Does Climate Change Exist? Depends on Your State of Mind
VOA News
October 07, 2016 5:30 PM Kevin Enochs (source)
Does Climate Change Exist? Depends on Your State of Mind
「氣候變遷」真有其事？也許答案在「心理」
October 07, 2016 5:30 PM
Kevin Enochs
Whether or not you think human activity affects climate changes around the world depends on your political views, at least in the United States.
That's the conclusion of a Pew Research study, which found that people who deny there is any human impact on the climate, or that it's even changing, have more in common than just politics.
It's the psychology of denial, according to a thesis by Kirsti Jylhä of Sweden's Uppsala University, who has been studying humans' reaction to climate change for years.
She has found that people who deny climate change tend to be male, conservative and authoritarian. They endorse the status quo, are low in empathy and avoid feeling negative emotions. Taken together, Jhylhä says, all of these tendencies point to a group of people who score high on personality traits known as social dominance orientation, or SDO.
'Social dominance' scores
People with high SDO tend to be more accepting of dominant relationships among groups, and, she points out, this "also extends to accepting human dominance over nature."
That may not seem to be a particularly desirable group of personality traits, but Jhylhä said her research is not intended to brand climate change deniers as close-minded. Instead, she hoped to learn why it is so hard to communicate the deadly serious realities of climate change to a population that all too often just doesn't want to hear it.
One of the big problems in getting humans to address the real problem of climate change, according to psychologists, is that the stakes are so high. Writing in Psychology Today, psychologist Steve Taylor wonders what could be more uncomfortable than "the idea that our activities may be destroying the ability of our planet to sustain life."
Some avoid thinking about catastrophes
When you think about coastal flooding, droughts, mega-storms, it feels like a disaster movie made real. As Jhylhä says, "Catastrophic scenarios may increase negative emotions and make individuals avoid thinking about the issue. Also, it may cause some to perceive the issue as overstated, particularly if they are currently not perceiving clear effects of climate change in their everyday lives.”
So how to switch the tenor of conversations about climate change to motivate people to take action ? Jhylhä suggests one should not focus on the environmental destruction that human activity is causing, but instead emphasizing how direct action to control climate change benefits everyone.
"It would perhaps be better," she said, "to talk in other terms and describe how everyone will benefit from the measures [to limit climate change] instead of being affected by the consequences."
That makes climatic changes, which deniers tend to reject, less likely to trigger disputes. Psychologist Allen McConnell puts it this way: "Focusing people on long-term good" and establishing rewards for good behavior "can produce better outcomes."
The takeaway from all this is that no matter what your psychological motivation is for either acting to limit climate change, or denying that it exists, there is a constructive way to talk about and possibly tackle its complex and disturbing realities.
一個人是否認定人類活動對全球氣候變遷具有影響力，這可能會取決於個人的政治觀點，至少在美國是如此。（編按：根據這份研究，美國傾向認同共和黨的人較不承認有全球性氣候變遷的事實，相反的，傾向認同民主黨的人較容易接受這個現實。）
一份皮尤研究中心(Pew Research Center)的研究指出，這些否認人類對氣候具有影響力，或根本否認氣候變遷的人，除了有相似的政治傾向外，可能還有更多共通點(have more in common)。（編按：皮尤研究中心(Pew Research Center)是美國一間獨立性民調和智庫機構，針對影響美國和全世界的問題或趨勢等提供訊息和資料。）
瑞典烏普薩拉大學(Uppsala University)的研究人員克爾斯蒂‧吉爾哈(Kirsti Jylhä)多年來對於人類面臨氣候變遷的心理反應進行研究，根據她的論文，這（即上述對氣候變遷的否認）是一種心理的否定作用。
她的研究發現，會否認氣候變遷的人多為男性，且是保守而專制的(authoritarian)。他們擁護(endorse)現狀(status quo)，較缺少同理心，也避免負面的情緒感受。吉爾哈表示，把這些傾向(tendency)集合起來一併考量，會導向出一個群體，他們在所謂「社會優勢取向(social dominance orientation, SDO)」的人格特質(personality trait)量表上會得到較高的分數。（編按：新聞中 “score high” 的意思是「得到高分」，此用於心理量表上，表示在SDO的人格特質量表上得到較高的分數，即具備較高比例的這種人格特質。根據Wikipedia對SDO的說明，量表分數較高的人容易接受社會中的階級存在，並傾向於維持群體間的差異，重視差異性在社會中所代表的階級或權力意義。）
「社會優勢取向」得分
社會優勢取向量表分數較高的人通常比較傾向於接受群體之間的支配關係，她（研究人員吉爾哈）指出，此傾向也「延伸到他們會接受人類對自然的支配關係」。
這一類的人格特質也許看起來並不特別討喜，但吉爾哈表示，她研究的用意並不在於把否認氣候變遷的人貼上心胸狹隘的標籤(brand . . . as . . .)。相反地，她希望透過研究能了解，為何將氣候變遷帶來的極為嚴重的現實狀況傳達給一個往往不想聽的族群是如此困難。
根據心理學家的看法，氣候變遷所牽涉到的利害關係(stakes)相當巨大，這是讓人難以面對現實問題的原因之一。心理學家史帝夫‧泰勒(Steve Taylor)於《當代心理學雜誌》(Psychology Today)上曾表示，還有什麼想法會比「人類的活動也許會摧毀地球繼續維繫生命的能力」這樣的想法更令人不安呢？
面對災難的逃避心理
每當想到沿海水災、乾旱或巨型風暴時，一幕幕災難電影的場景彷彿就要成真。如同吉爾哈所說的：「天災場景可能會增加負面情緒，使得人們想要逃避思考此議題，還有可能會造成一些人把此議題視為大驚小怪、過度渲染(overstated)，尤其當氣候變化還沒明顯影響到他們的日常生活時。」
所以，該如何調整討論氣候變遷的基調(tenor)才能激發人們採取行動呢？吉爾哈建議，與其聚焦於人類活動所造成的環境破壞上，不如強調透過直接的行動來控制氣候變遷會如何裨益所有人。
她說：「討論中用不同的措詞，並多點關於大家將如何受惠於限制氣候變遷的措施的描述，而不要說太多氣候變遷所帶來的影響和後果，這樣的方式會比較好。」
由於否定氣候變遷的人傾向於拒絕認定氣候上有所變異，這樣討論氣候變遷的說法較不會引發(trigger)爭端。心理學家艾倫‧麥康諾(Allen McConnell)對於這樣的討論方法做了說明：「讓大家把焦點放在長期的好處上」，並確立對於良好行為的獎勵方式，這樣「能得到更好的效果。」
上述的重點(takeaway)是：無論個人心理的動機是要採取行動來減少氣候變遷，或是要否認氣候變遷存在的事實，目前對於氣候變遷所帶來的複雜且令人焦慮的現實狀況，都有更具建設性的討論方法與可能的對應處理(tackle)方式。
Language Notes
state (n) 狀態；情形；狀況
*新聞標題的state of mind是指「心理狀態」；state當名詞還有「國家，政府」或聯邦體制下的「州、邦」等常見意思
authoritarian[ə͵θɔrəˋtɛrɪən] (a) 獨裁的；專制的
endorse (v) （公開）贊同，認可
status quo [͵stetəsˋkwo] (n) 現狀
tendency (n) （思想、行為等的）傾向
trait (n) （個人的）特徵，特性，品質
brand (v) 加汙名於……；以烙鐵打（標記）
*本字當名詞時，是常見的「品牌」的意思
address (v) 對付，應付；處理
stake (n) 利害關係
*stake當名詞有很多的意思，新聞中的用法是指「利害關係」，常搭配形容詞high使用，形成“high-stakes”一形容詞，表「高利害關係的；高風險的」
catastrophe [kəˋtæstrəfɪ] (n) 災難
*新聞中亦有形容詞：catastrophic [͵kætəˋstrɑfɪk] (a) 災難的；注意名詞的重音在第二音節，形容詞的重音則在第三音節
overstate (v) 把……說得過分；誇大
trigger [`trɪgɚ] (v) 引起，引發（壞事）
takeaway (n) （一段話的或討論的）重點、要旨
*本字最常用的是指「外帶的食物」，源自動詞片語 “take away”
tackle (v) 對付，處理；與……交涉
Check your vocabulary!
Fill in the blanks with a word or phrase from the list above. Make necessary changes. After you finish, highlight the blanks to reveal the hidden answers.
His tendency to exaggerate is well known.
Arrogance is a very unattractive personality trait.
The Council is expected to endorse the committee's recommendations.
Certain people always want to maintain the status quo.
The impact of the new legislation has been greatly overstated.
The issue of funding has yet to be addressed.
|
Read more on VOA.
