Cited by 2,326Climate Change Communication and PerceptionEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityClimate Change Policy and Economics

The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Gifford, Robert·2011·American Psychologist

Abstract

Most people think climate change and sustainability are important problems, but too few global citizens engaged in high-greenhouse-gas-emitting behavior are engaged in enough mitigating behavior to stem the increasing flow of greenhouse gases and other environmental problems. Why is that? Structural barriers such as a climate-averse infrastructure are part of the answer, but psychological barriers also impede behavioral choices that would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental sustainability. Although many individuals are engaged in some ameliorative action, most could do more, but they are hindered by seven categories of psychological barriers, or "dragons of inaction": limited cognition about the problem, ideological world views that tend to preclude pro-environmental attitudes and behavior, comparisons with key other people, sunk costs and behavioral momentum, discredence toward experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and positive but inadequate behavior change. Structural barriers must be removed wherever possible, but this is unlikely to be sufficient. Psychologists must work with other scientists, technical experts, and policymakers to help citizens overcome these psychological barriers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0023566

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Individuals with high FR often process climate-related messages through a morally engaged lens, perceiving the consequences of inaction as personally relevant and ethically significant.

    “Furthermore, individuals with high FR often process climate-related messages through a morally engaged lens, perceiving the consequences of inaction as personally relevant and ethically significant [35].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gifford, R.
Affiliations
University of Victoria (CA)
Corresponding author
Gifford, Robert
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
2011
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
290-302
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W2155675907
Cited by
2,326
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 233 · 2025: 286 · 2024: 205 · 2023: 333 · 2022: 180 · 2021: 186 · 2020: 164 · 2019: 154 · 2018: 111 · 2017: 130 · 2016: 94 · 2015: 89 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 37
FWCI
157.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
Keywords
psychological barriers, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, pro-environmental behavior, behavioral momentum, sunk costs, risk perception, social comparison, environmental cognition, behavior change
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Climate, Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Climate Change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review