Sandra J. Geiger, Environmental Psychology Unit, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria
Jana K. Köhler, Environmental Psychology Unit, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria
Zenith N. C. Delabrida, Department of Psychology, Federal University of Sergipe, Brazil
Karla A. Garduño-Realivazquez, Department of Accounting, University of Sonora, Mexico
Christian A. P. Haugestad, Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway
Hirotaka Imada, Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology, Japan
Aishwarya Iyer, Department of Psychology, Christ University, India
Carya Maharja, School of Psychology
Daniel C. Mann, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Austria
Michalina Marczak, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Olivia Melville, Department of Biology, University of Victoria, Canada
Sari R. R. Nijssen, Environmental Psychology Unit, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria
Nattavudh Powdthavee, Department of Economics, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Radisti A. Praptiwi, National Research and Innovation Agency Republic of Indonesia
Gargi Ranade, The Shallow End Collective, Bangalore, India
Claudio D. Rosa, Development and Environment, State University of Santa Cruz, Brazil
Valeria Vitale, Department of Psychology of Developmental and Socialization Processes, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Małgorzata Winkowska, Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umeå University, Sweden
Lei Zhang, Centre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
Mathew P. White, Cognitive Science Hub, University of Vienna, Austria

ORCID

Abstract

Most people believe in human-caused climate change, yet this public consensus can be collectively underestimated (pluralistic ignorance). Across two studies using primary data (n = 3,653 adult participants; 11 countries) and secondary data (ns = 60,230 and 22,496 adult participants; 55 countries), we tested (a) the generalizability of pluralistic ignorance about climate-change beliefs, (b) the effects of a public-consensus intervention on climate action, and (c) the possibility that cultural tightness-looseness might serve as a country-level predictor of pluralistic ignorance. In Study 1, people across 11 countries underestimated the prevalence of proclimate views by at least 7.5% in Indonesia (90% credible interval, or CrI = [5.0, 10.1]), and up to 20.8% in Brazil (90% CrI = [18.2, 23.4]. Providing information about the actual public consensus on climate change was largely ineffective, except for a slight increase in willingness to express one’s proclimate opinion, δ = 0.05 (90% CrI = [−0.02, 0.11]). In Study 2, pluralistic ignorance about willingness to contribute financially to fight climate change was slightly more pronounced in looser than tighter cultures, highlighting the particular need for pluralistic-ignorance research in these countries.

Publication Date

2025-05-22

Publication Title

Psychological Science

ISSN

0956-7976

Keywords

climate change, cross-country generalizability, cultural tightness-looseness, pluralistic ignorance, social norm

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Download

Share

COinS