News release

From: University of Canterbury

Key points

• New international research involving UC psychologist Dr Claudia Schneider shows many people misjudge which personal climate actions cut emissions most, often overrating familiar actions like recycling and underrating higher-impact changes such as flying less, driving less and eating less red meat.
• Published in Nature Sustainability, the study found psychological shortcuts such as the “availability heuristic” and “motivated reasoning” shape these judgments, meaning inaccurate understanding of climate impact is not just a knowledge gap but also a behavioural and communication challenge.
• The findings suggest climate communication needs to be more nuanced and targeted, as simply telling people which actions matter most has only limited effect and different approaches may be needed for different audiences.

People misunderstand key climate actions, study shows

Psychology research shows many people overrate the impact of familiar climate actions like recycling and underrate bigger-impact changes such as flying less.

People who want to help tackle climate change through personal behaviour choices may be focusing on the wrong actions, according to new international research involving Dr Claudia Schneider from Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha | University of Canterbury (UC).

The study found that psychological biases play a major role in how many people judge which personal behaviours have the greatest impact on cutting carbon emissions. Familiar actions such as recycling and reducing food waste are often seen as highly effective, while bigger changes such as flying less, driving less and eating less red meat are more likely to be underestimated.

The paper, ‘Psychological barriers to improving carbon competence’, published in Nature Sustainability, explores what researchers call “carbon competence” — how well people understand the emissions reduction potential of different actions across everyday life.

Dr Schneider, whose work focuses on environmental psychology and evidence communication, says this matters because people need clear and accurate information if they are to make choices that have the greatest effect.

“Different actions have very different mitigation potential, but many people don’t have an accurate understanding of that,” she says. “If we want people to make informed decisions, we need to communicate much more clearly about what is low, medium and high impact.”

The research also found that this misunderstanding is not simply a matter of people lacking information. Habits and psychological shortcuts play a major role in how people judge climate actions.

One is the “availability heuristic”, where people assume actions that come easily to mind must be important. Another is “motivated reasoning”, where people are more likely to believe the actions they already do are effective because that supports a positive self-image.

“These psychological barriers are powerful,” Dr Schneider says. “It’s not enough to just tell people what the most impactful actions are and assume that everyone will absorb that information in the same way.”

The research team included lead author Dr Mario Herberz from the Department of Psychology and the Swiss Center for Affective Sciences at the University of Geneva, Switzerland and visiting researcher at UC in 2025; UC’s Dr Schneider; Lukas Engel from the Department of Psychology at the University of Basel, Switzerland; and Professor Tobias Brosch, also from the University of Geneva.

Over three studies involving 2,924 participants, the team examined how people rated the emissions-cutting potential of 34 behaviours across transport, food and other everyday domains, and found results consistent with previous research.

The researchers also looked at ways to help people better understand which climate actions make the biggest difference. They found that clues like how hard an action seems or how common it is can help, but only for some people. Simply telling people which actions are most effective made only a small difference overall, and it did not
work equally well for everyone.

This research shows that improving carbon competence across society is tough, partly due to the psychological obstacles identified. It suggests climate communication needs to be more targeted, rather than relying on one-size-fits-all messaging.

“There are potential ways to improve understanding, but they won’t necessarily work equally well for everyone,” Dr Schneider says. “We need to meet people where they are and think carefully about how information is presented.”

While this research was conducted with participants in the United States, Dr Schneider says the findings point to important human decision-making processes and psychological barriers to carbon competence, with questions for Aotearoa New Zealand and other countries. A local follow-up, currently under way, endeavours to help show how New Zealanders understand climate action and what kinds of communication and pro-climate strategies work best here.