Human Exceptionalist Thinking about Climate Change

Abstract

Although global climate change poses a real and looming threat to both human societies and the natural world, large gaps in understanding exist between the general public and the scientific community. One factor contributing to such gaps could be the use of intuitive thinking to understand complex phenomena. In two studies, we explore climate change understanding and engagement through the lens of an intuitive pattern of thinking, human exceptionalism, which refers to the tendency to infer that humans are exceptional to, and separable from, the rest of the natural world. In both studies, undergraduates thought about global climate change in human exceptionalist ways that were orthogonal to accuracy—for example, they correctly think that humans uniquely contribute to climate change compared to other organisms, but incorrectly think that humans will be uniquely immune to the effects of global climate change. Moreover, human exceptionalist thinking has real-world consequences; it was negatively associated with eco-friendly attitudes and behaviors, and negatively predicted individuals’ attribution of damage from recent hurricanes (i.e., hurricanes Michael and Florence) to global climate change. Finally, we demonstrated that increasing the salience of connections between humans and global climate change reduced human exceptionalism. Findings suggest that intuitive thinking in general, and human exceptionalism in particular, make important contributions to how we understand and reason about global climate change, and may be promising targets for interventions aimed at increasing pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors.