200187 SE Scientific Readings (2022S)

Do-gooder derogation.
Members of the mainstream tend to dislike moral exemplars, i.e., those who act with particular moral integrity - a phenomenon known as do-gooder derogation. Such negative social judgements have been found to be present between meat-eaters and vegans (Minson & Monin, 2012), zero-wasters and non-zero-wasters (Bolderdijk, Brouwer, & Cornelissen, 2018), and organic and conventional consumers (van de Grint, Evans, & Stavrova, 2021). Members of the mainstream may even go as far as to punish moral exemplars for their good deeds. For example, in public goods games, players tend to expel extreme altruists from the group as often as the most blatant free-riders (Herrmann, Thöni, & Gächter, 2008; Parks & Stone, 2010). Some literature suggests that environmentalists (a special case of moral exemplars) self-silence because they are aware they are being disliked for their pro-environmental behaviour (e.g., Bolderdijk & Cornelissen, 2022). This may create a so-called spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1993) around the topic of climate change. Environmentalist individuals who fear a bad reputation or punishment may shy away from expressing their pro-climate opinion, which makes such opinions seem less common than they are. Such a climate of silence may thus keep environmentalist individuals (thinking they) belong to a small minority further from expressing pro-climate opinions, while anti-climate individuals (thinking they) belong to a large majority are motivated to express their anti-climate opinions more (Andre, Boneva, Chopra, & Falk, 2021; Geiger & Swim, 2016; Taylor, 1982).

During this seminar, you will develop a research proposal on do-gooder derogation of moral exemplars in the environmental and climate change domain, supervised by Jana Köhler. This proposal could include research on the concrete experiences of do-gooder derogation of both members of the mainstream (also qualitative work possible), predictors and consequences of do-gooder derogation, potential interventions to remedy do-gooder derogation, or your own idea in this area.

A list of suggested articles will be provided in the first session.

Pluralistic Ignorance.
What do you think what percentage of Austrians would agree that climate change and its consequences are the biggest challenges for humanity in the 21st century?
A recent survey (EIB Climate Survey, 2021) found that 73% of Austrians agree with this statement. If you are like most people (including me), your guess was probably far lower. In psychology, this phenomenon is called pluralistic ignorance and describes that groups (for example, Austrians) substantially underestimate the majority’s beliefs, behaviors, attitudes, values, and concerns (Sargent & Newman, 2021). Previous research in Environmental Psychology has shown that individuals overestimate the number of people who are skeptical (Leviston et al., 2013; Mildenberger & Tingley, 2019) and unconcerned (Geiger & Swim, 2016) about climate change. On the bright side, several studies have found that simple interventions such as informing individuals about the actual perceptions of others can reduce pluralistic ignorance (Andre et al., 2021; Mildenberger & Tingley, 2019; Schroeder & Prentice, 1998).

During this seminar, you will develop a research proposal on pluralistic ignorance regarding climate change or its impacts, supervised by Sandra Geiger. This proposal could include research on the predictors and consequences of pluralistic ignorance, potential interventions to remedy the effect, or your own idea in this area.

A list of suggested articles will be provided in the first session.