through both qualitative and quantitative methods.

An investigation of how to better reach the public at large with environmental messages, what specific messages are needed, and what groups should be targeted is also in order. One solution may be to use contextual messages for differing audiences, a notion also discussed by Moser & Dilling (2004), though it seems appropriate to first conduct a more in-depth look at what messages about the environment are currently being received by the collegiate population. Similarly, examination of the quality of proenvironmental messages being presented to the public may be analyzed for off-putting content or tone and intended reaction, thereby increasing effectiveness. As Moser & Dilling (2004) also suggest, increasing the persuasiveness of the message without inducing fear is key. Additionally, it seems important to continue examining what barriers exist to environmentally sustainable action, including the sense of apathy noted in this study; if students at the collegiate level are not motivated to make changes, the impacts may be far-reaching (e.g., child-bearing aged, passing the attitude to future generations). With a continued look at the college population, mixed-methods studies may be poised to more fully investigate students' emotional reactions (e.g., fear, guilt, anger, sadness) to environmental concerns, and how these impact proenvironmental action. Also relevant is the need for psychological research to examine the human impact of, and consequences for, ongoing environmentally toxic behaviors. Further, the continued role for psychologists in the crusade toward environmental action should be evaluated and more clearly delineated, with a look to organization and collaboration across disciplines, with the goal of effectively disseminating information and catalyzing sustainable behavior.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Beattie

2010. Why aren't we saving the planet? A psychologist's perspective. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.

Borick

, Rabe

2010. A reason to believe: Examining the factors that determine individual views on global warming. Social Science Quarterly, 91:777–800.

Braun

, Clarke

2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:77–101.

Cosier

2009. Getting psyched. Audubon, 111:18.

Davis

J. L.

, Le

, Coy

A. E.

2011. Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31:257–265.

Der-Karabetian

, Stephenson

, Poggi

1996. Environmental risk perception, activism and world-mindedness among samples of British and U.S. College students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83,2:451–462.

Feinberg

, Willer

2011. Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychological Science, 22,1:34–38.

Fernandez-Manzanal

, Rodriguez-Barreiro

, Carrasquer

2007. Evaluation of environmental attitudes: Analysis and results of a scale applied to university students. Science Education, 91:988–1009.

Filho

W.L.

, Pace

, Manolas

2010. The contribution of education towards meeting the challenges of climate change. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9:142–155.

10.

Fischhoff

2011. Applying the science of communication to the communication of science. Climatic Change, 108:701–705.

11.

Friedman

2008. Hot, flat, and crowded. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

12.

Garcia-Mira

, Real

J. E.

, Romay

2005. Temporal and spatial dimensions in the perception of environmental problems: An investigation of the concept of environmental hyperopia. International Journal of Psychology, 40,1:5–10.

13.

Gifford

2011. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66,4:290–302.

14.

Jordan

2009. Nature and self: An ambivalent attachment? Ecopsychology, 1,1:26–31.

15.

Kirk

K. B.

, Thomas

J. J.

2003. The lifestyle project. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51,5:496–499.

16.

Kollmuss

, Agyeman

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.

17.

Lee

E. B.

2008. Environmental attitudes and information sources among African American college students. Journal of Environmental Education, 40,1:29–42.

18.

Leiserowitz

, Maibach

, Roser-Renouf

, Smith

2010. Climate change in the American Mind: Public support for climate & energy policies in June 2010. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PolicySupportJune2010.pdf

19.

Leiserowitz

, Maibach

, Roser-Renouf

, Smith

2011. Climate change in the American Mind: Americans' global warming beliefs and attitudes in May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University: New Haven, CT. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf

20.

Lertzman

2008 June 19 The myth of apathy. www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/269433/the_myth_of_apathy.html

21.

, Johnson

E. J.

, Zaval

2011. Local warming: Daily temperature change influences belief in global warming. Psychological Science, 22,4:454–459.

22.

Liberty

, Wu

2010. Greening our Future and Environmental Values: An Investigation of Perception, Attitudes and Awareness of Environmental issues in Zambia. Environmental Values, 19,4:485–516.

23.

Lorenzoni

, Leiserowitz

, De Franca Doria

, Poortinga

, Pidgeon

N. F.

2006. Cross-national comparisons of image associations with “global warming” and “climate change” among laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain. Journal of Risk Research, 9,3:265–281.

24.

Marcus

B. J.

, Omoto

A. M.

, Winter

P. L.

2011. Environmentalism and community: Connections and implications for social action. Ecopsychology, 3,1:11–24.

25.

Mayer

F. S.

, Frantz

C. M.

2004. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24:503–515.

26.

Miiderrisoglii

, Altanlar

2011. Attitudes and behaviors of undergraduate students toward environmental issues. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 8,1:159–168.

27.

Moser

2007. More bad news: The risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change information. Moser

, Dilling

Creating a climate for change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Moser

, Dilling

2004. Making climate hot: Communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change. Environment, 46,10:32–46.

29.

Nance

2009. Converging interests. Issues in Higher Education, 26:8–9.

30.

Oskamp

2000. A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help? American Psychologist, 55,5:496–508.

31.

Ozil

, Ugursal

V. I.

, Akbulut

, Ozpinar

2008. Renewable energy and environmental awareness and opinions: A survey of university students in Canada, Romania and Turkey. International Journal of Green Energy, 5:174–188.

32.

Schultz

P. W.

2000. Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56,3:391–406.

33.

Shandas

, Messer

2008. Fostering green communities through civic engagement: Community-based environmental stewardship in the Portland area. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74,4:408–418.

34.

Shih-Jang

2004. The effects of an environmental education program on responsible environmental behavior and associated environmental literacy variables in Taiwanese college students. Journal of Environmental Education, 35:37–48.

35.

Uggla

2008. Strategies to create risk awareness and legitimacy: The Swedish climate campaign. Journal of Risk Research, 11:719–734.

36.

Wall

1995. Barriers to individual environmental action: The influence of attitudes and social experiences. Canadian Review of Sociology, 32:465–489.

37.

Weber

E. U.

, Stern

P. C.

2011. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66,4:315–328.