Bayesian inference has been advocated as an alternative to conventional analysis in psychological science. Bayesians stress that subjectivity is needed for principled inference, and subjectivity by-and-large has not been seen as desirable. This paper provides the broader rationale and context for subjectivity, and in it we show that subjectivity is the key to principled measures of evidence for theory from data. By making our subjective elements focal, we provide an avenue for common sense and expertise to enter the analysis. We cover the role of models in linking theory to data, the notion that models are abstractions which are neither true nor false, the need for relative model comparison, the role of predictions in stating relative evidence for models, and the role of subjectivity in specifying models that yield predictions. In the end, we conclude that transparent subjectivity leads to a more honest and fruitful analyses in psychological science.
The key message of this chapter is that solving the climate problem will require motivating social and behavioral changes through effective communication. More and better communication about climate issues is needed so people will mobilize solutions. Currently most people in the world do not believe that climate change is worth doing anything about, if they have even heard of it at all. Despite the efforts of many journalists, scientists, educators, and politicians to convey the science behind and urgency of climate disruption, about a third of Americans still deny that climate is changing or that humans cause it, and nearly 60% feel that climate change is not a problem serious enough to affect them. What is more, in many parts of the world, at most 35% of adults have even heard of climate change. This general lack of recognition about the magnitude of climate disruption and the urgency of dealing with it is slowing down the process of implementing solutions. Even if high-level decision makers want to put in place the policies, incentives, and ready-to-be-deployed technologies required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are unable do so to the extent needed because they have to answer to their constituencies. Put another way, only if the majority of the global society sees the need to mitigate climate change, and the feasibility of doing so, will decision-makers be able to enact the policy changes needed to jumpstart a global energy transition. The good news, however, is that most people—for example, around 60% in the United States—have not yet made up their minds about the need to fix the climate problem. Reaching these individuals with the right information in the right way offers great opportunity to boost societal awareness and effect necessary change. In this chapter we briefly review the information that supports these statements, and summarize the key pathways of communication about climate change that have prevailed so far, including where they have been successful and where they have fallen short. We focus on the United States, because of its high-emitter status and consequent influence on attitudes about climate mitigation worldwide. We then discuss findings from recent research on communication strategies that suggest an effective way forward—namely, that much remains to be done through appropriate framing of the issues for diverse constituencies that have not been effectively reached. We suggest that by targeting specific audiences with appropriately framed information, the societal balance can be tipped from the current condition of a majority who are apathetic to a majority who become receptive to the reality of harmful climate disruption and the need to avoid it. For example, strategies may include peer-to-peer interactions that communicate how climate change and associated impacts fit with existing value systems that define various religious, political, and economic spheres. To this end, we recognize four general communication strategies that will be useful. - Develop coordinated local, state, national, and international informational campaigns to tell diverse constituencies about the need for and benefits of mitigating climate change. These must be framed appropriately for specific target audiences, much as advertising agencies do to promote products effectively, and evaluated rigorously to know how to improve subsequent campaigns. - Integrate education about climate change impacts and solutions into all levels of education, from K-12 through University curricula. - Create venues for decision makers, business leaders, religious leaders, and academics, spanning the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and the arts, with the overall goal of developing recognition, dialog, and action on the intertwined behavioral, ethical, political, economic, social, health, and scientific dimensions of climate disruption. - Communicate that actionable solutions to climate change problems exist and are feasible to implement. This should include embedding climate change information and action opportunities across a variety of venues, from print journalism, to traditional TV and radio, to digital and social media.
We investigate young children’s sensitivity to minimal group membership. Previous research has suggested that children do not show sensitivity to minimal cues to group membership until the age of five to six, contributing to claims that this is an important transition in the development of intergroup cognition and behavior. In this study, we investigated whether even younger children are sensitive to minimal cues to group membership. Random assignment to one of either of two color groups created a temporary, visually salient minimal group membership in 3 and 4-year-old study participants. Using explicit measures, we tested whether children preferred minimal group members when making social judgments. We find that, in the absence of any knowledge regarding the two groups, children expressed greater liking for ingroup than outgroup targets. Moreover, children estimated that ingroup members would share their preferences. Our findings demonstrate that from early in development, humans assess unknown others on the basis of minimal cues to social similarity and that the perception of group boundaries potentially underlies social assortment in strangers.
Objective: Low levels of perceived social integration, or loneliness, are associated with increased risk for a range of poor health outcomes. Sleep disturbance plays a central role in the evolutionary theory of loneliness, which provides a mechanistic account of how low levels of social integration may negatively impact health. No studies, however, have examined whether the association between social integration and sleep disturbance is consistent with a causal effect after accounting for genes that are common to both variables. Method: Using twin data ('N' = 905 twin pairs) from the nationally-representative Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) survey, I evaluated a series of bivariate twin models exploring whether the phenotypic association between low social integration and sleep disturbance can be explained by shared genetics. In addition, the current study specified a series of quantitative models for studying gene x environment (G X E) interactions to determine whether the genetic and environmental influences on sleep disturbance differ as a function of social integration. Results: The phenotypic association between social integration and sleep disturbance was fully accounted for by genes that are common between the two variables, suggesting that within-twin pair differences in social integration do not exert a causal influence on sleep disturbance. Social integration, however, moderated the non-shared environmental influence on sleep disturbances, with the greatest environmental influences observed at the lowest levels of social integration. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that an essential feature of the evolutionary model of loneliness may need refinement or elaboration. The moderation findings are discussed in terms of the fit with a stress-buffering model of social support in which environmental influences on sleep disturbance are strongest when social resources are low.
We are living in a world of over seven billion people, with annual greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 50 billion tons a year and rising steadily. If continued unabated, the world is on target to warm by about 2 °C in less than 40 years, pushing the climate to a regime unlike any that has been witnessed in the last million years. Nonetheless, we still have time to avert such a catastrophic scenario, or delay its occurrence by several decades to provide human societies and the ecosystem with the time to adjust. In order to mitigate the possibility of climate disruption, we need to recognize that fossil fuel based technologies have become outdated and transform the energy system to that of low-carbon, sustainable and secure energy systems. In addition, we have to mitigate emissions of the four short-lived climate pollutants to bring immediate relief from climate change and protect vulnerable societies. Stability of the climate system involves not only the centrality of scientific and technological advancements and investments, but also necessary shifts in social structure and behavior by individuals, communities and societies worldwide as well as market based instruments, sub-national collaborations and governance structure. Fortunately, living laboratories—such as the State of California and the University of California system, which has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2025—provide demonstrable solutions which hold promise in alleviating the climate warming in the next generation. These jurisdictions are tiny emitters in the global picture, but they offer the potential for leverage through demonstrating (Figure 1) new technologies as well as workable institutions that cut emissions. We outline 10 pragmatic solutions—a “kit of parts” rooted in California but scalable to the world—that taken together, can “bend the curve” of the upward trajectory of human-caused warming trends. Wholesale transformation of our current fossil fuel based energy systems towards sustainable energy is among the greatest of societal challenges—and opportunities—faced in the 21st century.
