Why climate messaging triggers defensiveness

The backfire effect is the reason why passionate debates rarely change minds despite compelling evidence. When researchers presented political partisans with factual corrections that contradicted their positions, the participants often became more convinced of their original views rather than less. The mechanism behind this surprising reaction is called “identity protection”. When facts threaten beliefs that are central to how we see ourselves or the groups we feel we belong to, our unconscious perceive them as attacks. This can trigger defensiveness, which causes people to aggressively scrutinize the evidence or the source it came from while uncritically accepting arguments that support their current beliefs. To counteract this effect, we should: ↳ Find common ground: Emphasize shared values or goals to reduce defensiveness and increase collaboration. ↳ Listen and validate: Acknowledge the other person’s feelings and perspectives without judgment. ↳ Use non-confrontational language: Present our points neutrally rather than attacking their core beliefs. ↳ Invite reflection: Ask open-ended questions that encourage them to reconsider their stance rather than forcing an immediate change. Using these techniques, we'll greatly increase the likelihood that the other person will fairly consider any evidence we present.

Euronews Green re-published my article on climate denial and delay - unfortunately, it's as relevant as it was a year ago, with research showing that a third of UK teenagers think the climate crisis is exaggerated, and 15% of the US population not believing in the climate crisis. What many people don't realise is that climate denial is often a response to fear - namely, a fear of change and the looming threat that soon, much of what we hold dear will be at risk. Climate change inherently threatens our sense of identity which is so closely tied to lifestyles and our immediate environment. I have spoken to many "climate sceptics" who, after being given a safe space to express their feelings, acknowledged that their resistance stems from intense worry about the future, or their children's future. Interestingly, some of these people practice sustainable behaviours such as growing their own food or buying second hand, whilst refusing to engage with the bigger picture. My approach is to practice radical compassion and not automatically assume malicious intent. Yes, a lot of climate denial is pushed by the fossil fuel industry, their PR firms and folks with certain political motivations - but you'll find that many people are stuck in passive denial, feeling like there is nothing they can do to tackle this crisis. Validating difficult feelings, speaking to people's values and reminding them of their own power can go a long way towards dismantling the most stubborn defence mechanisms. Let's continue the conversation in the comments! #ClimateCommunication #ClimatePsychology #ClimateDenial https://lnkd.in/ent_w65b

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 / 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞? In their Current Opinion in Psychology review, Natalia Zarzeczna and Travis Proulx offer a compelling psychological explanation: science rejection is often a defense mechanism triggered when scientific findings threaten people’s sense of meaning. 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 Science is rejected not just due to ignorance, but because it threatens core beliefs (e.g., religious, political, or existential) that help people make sense of the world. This “𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧” is a response to meaning violations: when science disrupts a person’s worldview, they compensate by rejecting it or affirming alternative beliefs (e.g., conspiracy theories, spirituality). 𝐓𝐰𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 ➡️ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: People reframe or delegitimize science when it clashes with existing beliefs. ➡️ 𝐀𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬: When science fails to explain meaningfully, people turn to alternative frameworks that feel more coherent or comforting. 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 ➡️ Tailor messages to resonate with ideological worldviews (e.g., frame climate action as patriotic for conservatives). ➡️ Highlight the explanatory power of scientific theories—how they help us understand the world broadly and deeply. ➡️ Reduce psychological distance by showing how science is relevant to people’s daily lives and values. ➡️ Align science with meaning-making to minimize defensive reactions and improve public acceptance. #research #science #commmunication #psychology #trust Jan-Benedict Steenkamp Peeter Verlegh Beth Fossen Charles Noble Stephanie Noble Rebecca Hamilton Prof. dr. Koen Pauwels Katrijn Gielens David Wooten Giampaolo Viglia Bernd SCHMITT