Changing Global Warming Beliefs with Scientific Information: Knowledge, Attitudes, and RTMD (Reinforced Theistic Manifest Destiny Theory)

Changing Global Warming Beliefs with Scientific Information: Knowledge, Attitudes, and RTMD (Reinforced Theistic Manifest Destiny Theory) Michael Andrew Ranney (ranney@berkeley.edu) 1,2 Dav Clark (davclark@berkeley.edu) 2 Daniel Lee Reinholz (reinholz@berkeley.edu) 1 Sarah Cohen (sarahc51990@berkeley.edu) 1 Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 Abstract Unlike peer nations’ residents, Americans are less accepting of, and concerned by, (especially anthropogenic) climate change. Reinforced Theistic Manifest Destiny theory (RTMD; e.g., Ranney, 2012) explains many such “U.S.- exceptionalist” phenomena by combining geopolitical history with six belief constructs: afterlife, deity, nationalism, crea- tion, evolution, and global warming. We assess predictions that climate change acceptance is increased by mechanism- explaining interventions. A 270-participant survey established widespread mechanistic ignorance, and an experiment with 149 other Americans (Californians and Texans) showed that a 400-word description of climate change’s mechanism dramat- ically reduced ignorance and increased climate change ac- ceptance. The mechanism, briefly, is: (a) Earth’s surface ab- sorbs (mostly visible) sunlight and subsequently emits infra- red light, which (b) greenhouse gases selectively absorb and retain (because these molecules can become asymmetrical), so (c) heat energy leaves more slowly, warming Earth. Our intervention yielded desirable conceptual changes and sci- ence-coherent attitude changes. RTMD-predicted between- construct relationships were obtained and/or again replicated. Keywords: Climate Change; Global Warming; Conceptual Change; Society; Science Education; Belief Revision. In contrast to our exploding human population, many spe- cies are dwindling––often due to people’s actions (e.g., hunting, degrading environments, and introducing non- native species). Still, many past effects pale compared to the threat of global climate change. (Nb. We will henceforth largely use the colloquial term, “global warming,” although of course not all locations may exhibit warming due to hu- man-enhanced greenhouse conditions.) In geologic time–– on the order of 10,000 years or more––warming periods have consistently resulted in high levels of extinction (May- hew, Jenkins, & Benton, 2008). Now, though, comparable warming is occurring over hundreds of years or less–– posing a unique threat to many species’ futures (cf. Harte & Harte, 2008), and direct threats to humans (particularly the poor)––such as increased risks of floods, droughts, and low crop yields (Kerr, 2007). Nothing, then, seems to exceed the importance of researchers finding ways to help people ac- cept that anthropogenic global warming is (1) occurring, and (2) crucial to quickly address (Harte & Harte, 2008). This urgent state is due to dramatic, human-caused at- mospheric greenhouse gas increases from pre-industrial lev- els (about 260 years ago); for instance, methane is up by 150% and carbon dioxide is up by 40%. These levels are accelerating, and may easily cause rapid mass extinctions (Malcolm et al., 2006), as with prior fast warmings. Fortu- nately, if humans act quickly, we may be able to conserve much of the current biosphere (Harte & Harte, 2008). Sadly, U.S. attitudes clash with the 97% of actively pub- lishing climate scientists who accept global warming’s ten- ets . (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010). Leiser- owitz, Maibach, and Roser-Renouf (2010) report that only 57% of the U.S. accepts global warming as occurring, and only 47% accepts it being “caused mostly by human activi- ties. ” The U.S. accepts both less than do similarly developed “peer” nations. Indeed, among 33 peers and non-peers, only Indonesia, South Africa, and Nigeria rated global warming as less “serious” than the U.S. (Leiserowitz, 2007). Given global warming’s potentially disastrous, irreversible effects, increasing Americans’ global warming acceptance seems a worthy goal (Ranney, 2012). In the next subsection, we highlight a theory (RTMD) designed to explain U.S. excep- tionalism regarding scientific, religious, and nationalistic af- finities—especially the marked divergence in climate beliefs noted above. We then describe two empirical studies that test the RTMD-inspired notion that science instruction may powerfully rectify false beliefs about climate change. Theory: Reinforced Theistic Manifest Destiny As Ranney (2012; Ranney & Thanukos, 2011) and other re- searchers have discussed, Americans are clearly outliers compared to peer nations’ residents. Beyond global warm- ing acceptance, Ranney describes other dimensions of American exceptionalism (e.g., regarding guns, murders, prisoners, military costs, executive salaries, income variabil- ity, teen pregnancies, infant deaths, health inefficiency, evo- lution acceptance, biblical literalism, piety, and beliefs in God and an afterlife). He also proposed the Reinforced The- istic Manifest Destiny (RTMD) theory to explain how a na- tion’s collective theistic (and related) beliefs are rein- forced—militarily, economically, etc. (Ranney, 2012; Ran- ney & Thanukos, 2011). RTMD focuses on beliefs and atti- tudes regarding the six inter-related constructs shown in Figure 1. The theory predicts that (1) acceptances of crea- tion, nationalism, a deity/dieties, and an afterlife positively correlate, (2) acceptances of evolution and global warming positively correlate, and (3) constructs in (1) negatively cor- relate with those in (2)––partly because creation and evolu- tion incohere. Among other offered explanations, RTMD explains the U.S.’s low acceptance of both evolution (Mil-