Our results suggest that the partisan deliberative bias is pervasive (both Democrats and Republicans think their partisan group is more capable of constructive political conversation than the outgroup) and associated with reduced cross-partisan conversations, but also malleable to intervention.

I keep seeing this graph used to make a certain point. I do wonder about the premise. Is it unreasonable that ~20% of people might want to work in a given profession, and others who don't want to might still think it's a good idea to have more jobs in that profession?

🎆New paper published today! 🎆

In 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (in Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences) we explore structural and psychological factors allowing for collective climate action to be scaled up, promoted, and sustained.

authors.elsevier.com/a/1kpZe8MqMi...

Thanks! This is the most extensive meta-analysis on fear appeals that I know of, not climate change-specific, but it does cover a lot of environmental studies. It is over 10 years old though, before most of the work on climate fear appeals was conducted.

Is the loneliness epidemic reducing climate action? Our new paper (w/ @janetkswim.bsky.social) suggests maybe so!

We find that social support is associated with greater action hope, which is associated with more climate action. Open access article: bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....

New paper in BJSP! We (me, JanetSwim & JohnFraser) explore how social support can promote climate action. We find that those receiving more social support have more hope about taking action, and this action hope predicts more intended and self-reported behavior. Read here: shorturl.at/HiZHt

First hard frost of the season this morning