BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk// X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam BEGIN:VEVENT SUMMARY:Dr Heejung Kim &\; Dr David Sherman - Speaker to be confirmed DTSTART:20190619T140000Z DTEND:20190619T150000Z UID:TALK125101@talks.cam.ac.uk CONTACT:Melisa B DESCRIPTION:*Why do I Recycle?: Socio-Cultural Diversity in Predictors of Support for Pro-Environmental Actions*\n\nHeejung S. Kim\, University of California Santa Barbara\n\nAddressing global issues such as climate chang e requires significant support and engagement of citizens with diverse soc io-cultural backgrounds. Yet\, empirical efforts to examine socio-cultural diversity in what motivates pro-environmental support and how to increase it have been limited. This talk will present findings showing that people from different socio-cultural backgrounds support or reject pro-environme ntal actions for different reasons. More specifically\, our studies examin e the relative importance of personal factors (i.e.\, personally held envi ronmental beliefs) and social factors (i.e.\, perceived social norms) as p sychological antecedents of support for pro-environmental actions. Using a range of methods\, including analysis of nationally representative survey data\, lab experiments\, and field studies\, we tested the idea in relati on to three dimensions that are theorized to influence this prioritization (i.e.\, culture\, social class\, and religion)\, we found that social fac tors predict support for pro-environmental actions more strongly among peo ple from contexts where social interdependence is emphasized (i.e.\, colle ctivistic culture\, lower social class\, and religious individuals) wherea s personal factors predicts support for pro-environmental actions more str ongly among people from contexts where independence is emphasized (i.e.\, individualistic culture\, higher social class\, and not religious individu als). The presentation will also include a discussion on shared psychologi cal mechanisms underlying the influence of these socio-cultural factors\, and how this knowledge may be utilized to bring out desired social change. \n\n*Psychological Barriers to Bipartisan Climate Policy*\n\nDavid K. Sher man\, University of California\, Santa Barbara Leaf Van Boven\, University of Colorado Boulder\n\nWhy has the United States failed to enact climate policy despite the clear environmental imperative to do so? Many explanati ons for why the US has not passed climate policy emphasize Republican skep ticism about climate change. Yet results from national panel studies in 20 14 and 2016 indicate that most Republicans believe in climate change\, if not as strongly as Democrats. Political polarization over climate policy d oes not simply reflect that Democrats and Republicans disagree about clima te change but rather that Democrats and Republicans disagree with each oth er. Results from two experiments suggest that ordinary Democrats and Repub licans support climate policies that are proposed by politicians from thei r own party while they devalue policies proposed by politicians from the o pposing party. One experiment in 2014 included a national sample consideri ng policies historically associated with liberal politicians (cap-and-trad e) and policies associated with conservative politicians (revenue-neutral carbon tax). Another experiment conducting prior to the 2016 election incl uded a sample of voters in Washington State considering a carbon tax that appeared on the ballot. Both studies demonstrated a clear party-over-polic y effect. As strongly as people are swayed by partisanship\, they perceive that other Democrats and Republicans would be even more swayed by partisa nship. This foments false norms of partisan opposition that\, in turn\, in fluence people’s personal policy support. Correcting misperceived norms of opposition and decoupling policy evaluation from identity concerns coul d help overcome these barriers to bipartisan support for climate policy. A study with citizen climate lobbyists in the US suggests how these strateg ies could be implemented as well as how effective they are perceived to be in persuading Congressional representatives to support a bipartisan clima te solution.\n\n\n_David Sherman (Ph. D.\, Stanford University) is Profess or in the Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences at the University o f California\, Santa Barbara. He is a social psychologist whose research c enters on how people cope with threatening events and information. He has co-authored op-eds about climate policy and political polarization in such outlets as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times\, and published numer ous articles in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\, Psychologic al Science\, and PNAS. Dr. Sherman is an Editor at Personality and Social Psychology Review and has served as an editor (from 2011-2016) at Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. He is the past-president of the Inte rnational Society for Self and Identity (president 2016-2018). His researc h focuses on understanding psychological barriers to adaptive outcomes in education\, health\, and sustainability\, with a focus on implications for policy and practice._\n\n_Heejung Kim (Ph.D.\, Stanford University) is Pr ofessor in the Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences\, UCSB. She ha s published numerous articles in JPSP\, Psychological Science\, PSPB\, and PNAS\, and received multiple grants from NSF. She was an Associate Editor for PSPB and JPSP\, and is an Editor for PSPR. She is interested in the c ultural influences on psychological processes. In particular\, her researc h examines 1) cultural differences in the perception and the effect of sel f-expression\, 2) cultural differences in the use of social support\, and 3) how social and cultural factors influence decision making. In so doing\ , she addresses the implications of these culturally specific cognitive\, affective and behavioral tendencies for health\, educational\, and environ mental outcomes._\n LOCATION:TBC\, Department of Psychology\, Downing Site END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR