Abstract
Background and aim: Anthropogenic climate change represents an increasing threat to the stability of human societies and ecosystems. The aim of this pilot study was to examine the relationship between emotional activation and the defense mechanism of denial. Few previous studies have investigated this topic while also exploring unconscious aspects of denial. Method: Three informants were interviewed in depth on two separate occasions (six interviews in total). The in-depth interviews were based on the psychoanalytic research interview as described by Cartwright (2004) and Holloway and Jefferson (2012). Results: The analysis showed that climate change was a highly emotional issue for two of the informants, who made use of denial as a distancing strategy. Conclusion: Denial is a common response to climate change, one that can lead to an absence of action and commitment. The restricted sample and method of the pilot study provided a weak basis for generalization, and further studies should use more stringent research designs. Keywords: climate change, denial, psychoanalytic
Reference65 articles.
1. Aasen, M., Klemetsen, M. E., Reed, E. U. & Vatn, A. (2019). Folk og klima: Nordmenns holdninger til Almendinger, klimapolitikk og eget ansvar (CICERO Report). Center for International Climate and Environmental Research.
2. Adams, M. (2016). Ecological Crisis, Sustainability and the Psychosocial Subject. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-35160-9
3. Adams, M. (2021). Critical psychologies and climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 13-18. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/sbvpd
4. Brosch, T. (2021). Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: a review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.001
5. Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. & Upham, P. (2015). International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(1), 35-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.321