Climatic Change

, Volume 148, Issue 1–2, pp 45–59 | Cite as

Illuminating the link between perceived threat and control over climate change: the role of attributions for causation and mitigation

  • Julie DavydovaEmail author
  • Adam R. Pearson
  • Matthew T. Ballew
  • Jonathon P. Schuldt


Perceiving greater threat from climate change has been shown to positively affect beliefs about humanity’s ability to mitigate the threat. We examined two possible mediators of this paradoxical relationship utilizing data from a large socioeconomically diverse sample of the US adults (n = 1040) collected in 2015. Specifically, we predicted that attributing responsibility for either causing or mitigating climate change to government entities would bolster perceived collective control for addressing the problem. Results of structural equation modeling suggest that both types of attributions mediate the relationship between perceived threat and control over climate change, with the full model accounting for 57% of the variance in perceived collective control. Moreover, for the overall sample, attributions of responsibility for mitigating climate change emerged as a stronger mediator of perceived control than did causal attributions and as the only significant mediator among Republicans. We consider implications of these findings for understanding the role of attribution processes in public engagement on climate change and the effective communication of environmental risks.


Climate change Attributions of responsibility Mitigation beliefs Threat perception Collective control 

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2181_MOESM1_ESM.docx (51 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 51 kb)


  1. Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W. H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Brickman P, Rabinowitz VC, Karuza J, Coates D, Cohn E, Kidder L (1982) Models of helping and coping. Am Psychol 37(4):368–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bukowski M, de Lemus S, Rodriguez-Bailón R, Willis GB (2016) Who’s to blame? Causal attributions of the economic crisis and personal control. Group Process Intergroup Relat 1368430216638529.
  5. Campbell TH, Kay AC (2014) Solution aversion: on the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J Pers Soc Psychol 107(5):809–824. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 9(2):233–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunlap RE, McCright AM, Yarosh JH (2016) The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the US. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 58(5):4–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feygina I, Jost JT, Goldsmith RE (2010) System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 36(3):326–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher S (1986) Stress and strategy. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleishman JA (1980) Collective action as helping behavior: effects of responsibility diffusion on contributions to a public good. J Pers Soc Psychol 38(4):629–637. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Folkman S (1984) Personal control and stress and coping processes: a theoretical analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 46(4):839–852. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Folkman S, Lazarus RS (1985) If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. J Pers Soc Psychol 48(1):150–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Funk C, Kennedy B (2016) The politics of climate (numbers, facts and trends shaping the world). Pew Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray K, Wegner DM (2010) Blaming God for our pain: human suffering and the divine mind. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 14(1):7–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hallman WK, Wandersman A (1992) Attribution of responsibility and individual and collective coping with environmental threats. J Soc Issues 48(4):101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heath Y, Gifford R (2006) Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: the case of belief in global climate change. Environ Behav 38(1):48–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M (2008) Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods 6(1):53–56Google Scholar
  18. Hornsey MJ, Fielding KS, McStay R, Reser JP, Bradley GL, Greenaway KH (2015) Evidence for motivated control: understanding the paradoxical link between threat and efficacy beliefs about climate change. J Environ Psychol 42:57–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG, Fielding KS (2016) Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6(6):622–626. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu L, Bentler PM (1998) Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods 3(4):424–453. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jerusalem M, Schwarzer R (1992) Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal processes. In: Schwarzer R (ed) Self-efficacy: thought control of action. Hemisphere, Washington, DC, pp 195–213Google Scholar
  22. Kay AC, Whitson JA, Gaucher D, Galinsky AD (2009) Compensatory control: achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 18(5):264–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kay AC, Sullivan D, Landau MJ (2014) Psychological importance of beliefs in control and order: historical and contemporary perspectives in social and personality psychology. In: Borgida E, Bargh J (eds) APA handbook of personality and social psychology: attitudes and social cognition, vol 1. APA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Kellstedt PM, Zahran S, Vedlitz A (2008) Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Anal 28(1):113–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108(3):480–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Landau MJ, Kay AC, Whitson JA (2015) Compensatory control and the appeal of a structured world. Psychol Bull 141(3):694–722. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Langer EJ (1975) The illusion of control. J Pers Soc Psychol 32(2):311–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Rosenthal S (2015) Climate change in the American mind: March, 2015. Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  30. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Rosenthal S, Cutler M (2016) Politics & global warming, November 2016. Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  31. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Rosenthal S, Cutler M (2017) Politics & Global Warming, May 2017. Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  32. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob Environ Chang 21(4):1163–1172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Milfont TL (2010) Global warming, climate change and human psychology. In: Corral-Verdugo V, Garcia-Cadena CH, Frias-Armenta (eds) Psychological approaches to sustainability: current trends in theory, research and applications. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, pp 19–42 Retrieved from Google Scholar
  34. Milfont TL (2012) The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change: a one-year longitudinal study. Risk Anal 32(6):1003–1020. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moser SC (2016) Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 7:345–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998-2015) Mplus User’s Guide. 7. Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  37. Mynatt C, Sherman SJ (1975) Responsibility attribution in groups and individuals: a direct test of the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol 32(6):1111–1118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2(2):175–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pearson AR, Schuldt JP, Romero-Canyas R (2016) Social climate science: a new vista for psychological science. Perspect Psychol Sci 11(5):632–650. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pew Research Center (2017) Public trust in government remains near historic lows as partisan attitudes shift. Retrieved from
  41. Roser-Renouf C, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A, Zhao X (2014) The genesis of climate change activism: from key beliefs to political action. Clim Chang 125(2):163–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roser-Renouf C, Stenhouse N, Rolfe-Redding J, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A (2015) Engaging diverse audiences with climate change: message strategies for global warming’s six Americas. In: Cox R, Hansen A (eds) Handbook of Environment and Communication. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Seligman MEP (1975) Helplessness: on depression, development, and death. W. H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith N, Leiserowitz A (2014) The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Anal 34(5):937–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thoemmes F (2015) Reversing arrows in mediation models does not distinguish plausible models. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 37(4):226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson SC, Schlehofer MM (2008) The many sides of control motivation: motives for high, low, and illusory control. In: Shah JY, Garner WL (eds) Handbook of motivation science. Guilford, New York, pp 41–56Google Scholar
  47. van der Linden S (2017) Determinants and measurement of climate change risk perception, worry, and concern. In: Nisbett MC, Schafer M, Markowitz E, Ho S, O’Neill S, Thaker J (eds) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford Retrieved from Google Scholar
  48. van Zomeren M, Spears R, Leach CW (2010) Experimental evidence for a dual pathway model analysis of coping with the climate crisis. J Environ Psychol 30(4):339–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Waytz A, Gray K, Epley N, Wegner DM (2010) Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends Cogn Sci 14(8):383–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weiner B (1990) Searching for the roots of applied attribution theory. In: Graham S, Folkes VS (eds) Attribution theory: applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  51. YouGov (2013) Omnibus poll. February 15-16, 2013. Retrieved March 2017 from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyPomona CollegeClaremontUSA
  3. 3.Claremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations