From denial of facts to rationalization and avoidance: Ideology, needs, and gender predict the spectrum of climate denial

Climate denial takes many forms, ranging from outright denial of facts (literal denial), over distortion of facts (interpretive denial, e.g., denial of personal and global outcome severity), to the acknowledgement of facts but denial of their implications (implicatory denial, e.g., avoidance, denial of guilt, rationalization of own involvement). This study aimed at furthering the understanding of psychological functions of climate denial by 1) exploring potential distinct profiles of climate denial and 2) investigating relations with right-wing ideological conviction and gender (established predictors) but also need satisfaction and value orientation. Latent profile analysis of a German quota sample (N = 1007) revealed differences in the extent to which participants endorsed all types of climate denial but revealed no distinct profiles. As pre-registered, structural equation modeling revealed that people who reported right-wing ideological convictions reported all types of climate denial more, especially literal and interpretive denial. Absence of need satisfaction and male gender were additional, weaker predictors of implicatory denial. These findings suggest that climate denial may protect the self from both loss of privilege and the experience of uncomfortable emotions when psychological resources are scarce. Future research should employ longitudinal, experimental, mixed-methods designs to further disentangle the underlying mechanisms of climate denial.

Automated summary

Climate denial takes various forms, including outright denial of facts, distortion of facts, and denial of the implications of facts. The study found that right-wing ideological conviction, absence of need satisfaction, and male gender are predictors of climate denial.