A goldilocks critique of the hot cognition perspective on climate change skepticism

• Published in: Current opinion in behavioral sciences 2020-08, Vol.34, p.142-147
• Main Authors: Hennes, Erin P, Kim, Taeik, Remache, Leslie J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 2352-1546; 2352-1554
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.009

•Climate change skepticism partially the result of motivated reasoning.•Several motives influence climate change attitudes via several cognitive mechanisms.•Inconsistent application of motivated reasoning perspective across disciplines.•Evidence of motivated reasoning both overstated and understated.•Understanding motivated reasoning critical for basic science and intervention. The psychological concept of motivated reasoning has been widely applied to explain climate change skepticism. Evidence has been established of several motives underlying skepticism and many implicated cognitive mechanisms. At the same time, we argue that the extant literature is at times ‘too hot’ — applying a motivated reasoning framework without demonstrating directional motivation, distorted information processing, or both; and at times ‘too cold’, insufficiently considering the intervening role of motivated reasoning. We propose that a ‘just right’ perspective (a) identifies relevant motivation(s), (b) considers amotivated alternatives, (c) articulates cognitive mechanisms modulated by motivation, and (d) considers motivated origins of both skepticism and belief. Adopting this perspective will contribute to basic knowledge and inform effective intervention to promote climate action.