Paige Stein* says researchers have discovered that romantic partners can influence each other’s beliefs and behaviour on climate change.
Few would argue that romantic partners have the potential to shift each other’s beliefs and behaviour, but what about their views on climate change?
Up until now there’s been little analysis of the dynamics of climate change conversations in romantic relationships and how the beliefs of one partner can influence the other.
Now a team of researchers, led by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (YPCCC) at the Yale University School of the Environment, has explored this concept.
It found there is potential for partners to influence each other through conversations on climate change.
Associate Research Scientist at the YPCCC, Matthew Goldberg is the lead author on the study, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology.
“We wanted to see if there’s potential for couples to increase support for pro-climate policies and behaviour through more conversations about climate change,” Dr Goldberg said.
The researchers surveyed 758 romantic couples to determine the extent to which they understood each other’s ideas on climate change and the degree to which partners were aligned on them.
The team asked each partner questions on the issue, including whether they are worried about climate change, donated to climate organisations, and posted about the issue on social media.
Participants also were asked to predict what their partner would say.
The results revealed that while many partners exhibited similar beliefs and behaviour around climate change, there also were many discrepancies.
There was only 38 per cent alignment between partners on their climate beliefs and only 31 per cent alignment on climate behaviour.
The study also found that partners who discussed climate change had a more accurate perception of the other’s beliefs.
These results suggest there’s an opportunity for partners to influence each other through more conversations about climate change.
The researchers used the YPCCC’s Global Warming’s Six Americas framework to classify the participants’ views.
The framework is based on a range of six viewpoints about climate change that stretch from ‘alarmed’, at which climate change is seen as an urgent threat, to ‘dismissive’, at which global warming is considered a hoax or a non-existent issue.
While there were very few instances of couples holding opposite views, more than a third of couples included one partner whose beliefs were classified as ‘alarmed’, while the other was a bit less engaged or concerned.
This disparity is exactly the kind of situation in which there’s an opportunity to shift the needle on climate change beliefs and behaviour, Dr Goldberg says.
“Mass communication is critical, but might not be the most effective way to shift public support on climate change,” he said.
“A partner knows their partner infinitely better than some unknown communicator — and knows how to harness the issues that their partner cares about to engage them in action on climate change.”
Director of the YPCCC, Anthony Leiserowitz, who co-authored the report, said talking about climate change was no substitute for action, but could help raise awareness of the issue.
“This study finds that people who are very concerned about climate change likely have close significant others that haven’t yet fully engaged on the issue,” Dr Leiserowitz said.
Dr Goldberg said climate conversations could start right at home, with your loved ones.
“Our findings could apply to all kinds of relationships beyond romantic ones and the results open an array of avenues to engage people on climate change,” he said.
“Lots of people are very worried about climate change, but they’re not talking about it. Discussing climate change can bring more people into alignment — and increase engagement.”
*Paige Stein is Executive Director of Strategic Communications at the YPCCC, a leader in climate change communication that builds public and political will for climate action. She can be contacted at [email protected].
This article first appeared on the YPCCC web page.
