The Social Psychological Roots of Conflict and

Received: 17 February 2022 Revised: 13 February 2023 Accepted: 9 March 2023
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.837
OVERVIEW
COVID-19 and climate change: The social-psychological

roots of conflict and conflict interventions during
global crises
Brooke Burrows 1 | Cierra Abellera 1 | Ezra M. Markowitz 2
1
Department of Psychological and Brain
Sciences, University of Massachusetts Abstract
Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts The current study reviews key social psychological mechanisms related to
01003, USA
conflict and conflict resolution that manifest within both the coronavirus pan-
2
Department of Environmental
demic and climate change crises. The uncertainty, scale, and nature of both
Conservation, University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts global crises generate various forms of individual- and group-level conflicts
01003, USA that, mediated by psychological and cultural phenomena, impede beneficial
Correspondence
action and sustainable adaptation. Specifically, we highlight five social psycho-
Ezra M. Markowitz, Department of logical mechanisms (i.e., cognitive dissonance, responsibility diffusion, com-
Environmental Conservation, University passion fatigue, dehumanization, and competitive beliefs) known to interact
of Massachusetts Amherst,
160 Holdsworth Way, Amherst, MA with, produce, and amplify intrapersonal, interpersonal, and/or intergroup
01003, USA. conflicts. We draw attention to how these mechanisms have been activated by
Email: emarkowitz@eco.umass.edu
the pandemic in ways that share important similarities with climate change
Funding information and present evidence-informed approaches to combating their contribution to
National Science Foundation, conflict (i.e., motivating behavior change, implementing accountability mecha-
Grant/Award Number: 1938059
nisms, creating collective action opportunities, fostering intergroup contact,
and promoting perspective-taking). By engaging social psychological research
Edited by: Irene Lorenzoni, Domain to better understand both the roots of conflict as well as outline potential
Editor and Mike Hulme, Editor-in-Chief
individual, community, and societal responses that can help alleviate conflict
during these global crises, we can increase our ability to successfully navigate
and in some cases avoid future conflicts caused by climate change.
This article is categorized under:

Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Behavior
Change and Responses
KEYWORDS
climate change, COVID-19, intergroup conflict, intrapersonal conflict, psychology
1 | INTRODUCTION
Global crises beget conflict at every scale of human interaction, from individuals to entire societies. The COVID-19
pandemic, for example, has generated many different forms of conflict that negatively impact individual and collective
Brooke Burrows and Cierra Abellera contributed equally to this study.
WIREs Clim Change. 2023;14:e837. wires.wiley.com/climatechange © 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 1 of 18

https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.837
17577799, 2023, 5, Downloaded from https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.837 by Cochrane Saudi Arabia, Wiley Online Library on [12/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 of 18 BURROWS ET AL.
responses to the crisis, from debates around best health practices to accusations of blame to entrenched political parti-
sanship. These conflicts emerge in part due to core psychological mechanisms that shape how we interact with one
another (and understand our own selves) in times of stress, crisis and constrained resources. Our collective experiences
with the pandemic, for example, have thrown into sharp focus the multiple ways in which aspects of human psychology
can exacerbate and reinforce conflicts in response to crisis at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and intergroup levels.
At its onset, the COVID-19 pandemic presented most dominantly as an immediate, visible, and acute public-health cri-
sis. In contrast, climate change is generally understood to operate across a longer timeframe, compounding and initiating
other crises that may or may not be easily and immediately discernable in their dangerousness (Pinner et al., 2020; Meijers
et al., 2021). Despite these apparent differences, there are critical similarities between COVID-19 and climate change that
allow for cross-threat learning (Geiger et al., 2021). Principal among these is the effect each has on producing and amplify-
ing conflict at every scale of human interaction and decision-making, from the intrapersonal to the intergroup, both
within and across nations. Although conflict can be defined and interpreted in a multitude of ways—often bringing to
mind explicitly violent or aggressive dynamics between individuals and/or groups (Collins, 2009)—in this work, we
instead consider a broader definition of conflict capable of diverse applications, namely, “the occurrence of mutually
antagonistic or opposing forces, including events, behaviors, desires, attitudes, and emotions” (APA, n.d.-b). Under this
somewhat broad definition, we examine how different forms of conflict—at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and inter-
group levels—can arise from and/or be escalated by several well-studied psychological mechanisms.
Broadly speaking, both COVID-19 and climate change involve deep uncertainty at the intrapersonal level (e.g., evaluating
the severity of the crisis as well as personal risk and responsibility), at the interpersonal level (e.g., weighing concern and
action-taking on behalf of other affected individuals), and at the intergroup level (e.g., navigating the allocation of scarce
resources across groups). This uncertainty has the potential to fuel conflict through divisiveness, inaction, and a general
sense of inefficacy that can paralyze not only individuals, but also communities and entire nations from taking the ameliora-
tive actions needed to address crises (E. Markowitz & Shariff, 2012). As a consequence, both the COVID-19 pandemic and
climate change pose considerable risk to peace and cooperation as individuals navigate their own anxieties, capacity to sup-
port others, and the prioritization of the well-being of ingroup members over outsiders.
Expanding on recent efforts to develop “lessons learned” from the COVID-19 crisis to better understand individual
and collective responses to the climate crisis (Geiger et al., 2021; Klenert et al., 2020; Perkins et al., 2021), we therefore
apply a “social psychology of conflict” lens to examine parallels between COVID-19 and climate change with respect to
the ways in which features of human psychology can produce and entrench conflict in the context of large-scale crises. By
reflecting on similarities (and some key differences) between these two crises, we are able to identify previously underap-
preciated leverage points for future intervention to reduce or mitigate conflict at various levels of analysis in the climate
change context; policymakers, non-governmental organizations, community and civic leaders, and others working in the
climate space should consider these approaches and tools as they seek to navigate a conflict-ridden future.
Viewing climate change through a conflict lens provides a practical framework and organizing model for under-
standing how global crises are especially adept at challenging and complicating the interactions between individual
people, communities, and societies at large, usually with negative consequences. Although recent work has articulated
the link between the environmental impacts of climate change and increased occurrences of large-scale conflict (Burke
et al., 2015; Suh et al., 2021), less attention has been given to the specific mechanisms that promote and sustain conflict.
And although there is no one solution to the conflicts that are produced and amplified by climate change, the applied
social-psychological focus presented here stands in unique contrast to traditional political and natural resource inter-
ventions. Although more recent literature does explore “lessons learned” from COVID-19 in relationship to climate
change (see, e.g., Botzen et al., 2021; Klenert et al., 2020; Perkins et al., 2021), the focus of many of these have been pri-
marily on individual and collective response to risk, risk perception, and motivation to act; our work is unique in
looking at these two global crises through a broader psychology of conflict lens.
For this reason, we highlight five social psychological phenomena that arise within the conflict-inducing nature of
both the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change in order to illustrate where theoretical concepts provide insight for
evidence-based approaches to conflict resolution and/or reduction and where gaps in the literature remain. We examine
conflict from a multidimensional perspective, identifying mechanisms with consequences for conflict at the intraper-
sonal, interpersonal, and the intergroup levels, while also acknowledging the permeable boundaries between these cate-
gories. Beyond highlighting maladaptive psychological reactions that can create and reinforce conflict along different
dimensions, the current review also describes a set of evidence-informed psychological practices and interventions that
can buffer many of the negative outcomes of the ongoing global crises through a process of conflict recognition, pro-
social response, and long-term social change.
BURROWS ET AL. 3 of 18
We focus our attention on the following five psychological mechanisms: cognitive dissonance, responsibility diffu-
sion, compassion fatigue and apathy, dehumanization and prejudice, and zero-sum beliefs. Each of the presented chal-
lenges provide a foundation for understanding the ways in which individuals and groups engage in and/or suffer from
conflict as a response to crises and stress. Although these five concepts are not exhaustive, they provide a broad over-
view of critical concepts from the fields of social and peace psychology and are a starting point for understanding and
addressing conflict at intrapersonal, interpersonal, and intergroup scales within complex global crises. The five psycho-
logical mechanisms and corresponding potential mitigating tools are displayed in Table 1. We also consider the broader
context of disparity-increasing structural dynamics as foundational in influencing all the aforementioned psychological
mechanisms.
2 | I N T R A P E R S O N A L C O N F L I C T : A D D R E S S I N G I N T E R N A L BA R R I E R S TO
ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR
Although conflict is generally conceptualized at the interpersonal or intergroup level, intrapersonal conflict represents
an important and underappreciated driver of behavior in the context of global crises such as a pandemic or climate
change. Early theoretical perspectives on intrapersonal conflict such as those by Lewin (1951) highlight intrapersonal
conflict as an internal, competing desire for multiple, differing goals (e.g., enjoying regular social activities while also
wanting to avoid feeling guilty about spreading COVID-19); later theories place greater emphasis on the conflict
between differing selves (e.g., who someone actually is versus an ideal self; see Lauterbach, 1991). In both traditions,
when an individual's beliefs, values, or morals are misaligned with their own behavior, both cognitive dissonance and
responsibility diffusion can arise. The tension between an individual's belief about a correct response to a crisis and
their actual behavior can contribute to intrapersonal conflict. And, these internal conflicts, when unrecognized or
unchallenged, can inhibit pro-social behaviors by prioritizing short-term individual comfort over more broad and long-
term community concerns.
2.1 | When attitudes and behaviors conflict: Action-hindering cognitive dissonance
When Leo Festinger published A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance in 1957, he founded a significant line of social psycho-
logical research and a mainstream exploration of the many ways in which individuals can deny, ignore, and recreate
the facts of their reality (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 2019). Festinger's classic example describes a chronic smoker learning
of the associated negative health consequences of smoking (Festinger, 1957). The feeling of dissonance created between
this new knowledge and the continued smoking behavior could be reduced either by quitting or else by reappraising
the cognition surrounding negative health impacts—that is, by denying or downplaying the science on the negative
health effects of smoking (Festinger, 1957). Similar reappraisal strategies to reduce internal conflict have surfaced
within reactions to the social distancing, masking, and vaccination recommendations for the COVID-19 pandemic,
especially for individuals less personally vulnerable to the disease's impacts (Vollmann & Salewski, 2021).
Decades of research have confirmed that when faced with exposure to information that challenges preferred
beliefs and/or behaviors, many individuals demonstrate a remarkable capacity to downplay or otherwise dismiss
such information (McGrath, 2017). This trade-off lurks beneath many domains of decision-making, especially those
with consequences that are long-term or abstract or that involve delayed gratification (Heatherton & Vohs, 1998;
Mischel, 1974). In his seminal article addressing the psychological barriers to climate change adaptation, Gifford
(2011) highlights how many people may be in a state of dissonance with respect to climate change due to their
simultaneous deep reliance on fossil fuels to navigate everyday modern life (e.g., gasoline for transportation) along-
side a growing recognition of the negative reality of climate change. This conflict and subsequent reappraisals to
minimize the threat of climate change has been linked to feelings of apathy (Lertzman, 2017), inaction
(Gifford, 2011), and denial (Voisin et al., 2020; Wullenkord & Reese, 2021). In the Global North, the impacts of cli-
mate change are often perceived as distant from everyday life (Norgaard, 2011), making reappraisal not only a viable
option, but an option of seemingly little consequence. Though individuals may recognize climate change as a prob-
lem that requires their behavior to change, feelings of apathy may be facilitated by dissonance (Norgaard, 2006)
and, out of inaction, individuals may therefore maintain societal structures that primarily benefit only those already
in high status position (Jylhä et al., 2016).
TABLE 1 Summary of five psychological mechanisms and corresponding mitigating tools for conflict caused by global crises.
4 of 18
Psychological COVID-climate change

challenge Definition connection Solution Explanation Intervention example
Cognitive Individuals faced with Choosing not to adapt Making behavior change Persuasive and informative Creating clear, specific public
dissonance knowledge that contradicts the behaviors that would accessible/incentivized communication alongside guidelines/practices that avoid
validity of preferred beliefs or mitigate public health positive social incentives can fear-based messages and are
behaviors may refuse to concerns or climate help motivate behavior change. widely distributed; see Bonell
acknowledge the reality of the change threats. et al. (2020).
situation creating intrapersonal
conflict.
Responsibility Lack of either internal or Tendency to rely on others Reducing ambiguity, Making individual adaptive Sponsoring education initiatives
diffusion external accountability for to change their behavior personal accountability behavior recognizable as that increase critical thinking
individuals that nullifies or take responsibility for mechanisms beneficial, safe, and necessary skills prompting individuals to
effective response and/or the impact of crises can increase the likelihood of make discerning judgments
promotes counterproductive instead of taking an individual taking about how their actions (or lack
actions; arises as a form of personal action. responsibility. of action) impacts others, see
intrapersonal conflict. Capulong (2021).
Compassion The personal and vicarious Feelings of apathy and Mobilizing collective By cultivating feelings of Mobilizing community-based
fatigue and trauma of large-scale crisis burnout can contribute action empowerment and efficacy, initiatives that allow for greater
apathy may manifest as an inability to to a reduced ability to collective action processes can social identification and support
care about the suffering of empathize with others. help motivate collective hope, to develop (e.g., hosting an
others, especially individuals thereby curtailing apathy. Earth Day Festival, planting a
from different group identities community garden), see C.
fostering interpersonal conflict. Stevenson, Wakefield, et al.
(2021).
Dehumanization When individuals respond to Tendency to deny and Intergroup contact and Having individuals and Facilitating community
and prejudice crises as a form of threat, ignore the needs and dialog community groups engage in conversations between diverse
moral disengagement suffering of others. meaningful interactions and stakeholders in conflict (e.g.,
strategies may motivate conversations can reduce government officials, farmers,
distrust, blame, and prejudice prejudice and unite global conservationists), see
against outgroup members, concerns Lichtenfeld et al. (2019).
often a catalyst of intergroup
conflict.
Zero-sum beliefs Belief that another group's gain Creation of narratives that Recognizing shared values Applying perspective-taking Cultivating and promoting a sense
comes only at a loss for the drive intergroup and goals techniques to adapt an of shared identity such as
ingroup, fostering intergroup competition while outgroup member's point of “global citizenship” that
conflict. emphasizing the view. Expanding the individuals can find common
suffering of the ingroup. boundaries of group identity ground in, see Rattan and
may also assist in advancing Ambady (2013).
social change efforts.
BURROWS ET AL.
To combat these harmful forms of reappraisal that hamper productive responses to crises and enable further conflict
at both the interpersonal and intergroup level, extant research indicates the clear importance of both accurate and
accessible knowledge as well as feasibility for supporting successful behavior change. Current calls to strengthen civic
education across the United States amidst the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate an increasing recognition of the value
in motivating behavior change via accessible and reliable information shared across communities (Hess & Rice, 2020).
For example, to avoid conflating the importance of the scientific message with personal and political reputations of sin-
gular scientists or educators, creating a national discourse of scientific awareness and actively combating anti-science
bias is of critical importance (Bashe, 2020). In addition, in the context of COVID-19, researchers have outlined key prin-
ciples for communicating public health guidelines for social distancing during the coronavirus such as having clear and
specific guidelines, avoiding fear-based messages, and making change feel accessible (Bonell et al., 2020). Drawing
attention to people's cognitive dissonance may also motivate adaptive behavior in and of itself: When asked to advocate
for adherence to coronavirus guidelines while simultaneously being primed with their own past failures to comply, par-
ticipants later reported choosing to engage in more compliant behaviors (Pearce & Cooper, 2021).
In addition, evidence demonstrates that even modest educational interventions can increase public knowledge:
when provided with brief instruction on the basic mechanism of climate change, participants demonstrated increased
understanding that sustained over time (Sinatra & Lombardi, 2020). Similarly, strategies such as the intentional use of
plausibility judgments (e.g., how likely is this information to be true) can be used to help discern scientific information
from “fake news” (Sinatra & Lombardi, 2020). In the environmental sustainability context, key strategies for creating
pro-environmental behavior change include declarative information provision (“how” to conserve) as well as various
techniques to increase motivation (“why” to conserve), such as material incentives and disincentives, social incentives
and disincentives, and behavioral modeling. This now-vast literature illustrates that oftentimes the most effective inter-
ventions are those that make behavior change an easy, positive, and social experience (Cook & Berrenberg, 1981; De
Young, 1993). Overall, increasing the availability of accurate, scientific information and the ability of individuals to
meaningfully interpret and act on information are two ways in which civic education may help prevent misguided
reappraisal strategies to avoid internal conflict in favor of concrete behavior change.
2.2 | Not my problem: Personal accountability prevented by responsibility diffusion
Behavior change, needed at a large scale to effectively combat the COVID-19 pandemic as well as both ongoing and
future harms of climate change, requires not only reliable information but also that individuals recognize and take
responsibility for their actions to prevent potential conflict or conflict escalation. Unfortunately, personal responsibility
regarding the COVID-19 pandemic has been explicitly rejected by many people, including some global leaders. For
example, in response to a delay in the domestic availability of testing kits early in the pandemic, former US President
Donald Trump stated plainly, declared, “I don't take responsibility at all” (Fallows, 2020). President Trump's statement
reflects a picture of ambiguous policies and regulations within federal and state-level institutions, one that allows for
differing interpretations of roles—an ideal platform for the diffusion of responsibility by the individuals within those
institutions (Flinders, 2020).
Within social psychology, the notion of responsibility diffusion expresses how the presence of other individuals can
influence behavior, often with the negative outcome that any one individual is less likely to take responsibility for
action or inaction when other bystanders or witnesses are present (Turner & Oakes, 1986). Denial of personal responsi-
bility has been indicated as one form of dissonance reduction which helps to minimize the negative affect brought on
by intrapersonal conflict (Gosling et al., 2006), with diffusion further serving as a rationale to reduce the internal con-
flict between recognizing the need for action and choosing not to act.
In the context of deciding to take responsibility for an emergency situation or crisis, the presence of other individ-
uals (i.e., bystanders) in an emergency situation can reduce the likelihood of people providing aid (Darley &
Latane, 1968) and the mere presence of another person can reduce one's sense of agency over an action (Beyer
et al., 2017). In some cases, responsibility diffusion may be caused by an individual's sincere belief that others are better
prepared to take action within a given situation (Rendsvig, 2014). Other motivations for responsibility diffusion may
resemble the concept of social loafing, for example, choosing to work less when others are also contributing to the work
effort in certain group situations (Karau & Williams, 1993), or an egocentric bias to diffusion such that responsibility is
claimed only for successes but not for failures (Bond et al., 1984; Forsyth et al., 1981). Another example can be found in
public health cases of “care fragmentation,” when patients receive care from multiple providers without clear
coordination (Marcotte et al., 2020). Regardless of the underlying conflict of interest that motivates an individual's
refusal to take responsibility, the consequences of responsibility diffusion during a crisis can be devastating as demon-
strated through failed governmental responses by the United States following Hurricane Katrina (Gomez &
Wilson, 2008) and the Soviet Union following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster (McClatchey, 1996).
Social psychology articulates straightforward interventions for responsibility diffusion within individual and small
group dynamics. These interventions include increasing feelings of responsibility through personalized accountability
requests (Shaffer et al., 1975), reducing ambiguity about the situation (Fischer et al., 2011), and incentivizing formally
assigned group leaders (Ferrante et al., 2006). Initial data from the COVID-19 pandemic support variations of these strate-
gies in motivating vaccination intention and action: Measures of confidence and collective responsibility were associated
with students' vaccination intentions, with collective responsibility serving as a mediating factor between vaccination
intent and higher levels of perceived risk of COVID-19 to others, altruism, and the need to belong (Wismans et al., 2021).
Similarly, for young social media users, the desire to protect their families and relatives was the most commonly expressed
reason for vaccination at 96.7%, with viewing vaccination as an act of civic responsibility following closely at 91.9% (Benis
et al., 2021). The important role of increasing perceived responsibility in vaccination rates has been acknowledge by sev-
eral studies which advocate for mindfulness through critical thinking as a way to increase individual responsibility
(Capulong, 2021), making broad shifts from norm-based ethics to an ethic of responsible behavior (Gonzalez-Melado & Di
Pietro, 2021), and increasing individual sense of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) as well as the belief that it is safe
to take interpersonal risks together as a team (Stühlinger et al., 2021).
At an individual level, the distribution of responsibility is simply more ambiguous in the case of climate change than
COVID-19. Arguments both for and against the need for individual moral obligation in making sustainable climate
choices highlight the scale of culpability and impact of governments and corporations, making clear the limitations of
individual responsibility as a mitigation strategy (Hedberg, 2018; Jamieson, 2015). Despite these challenges, there exists
reason for cautious optimism for motivating individuals to uphold personal responsibility in the climate domain. Overall,
the assumption of personal responsibility in regard to climate change mitigation has been demonstrated to be positively
and significantly linked to many forms of mitigating climate actions (Bouman et al., 2020; Jakučionytė-Skodienė &
Liobikienė, 2021). When individuals are incentivized to take proactive responsibility for their own adaptive behavior
change during crises, the intrapersonal conflict between understanding that action is needed while simultaneously feeling
reluctant to act can be ameliorated.
3 | INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT: A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE NEEDS OF

T H E SE L F AN D O T H E R S
As reviewed above, intrapersonal conflict refers to an individual's internal conflict that arises from perceived mis-
matches between personally held beliefs, external messaging or new information, and one's behavior (Silverman, 2020).
The intrapersonal conflict of personal goals inherent to both cognitive dissonance and diffusion of responsibility may
thus serve as barriers to taking mitigating actions before crises or from adopting sustainable practices during crises.
Moving beyond internalized conflict, interpersonal conflict—or interactions between two or more people in which dis-
agreement or friction occurs due to misaligned needs or goals followed by negative emotion (Barki &
Hartwick, 2004)—prevails as a barrier to positive adaptation in times of global crises. Interpersonal conflict between
the needs of the self and the needs of others can prevent positive conflict mitigation strategies: For example, emotional
fatigue and exhaustion caused by caring for others in distress can result in maladaptive emotions such as helplessness
and anxiety, leading to anti-social behaviors that reinforce self-protective forms of social isolation and withdrawal (Van
Overmeire et al., 2021). Without motivation for positive social engagement with others, tensions that arise between dif-
ferent individuals are more likely to evolve into active forms of aggression and conditions that allow for future conflicts
to emerge (e.g., a lack of resources) are more likely to fester unaddressed.
3.1 | You versus me: Hindered pro-social behavior through overwhelmed emotions
The emotional toll of large-scale disasters such as a global pandemic leads people to feel paralyzed, apathetic, and hope-
less, with consequences for social behavior. For example, evidence suggests that in the face of the climate change crisis,
feelings of apathy and hopelessness negatively impact adaptive behavior and decrease motivations to mitigate the crisis'
impacts (Doherty & Clayton, 2011). The presence of mounting uncertainty and anxiety about the future can even culmi-
nate in compassion fatigue or “the burnout and stress-related symptoms experienced by caregivers and other helping
professionals in reaction to working with traumatized people over an extended period of time” (APA, n.d.-a).
The concept of compassion fatigue originates with and has been most extensively studied among healthcare profes-
sionals (see Sinclair et al., 2017). Among nurses, one study found that the perceived disruptiveness and criticality of
COVID-19 events were positively associated with compassion fatigue (Hochwarter et al., 2022) while another study
demonstrated that the direct care of COVID-19 patients predicted greater parental burnout, child abuse, spousal con-
flict, and substance abuse, mediated through compassion fatigue (M. C. Stevenson, College, et al., 2021). At the same
time, the process of psychological burnout prevails across many different domains, especially in times of crises, with lay
use of the term extending to any individual overwhelmed by the needs of others. Beyond examples from direct
healthcare providers, compassion fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic was found to be higher for educators who
made more attempts to reach out to students (Yang et al., 2021) and related forms of burnout were documented for
funeral directors as well as front-line workers in rural communities (Roberts et al., 2021; Van Overmeire et al., 2021).
Although understandable, apathy resulting from compassion fatigue can be a significant barrier to adaptive behav-
ior change. In this way, compassion fatigue can be interpreted as a driver of interpersonal conflict in which an individ-
ual's own needs and well-being comes into tension with the needs and well-being of others (Somaraju et al., 2021).
However, compassion fatigue is not the only driver of interpersonal conflict: Some individuals may feel a lack of con-
cern or be apathetic towards the suffering of others without the initial extension of empathy inherent to compassion
fatigue (Greenson, 1949). Racial apathy is a particularly pervasive expression that extends across both interpersonal and
intergroup forms of conflict (in the climate change context, see Forman & Lewis, 2006; in the context of COVID-19, see
Tessler et al., 2020).
Apathy for the well-being of others has clear and harrowing repercussions in the domain of climate change. The
aforementioned example of Hurricane Katrina—as well as the ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan—serve as vivid
reminders of the way in which fatigue in response to environmental devastation of communities of color can spiral into
regulatory and enforcement failures to act under the shadow of racial apathy (Butler et al., 2016). As the consequences
of climate change become more visible and prevalent, there is reason to suspect that interpersonal and societal concern
may decrease rather than increase due to a numbing of affective responses (Västfjäll et al., 2014). Work on the related
concept of “compassion fade” suggests that, at least for less environmentally engaged individuals, the reduced ability to
care about others may conflict with the collective ability and will to address environmental harms (E. M. Markowitz
et al., 2013).
As previously described, reducing intrapersonal cognitive conflicts through accessible and agentic personal behavior
change is a starting place for positive crisis adaptation. However, a critical next step in sustaining adaptive strategies
involves reinforcing emotional resilience through the mutual support of others to avoid the pitfalls of interpersonal
(and intergroup) conflict. To address the ways in which compassion fatigue and apathy may drive interpersonal forms
of conflict, interventions among healthcare workers have focused on increasing mindfulness and self-care to reduce
burnout and improve feelings of compassion (Abernathy & Martin, 2019; Klein et al., 2018). Similar recommendations
have been made to address broader forms of compassion fade in the environmental context. Here, mindfulness has
been empirically linked with stronger motivations to take climate adaptation actions, potentially due to its ability to
help individuals focus on the present form of engagement as well as enhance the perception of self-efficacy and emotion
regulation (Butts et al., 2019; McLaughlin et al., 2019; Wamsler & Brink, 2018).
Moving closer to addressing these impacts at the intergroup level of conflict (see also the following section), inte-
grating intrinsic motivations of behavior change with collective action efforts can provide both material and psychologi-
cal support, making it a meaningful and a globally relevant adaptation to the conflict caused by crises such as COVID-
19 and climate change (Lertzman, 2020). Collective action, defined as unified goals pursued by a group of individuals,
provides recourse to address apathy engendered by compassion fatigue and more nefarious forms of indifference. In
addition, collective empowerment involves perceived control over the future of one's group and others (Sachdev &
Bourhis, 1991) and promotes positive emotions such as hope (Doherty & Clayton, 2011; Wlodarczyk et al., 2017), while
collective efficacy promotes endurance of participation in collective action efforts (Landmann & Rohmann, 2020).
Within the context of the pandemic, a sense of shared identity—one associated outcome of collective empowerment—
not only predicated the giving and receiving of pandemic-related support but also lockdown adherence (C. Stevenson,
Wakefield, et al., 2021). To mitigate feelings of apathy towards others and their suffering, mindfulness and collective
action are particularly useful in bridging intentions and motivations for adaptation, positioning individuals to produc-
tively reduce occurrences of interpersonal conflicts of crises.
4 | I N T E R G R O U P C O N F L I C T : W H E R E U S V E R S U S TH E M BE C O M E S
ENTRENCHED
Though previous research has indicated how global crises like climate change are hotbeds for violent intergroup conflict
(Burke et al., 2015), less research has focused on how psychological mechanisms of conflict are sustained and addressed at
intergroup and societal levels. Intergroup conflict has been defined as “the perceived incompatibility of goals or values
between two or more individuals, which emerges because these individuals classify themselves as members of different social
groups” (Böhm et al., 2020). Here, we pay specific attention to conflict as it arises against a generalized group of people
and how mechanisms of dehumanization and competitive beliefs intensify and sustain conflict during time of crisis.
At the intergroup level, dehumanization as well as zero-sum beliefs may inhibit the cooperation necessary to pursue
collective solutions and equitable resource allocations, thereby starting and/or exacerbating conditions for conflict
ożycka-Tran et al., 2021; Simon & Gutsell, 2021). Although these two psychological processes may in and of themselves
(R
not signify an active conflict, per se, they help reinforce and justify the value of engaging in and/or continuing conflict.
4.1 | Dehumanization and prejudicial bias against outgroup members
During times of crisis, individuals are at risk of morally disengaging from the suffering of others in ways that can moti-
vate distrust, blame, and violence towards individuals viewed as being outside of their group. Dehumanization, a type
of moral disengagement strategy which seeks to limit the experience of negative emotions such as fear and anxiety that
arise when outgroup members are unjustly hurt or treated poorly, deprives a group of people human attributes and/or
references them through animal names or traits (Bandura, 1990). Dehumanization's function of denying the humanity
of others has also been implicated in forms of group bias that generate intergroup conflict (N. Kteily et al., 2016) across
everyday dynamics such as in the creation of punitive policies against individuals with a lower status in society, in the
defamation of political parties and social leaders, and in attributions of disease and illness-spreading (Haslam &
Murphy, 2020; N. S. Kteily & Landry, 2022). Among its many negative repercussions, dehumanization has been consid-
ered an underlying determinant of health disparities due to its association with increased expressions of prejudice
(Haque & Waytz, 2012; Smith, 2011).
With dehumanization apparent throughout the COVID-19 pandemic (D. M. Markowitz et al., 2021), understanding
how dehumanization works as well as how to prevent or reduce it becomes ever more important. Several prominent
public officials have repeatedly referred to COVID-19 as the Chinese flu (Rogers et al., 2020) contributing to stigmatiza-
tion and blame towards a national identity rather than promote dialogue and unity (Kimura, 2021). Importantly, dehu-
manization promotes prejudice against and apathy for outgroups, a pattern often observed in responses to climate
change impacts (Bandura, 2016). For example, a majority of people in countries of the Global North have reported a rel-
atively weak concern regarding climate change, in part due to a misconstrued belief that the impacts are only likely to
negatively affect people in the Global South (i.e., more distant and less morally relevant populations; Jones et al., 2017;
Scannell & Gifford, 2013). Such disengagement and distancing inhibit strong public and political responses to climate
change (Leiserowitz et al., 2020) and stronger perceptions of racial disparities in COVID-19 have been associated with
less concern about COVID-19 and less support for safety precautions among White Americans (Skinner-Dorkenoo
et al., 2022). Dehumanization, and conflict that results from it, represents an important barrier to proactive societal
responses across global crises, including climate change (Swim & Bloodhart, 2018).
One approach to reducing conflict driven by dehumanization comes from social psychological research on inter-
group contact: in contact interventions, people of different, often antagonistic, groups are put in direct communication
and interaction with one another, ideally on equal-status terms to cooperatively pursue a common goal (Allport, 1954).
Improving intergroup relations through direct contact, also known as intergroup contact (Allport, 1954), has been par-
ticularly effective in addressing dehumanization and prejudice. Hundreds of studies confirm that intergroup contact is
an effective strategy in prejudice reduction and improving group relations when done so under the right conditions
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). During the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, research indicated the value of simply
having more friends and acquaintances from an outgroup: White Americans who had greater contact with Asian indi-
viduals showed less behavioral prejudice toward Asian individuals than those who had less or no contact
(Mandalaywala et al., 2020). More specific interventions, such as intergroup dialogue—which entails intentional and
sustained reciprocal interactions (Nagda & Zúñiga, 2003)—are also effective in prejudice reduction as well as fostering
social justice actions (Zúñiga & Sevig, 1997).
The value of dialogue and shared information has already been of critical relevance in navigating the COVID-19
pandemic, with frequency of positive outgroup contact and media exposure being associated with less prejudiced beliefs
(Tsai et al., 2020). At a pragmatic level, this has material consequence for avoiding intergroup conflict. For example,
efforts to contain the pandemic in Italy were significantly strengthened when the Chinese government provided direct
support and shared medical expertise and resources as COVID-19 cases were peaking (Wood, 2020). And, positive inter-
group contact and dialogue will continue to be essential in advancing climate change efforts even after the worst
impacts of COVID-19 have subsided. Ongoing global initiatives such as the National Geographic Society collaboration
with the African People and Wildlife Organization are creating community-based frameworks that include key aspects
of intergroup dialogue between local communities and government partnerships to promote ground-up conservation
efforts (Lichtenfeld et al., 2019).
Beyond the role of intergroup contact in shaping positive dialogue and joint-group efforts towards collaborative
solutions for crises like COVID-19, contact may also decrease the degree of intergroup conflict currently foreseen
as a result of climate-forced migration and, more broadly, climate collapse (Burrows & Kinney, 2016; Richards
et al., 2021). Although research in this domain remains relatively nascent, a series of studies demonstrated
that intergroup contact encouraged more environmentally responsible attitudes and behaviors by promoting more
egalitarian viewpoints (Meleady et al., 2020). Outside of mitigation-focused behavior changes for the environment,
contact may also play a multifaceted role in not only reducing the dehumanization of the individuals most visibly
impacted by climate change (e.g., climate refugees or migrants) but also through its interaction with varying
integration policies to help reduce symbolic and realistic threats (De Coninck et al., 2021; Green et al., 2020).
Importantly, past experiences of intergroup contact have been shown to be predictive of support for (anti-) discrim-
inatory policies, indicating the particular importance of dedicating resources to contact interventions before such
policies become introduced (Alston et al., 2022).
4.2 | Zero-sum beliefs and competitive victimhood: Conflict as an inevitable reality
When suffering is ubiquitous and resources are scarce, “zero-sum” mindsets—or the perception that an outgroup's gain
comes only at a personal loss—can dominate decision-making (Huijsmans et al., 2019). In addition, access and percep-
tions of resource scarcity may influence feelings of victimhood and highlight tensions of moral identity, emphasizing
concerns about who has a right to access and use scarce resources (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008; Young & Sullivan, 2016).
As barriers to healthcare and economic sustainability multiplied dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic, individ-
uals have been forced to consider with new urgency threats to their well-being (e.g., loss of employment or limited
access to needed supplies) and how these threats are distributed, often unequally, across different groups in their commu-
nities and the broader society. At times, the conflict caused by scarcity and ensuing competition during the COVID-19
pandemic has manifested at a more interpersonal dynamic, for example in conflict caused by aggressive rushes to panic
buy products (Arafat et al., 2021). However, the clear repercussions of scarcity cross broader dimensions of potential group
bias; for example, in the allocation of critical medical supplies, attempts to prioritize both equitable and ethical distribu-
tions were a part of national discourse (Prachand et al., 2020; Supady et al., 2021).
In a classic psychological experiment known as the “Robbers Cave,” Sherif and colleagues found that the presence
of group competition for scarce resources increased prejudice and stereotyping of outgroup members (Esses et al., 1998;
Sherif et al., 1961). In the study, summer camp youth were divided into two groups, the Eagles and the Rattlers, and
required to undergo a series of competitive games and tasks in which only one team could “win” desirable rewards;
these tasks engrained hostile and prejudiced attitudes between the groups through enforced competition over seemingly
limited resources (Sherif et al., 1961). At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, images of empty grocery store
shelves in countless media outlets around the globe put many people in a “Robbers Cave”-type environment, with con-
stant reminders that resources are (or appear to be) scarce and that not every individual, household, or group can
expect to secure what they need without engaging in conflict-causing competition.
Apart from these vivid reminders of scarcity, competing narratives about public health and economic risks early in
the pandemic created confusion and engrained perceived group differences between individuals who prioritized health
concerns versus individuals who prioritized economic concerns. This type of “zero-sum” thinking deepened political
polarization and failed to recognize the common priorities inherent to both positions (Greenhalgh, 2021). Similarly,
efforts to highlight the harm of COVID-19 to specific gender groups failed to recognize the complexity and mutuality of
impacts across groups (Morgan et al., 2021). These examples also coincided with elements of competitive victimhood, a
psychological process in which one group may claim to have suffered more than another in order to restore power or a
positive moral image (Noor et al., 2012).
Both zero-sum beliefs and competitive victimhood are also present in the domain of climate change (Tobin, 2020).
Perhaps this is most obvious in rhetoric in ongoing debates over “what is owed” by more developed nations
(e.g., Global North) to less developed nations (e.g., Global South) for having produced the vast majority of climate
change greenhouse gas emissions over the past century (e.g., Pan et al., 2019). With each new round of international cli-
mate negotiations over the past 20 years in particular, the world has witnessed firsthand how both zero-sum beliefs and
narratives of competitive victimhood both emerge and are oftentimes explicitly leveraged to derail negotiations and
cooperation (Dimitrov, 2010; Kinley et al., 2021); indeed, such dynamics also emerge in simulations of climate change
negotiations with nonexpert, nonelite participants (Sterman et al., 2015).
Although psychological research may not be able to provide tools capable of eliminating resource scarcity, it does
provide tools to avoid entrenching prejudice and conflict that develop as a consequence of zero-sum mindsets and com-
petitive victimhood. In particular, perspective-taking and recategorization with outgroup individuals are two possible
socio-psychological interventions with long records of empirical support. Perspective-taking refers to cognitively
adapting an outgroup member's perspective and applying this perspective to the current context (Goldstein et al., 2014).
Perspective-taking has been used to mitigate competitive victimhood and foster greater intergroup cooperation (Shih
et al., 2009; Shnabel et al., 2013). Techniques of perspective-taking such as role reversal and controlled dialogue
(e.g., both conflicting parties engage in active listening and perspective-taking) have effectively increased emotions such
as empathy for outgroup members (Gutenbrunner & Wagner, 2016; see Todd & Galinsky, 2014 for a review). In the
context of climate change, perspective-taking could help to orient individuals living in climate-change resistant commu-
nities towards imagining the lived experiences of those currently undergoing extreme weather conditions.
Another approach for reducing competitive victimhood is to expand the understanding of who belongs in a shared
group identity, a process called “superordinate categorization.” Evidence suggests that holding a common or shared
group identification, often facilitated by perspective taking, effectively decreases competitive victimhood (Demirdag &
Hasta, 2019). Superordinate categorization, such as thinking about the self as a “global citizen” instead of belonging to
a particular country or nationality, has been shown to increase tolerance towards outgroups (Mummendey &
Wenzel, 1999). Similar identification models of “global citizenship” have been utilized to promote pro-environmental
values such as environmental sustainability, social justice, and responsibility (Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013). In the
example of the COVID-19 pandemic, an individual who prioritizes homeschooling their child in a virtual classroom
due to health concerns and an individual who prioritizes reopening schools as soon as possible due to a lack of
childcare may find common ground in the superordinate identity of a “devoted parent,” thus recognizing the mutual
desire to cherish the well-being and safety of their children. For the former, this means limiting exposure to COVID-19
through in-person gatherings while for the latter this means maintaining employment by having accessible childcare.
Although this recategorization does not resolve the ongoing conflict of priorities in and of itself, it may serve as a foun-
dation for recognizing shared motivations and goals—a necessary component for advancing positive social change
efforts.
Already, scientists have called for a more collective approach to understanding and addressing climate change con-
flict and adoption of pro-environmental behavior change through the application of superordinate categorization
(e.g., incorporating and broadening multiple aspects of identity) as an effective source of mitigation (Fritsche
et al., 2018). Notably, the effective use of strategies such as perspective-taking and superordinate categorization does
not mean washing over group differences through a color-blind approach, which can lead to negative interactions for
minority group members (Rattan & Ambady, 2013). Instead, it requires an understanding of individual and societal
positionality, especially in terms of privilege and power.
5 | B E Y O N D T H E S O C IA L - P S Y C H O L O G I C A L : A D D R E S S IN G T H E
STRUCTURAL DIM ENS IONS OF CONFLICT
Thus far, we have reviewed five psychological mechanisms inherent to the conflict of global crises that hamper positive
responses, providing corresponding psychologically based strategies for addressing each mechanism. It is important to
recognize, however, structural sources of conflict as well. Although individuals and groups may uphold and create dis-
parities or national policies that produce biases, it is institutional systems that guarantee the perpetuation of systemic
bias and conflict during times of crises.
The climate change and COVID-19 crises reveal the vast inequities that exist between communities with abundant
resources and communities with limited capacity to withstand and recover from global crises, inequities which underlie
the psychological dimensions and mechanisms discussed above. These inequities are further exacerbated by the fact
that the crises' direct and immediate impacts fall predominantly on individuals and communities already experiencing
inequity and stress (Greenberg et al., 2020; Von Braun et al., 2020). This makes holding actors who are complacent or
actively exploiting the crises accountable that much more challenging (Klenert et al., 2020). Structural factors such as
hostile living and working conditions (Patel et al., 2020) as well as disparate access to care and resources (Njoku
et al., 2021) consistently undermine individuals' efforts to maintain healthy lifestyle decisions and outcomes.
Addressing structural sources of conflict such as the disparities within the public health or economic systems
requires comprehensive and complex solutions that extend beyond recognizing and addressing and the psychological
mechanisms discussed above. Research demonstrates that if the three highest carbon-emitting countries (China, the
United States, and India) were to internalize domestically their respective economic costs associated with climate dam-
age, global emissions could be reduced to levels aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement (Ricke et al., 2018). How-
ever, motivating nation states or other larger social entities such as corporations to acknowledge ongoing harm and act
pro-socially requires mechanisms capable of imposing accountability and consequence (Mascarenhas, 2007). In parallel,
marginalized communities are likely to face disproportionate harm during a global crisis (Gutierrez & LePrevost, 2016),
making it clear that the mitigation of conflict must include sustained efforts to narrow disparities and increase commu-
nity resiliency (Markkanen & Anger-Kraavi, 2019).
To this end, insights from climate justice and community resilience discourses provide critical insight into recog-
nizing and ameliorating systemic disparities that underlie pervasive forms of conflict. Climate justice emphasizes
inequitable vulnerabilities and the importance of community stakeholders in climate decisions (Schlosberg &
Collins, 2014), mirroring many of the same concerns regarding disparities as its theoretical predecessor, environmen-
tal justice. The environmental justice framework broadly argues that exposures to pollution and other environmental
risks are distributed unequally as a function of race and class (Mohai et al., 2009). Research documents a long list of
environmental inequalities in the United States in domains such as the location of waste sites and exposure to envi-
ronmental risk (Mohai & Bryant, 1992; Ringquist, 2005; Szasz & Meuser, 1997). By first acknowledging where and
when these persistent forms of injustice occur and who they impact most, local and national conversations that cen-
ter community resilience can help build capacity for adaptation and risk management preemptively, before the full
onset of future crisis-related conflict.
6 | C ON C L U S I ON
When considering a global crisis, intrapersonal conflict arises as individuals attempt to distance their attitudes
from their behavior through the mechanism of cognitive dissonance (Pearce & Cooper, 2021). Furthermore, diffu-
sion of responsibility often hinders prosocial behaviors or decision-making as individuals attempt to justify their
own lack of action (Marcotte et al., 2020). As the impact of the crisis begins to overwhelm social systems and net-
works, people are likely to experience compassion fatigue and apathy, driving both interpersonal and intergroup
conflict (Alharbi et al., 2020; Ruiz-Fernandez et al., 2020). Other forms of disconnections between people can also
be expressed at the intergroup level through dehumanization, when people begin to see outgroup members as less-
than human (D. M. Markowitz et al., 2021). Moreover, in an attempt to promote individualistic or ingroup-serving
goals, people tend to rely on zero-sum calculations to defend decisions that further escalate intergroup conflict over
allocation of scarce resources (Basrur & Kliem, 2021). Importantly, both in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic
and climate change, conflict and the impacts of conflict caused by these psychological mechanisms fall dispropor-
tionately on already vulnerable individuals and communities, highlighting inequities entrenched by both long
standing and ongoing harm.
And yet, times of crisis can also present an opportunity to address long-standing and systemic harms in order to cre-
ate meaningful change. The direction and ultimate outcomes of that change, either increasing or decreasing conflict in
the future, are not predetermined and perhaps also not always obvious. In considering the lessons to be learned from
ongoing experiences of COVID-19 and climate change through the lens of multidimensional mechanisms and drivers
of conflict, and by utilizing social psychological mechanisms to anticipate and address such conflict (Ecker et al., 2020;
Lewandowsky et al., 2021), there exists a profound potential to create sustainable action, strengthen our global commu-
nities, and mitigate the worst and most unjust impacts of future crises.
A U T H O R C ON T R I B U T I O NS
Brooke Burrows: Conceptualization (lead); investigation (lead); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review and
editing (lead). Cierra Abellera: Conceptualization (lead); investigation (lead); writing – original draft (lead);
writing – review and editing (lead). Ezra Markowitz: Conceptualization (supporting); investigation (supporting);
writing – original draft (supporting); writing – review and editing (supporting).
FUNDING INFORMATION
This study was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (under Grant No. 1938059)
awarded to one of the first authors.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
ORCID
Brooke Burrows https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4069-8741
Ezra M. Markowitz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8140-2970
R EL ATE D WIR Es AR TI CL ES
It's not too late to do the right thing: Moral motivations for climate change action
R EF E RE N C E S
Abernathy, S., & Martin, R. (2019). Reducing compassion fatigue with self-care and mindfulness. Nursing2020 Critical Care, 14(5), 38–44.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCN.0000578852.69314.be
Alharbi, J., Jackson, D., & Usher, K. (2020). The potential for COVID-19 to contribute to compassion fatigue in critical care nurses. Journal
of Clinical Nursing, 29, 2762–2764. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15314
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Alston, L., Meleady, R., & Seger, C. R. (2022). Can past intergroup contact shape support for policies in a pandemic? Processes predicting
endorsement of discriminatory Chinese restrictions during the COVID-19 crisis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(1), 122–132.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220959710
American Psychological Association (APA). (n.d.-a). Compassion fatigue. https://dictionary.apa.org/compassion-fatigue
American Psychological Association (APA). (n.d.-b). Conflict. https://dictionary.apa.org/conflict
Arafat, S. M., Kar, S. K., & Kabir, R. (2021). Possible controlling measures of panic buying during COVID-19. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction, 19(6), 2289–2291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220959710
Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms of moral disengagement. In W. Reich (Ed.), Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of
mind (pp. 161–191). Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How good people can do harm and feel good about themselves. Worth Publishers.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3),
216–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022913
Bashe, G. (2020). Good Communication Is Key to Reestablishing Trust in Science. 46 Hum Rts. 5. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?
handle=hein.journals/huri46&div=47&id=&page=
Basrur, R., & Kliem, F. (2021). Covid-19 and international cooperation: IR paradigms at odds. SN Social Sciences, 1(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s43545-020-00006-4
Benis, A., Seidmann, A., & Ashkenazi, S. (2021). Reasons for taking the COVID-19 vaccine by US social media users. Vaccine, 9(4), 315.
https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9040315
Beyer, F., Sidarus, N., Bonicalzi, S., & Haggard, P. (2017). Beyond self-serving bias: Diffusion of responsibility reduces sense of agency and
outcome monitoring. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw160
Böhm, R., Rusch, H., & Baron, J. (2020). The psychology of intergroup conflict: A review of theories and measures. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 178, 947–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.020
Bond, M. H., Chiu, C. K., & Wan, K. C. (1984). When modesty fails: The social impact of group-effacing attributions following success or fail-
ure. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14(3), 335–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420140308
Bonell, C., Michie, S., Reicher, S., West, R., Bear, L., Yardley, L., Curtis, V., Amlot, R., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). Harnessing behavioural science
in public health campaigns to maintain “social distancing” in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Key principles. Journal of Epidemiol-
ogy and Community Health, 74(8), 617–619. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-214290
Botzen, W., Duijndam, S., & van Beukering, P. (2021). Lessons for climate policy from behavioral biases towards COVID-19 and climate
change risks. World Development, 137, 105214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105214
Bouman, T., Verschoor, M., Albers, C. J., Böhm, G., Fisher, S. D., Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., & Steg, L. (2020). When worry about climate
change leads to climate action: How values, worry and personal responsibility relate to various climate actions. Global Environmental
Change, 62, 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102061
Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M., & Miguel, E. (2015). Climate and conflict. Annual Review Economics, 7(1), 577–617. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-economics-080614-115430
Burrows, K., & Kinney, L. P. (2016). Exploring the climate change, migration and conflict nexus. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 13(4), 443. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13040443
Butler, L. J., Scammell, M. K., & Benson, E. B. (2016). The Flint, Michigan, water crisis: A case study in regulatory failure and environmental
injustice. Environmental Justice, 9(4), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2016.0014
Butts, M. M., Lunt, D. C., Freling, T. L., & Gabriel, A. S. (2019). Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic
review of the compassion fade literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
obhdp.2018.12.006
Capulong, H. G. M. (2021). Mindfulness as key in easing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Journal of Public Health, 43(2), e338–e339. https://
doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdab050
Collins, R. (2009). Micro and macro causes of violence. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 3(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-2790
Cook, S. W., & Berrenberg, J. L. (1981). Approaches to encouraging conservation behavior: A review and conceptual framework. Journal of
Social Issues, 37, 73–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb02627.x
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 8(4, Pt.1), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589
De Coninck, D., Rodríguez-de-Dios, I., & d'Haenens, L. (2021). The contact hypothesis during the European refugee crisis: Relating quality
and quantity of (in) direct intergroup contact to attitudes towards refugees. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(6), 881–901.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220929394
De Young, R. (1993). Changing behavior and making it stick: The conceptualization and management of conservation behavior. Environment
and Behavior, 25(3), 485–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593253003
Demirdag, A., & Hasta, D. (2019). Threat perception and perspective taking as mediators between competitive victimhood and evaluations of
collective action: The Gezi park protests. Political Psychology, 5, 953–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12564
Dimitrov, R. S. (2010). Inside UN climate change negotiations: The Copenhagen conference. Review of Policy Research, 27(6), 795–821.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00472.x
Doherty, T. J., & Clayton, S. (2011). The psychological impacts of global climate change. The American Psychologist, 4, 265–276. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0023141
Ecker, U. K. H., Butler, L. H., Cook, J., Hurlstone, M. J., Kurz, T., & Lewandowsky, S. (2020). Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame
climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101464. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An
instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 699–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01244.x
Fallows, J. (2020, March 13). 2020 Time capsule #3: “I don't take responsibility at all.” The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/
2020/03/2020-time-capsule-3-i-dont-take-responsibility-at-all/608005/
Ferrante, C. J., Green, S. G., & Forster, W. R. (2006). Getting more out of team projects: Incentivizing leadership to enhance performance.
Journal of Management Education, 30(6), 788–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562906287968
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson.
Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmuller, A., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The
bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin,
137(4), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023304
Flinders, M. (2020). Gotcha! Coronavirus, crises and the politics of blame games. Political Insight, 11(2), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2041905820933371
Forman, T. A., & Lewis, A. E. (2006). Racial apathy and hurricane Katrina: The social anatomy of prejudice in the post-civil rights era. Du
Bois Review, 3(1), 175–202. 10.1017/S1742058X06060127
Forsyth, D., Berger, R., & Mitchell, T. (1981). The effects of self-serving vs. other-serving claims of responsibility on attraction and attribution
in groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(1), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033865
Fritsche, I., Barth, M., Jugert, P., Masson, T., & Reese, G. (2018). A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychologi-
cal Review, 125(2), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000090
Geiger, N., Gore, A., Squire, C. V., & Attari, S. Z. (2021). Investigating similarities and differences in individual reactions to the COVID-19
pandemic and the climate crisis. Climatic Change, 167(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03143-8
Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psycholo-
gist, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
Goldstein, N. J., Vezich, I. S., & Shapiro, J. R. (2014). Perceived perspective taking: When others walk in our shoes. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 106(6), 941–960. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036395
Gomez, B. T., & Wilson, J. M. (2008). Political sophistication and attributions of blame in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Publius: The Jour-
nal of Federalism, 38(4), 633–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjn016
Gonzalez-Melado, F. J., & Di Pietro, M. L. (2021). The vaccine against COVID-19 and institutional trust. Enfermedades Infecciosas y Micro-
biologia Clinica (English Ed.), 39(10), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eimce.2021.09.001
Gosling, P., Denizeau, M., & Oberlé, D. (2006). Denial of responsibility: A new mode of dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90(5), 722–733. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.722
Green, E. G., Visintin, E. P., Sarrasin, O., & Hewstone, M. (2020). When integration policies shape the impact of intergroup contact on threat
perceptions: A multilevel study across 20 European countries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(3), 631–648. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1369183X.2018.1550159
Greenberg, D., Calabrese Barton, A., Turner, C., Hardy, K., Roper, A., Williams, C., Herrenkohl, L. R., Davis, E. A., & Tasker, T. (2020). Com-
munity infrastructuring as necessary ingenuity in the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Researcher, 49(7), 518–523. https://doi.org/10.
3102/0013189X20957614
Greenhalgh, T. (2021). Health and wealth in pandemic times: Not a zero sum game. British Medical Journal, 374, n1681. https://doi.org/10.
1136/bmj.n1681
Greenson, R. (1949). The psychology of apathy. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 18(3), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/21674086.1949.
11925763
Gutenbrunner, L., & Wagner, U. (2016). Perspective-taking techniques in the mediation of intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of
Peace Psychology, 22(4), 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000184
Gutierrez, K. S., & LePrevost, C. E. (2016). Climate justice in rural southeastern United States: A review of climate change impacts and effects
on human health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(2), 189. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020189
Haque, O. S., & Waytz, A. (2012). Dehumanization in medicine: Causes, solutions, and functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2),
176–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611429706
Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory.
In E. Harmon-Jones (Ed.), Cognitive dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology (pp. 3–24). American Psychological Associa-
tion. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-001
Haslam, N., & Murphy, S. C. (2020). Hate, dehumanization, and “hate”. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Perspectives on hate: How it originates,
develops, manifests, and spreads (pp. 27–41). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000180-002
Heatherton, T. F., & Vohs, K. D. (1998). Why is it so difficult to inhibit behavior? Psychological Inquiry, 9(3), 212–216. https://doi.org/10.
1207/s15327965pli0903_4
Hedberg, T. (2018). Climate change, moral integrity, and obligations to reduce individual greenhouse gas emissions. Ethics, Policy & Environ-
ment, 21(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2018.1448039
Hess, M. F., & Rice, M. (2020, April 1). Common ground on civics education matters—Now more than ever. The Hill. https://thehill.com/
opinion/education/490546-common-ground-on-civics-education-matters-now-more-than-ever
Hochwarter, W., Jordan, S., Kiewitz, C., Liborius, P., Lampaki, A., Franczak, J., Deng, Y., Babalola, M. T., & Khan, A. K. (2022). Losing com-
passion for patients? The implications of COVID-19 on compassion fatigue and event-related post-traumatic stress disorder in nurses.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(3), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2021-0037
Huijsmans, I., Ma, I., Micheli, L., Civai, C., Stallen, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2019). A scarcity mindset alters neural processing underlying con-
sumer decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(24), 11699–11704.
Jakučionytė-Skodienė, M., & Liobikienė, G. (2021). Climate change concern, personal responsibility and actions related to climate change
mitigation in EU countries: Cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.
125189
Jamieson, D. (2015). Responsibility and climate change. Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric, 8(2), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.21248/gjn.8.
2.86
Jones, C., Hine, D. W., & Marks, A. D. (2017). The future is now: Reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with cli-
mate change. Risk Analysis, 37(2), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12601
Jylhä, K. M., Cantal, C., Akrami, N., & Milfont, T. L. (2016). Denial of anthropogenic climate change: Social dominance orientation helps
explain the conservative male effect in Brazil and Sweden. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 184–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2016.04.020
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681
Kimura, K. (2021). “Yellow perils,” revived: Exploring racialized Asian/American affect and materiality through hate discourse over the
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Hate Studies, 17(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.33972/jhs.194
Kinley, R., Cutajar, M. Z., de Boer, Y., & Figueres, C. (2021). Beyond good intentions, to urgent action: Former UNFCCC leaders take stock
of thirty years of international climate change negotiations. Climate Policy, 21(5), 593–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.
1860567
Klein, C. J., Riggenbach-Hays, J. J., Sollenberger, L. M., Harney, D. M., & McGarvey, J. S. (2018). Quality of life and compassion satisfaction
in clinicians: A pilot intervention study for reducing compassion fatigue. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®, 35(6),
882–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909117740848
Klenert, D., Funke, F., Mattauch, L., & O'Callaghan, B. (2020). Five lessons from COVID-19 for advancing climate change mitigation. Envi-
ronmental and Resource Economics, 76, 751–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00453-w
Kteily, N., Hodson, G., & Bruneau, E. (2016). They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via recipro-
cal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000044
Kteily, N. S., & Landry, A. P. (2022). Dehumanization: Trends, insights, and challenges. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(3), 222–240. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.12.003
Landmann, H., & Rohmann, A. (2020). Being moved by protest: Collective efficacy beliefs and injustice appraisals enhance collective action
intentions for forest protection via positive and negative emotions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101491. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvp.2020.101491
Lauterbach, W. (1991). Intrapersonal conflict, life stress, and emotion. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, J. Strelau, & J. M. Brebner (Eds.),
Stress and anxiety (Vol. 13, pp. 85–91). Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Bergquist, P., Ballew, M., Goldberg, M., Gustafson, A., & Wang, X. (2020). Climate change
in the American mind: April 2020. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University and George Mason University.
Lertzman, R. (2017). Tackling apathy and denial. Climate 2020, UNA-UK. https://www.climate2020.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/
LERTZMAN_CLIMATE2020.pdf
Lertzman, R. (2020). Why facing our feelings is essential for tackling our climate crisis. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/opinions/
climate-crisis-psychology-lertzman/index.html
Lewandowsky, S., Facer, K., & Ecker, U. K. (2021). Losses, hopes, and expectations for sustainable futures after COVID. Humanities and
Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00961-0
Lewin, K. (1951). Intention, will and need. In D. Rapaport (Ed.), Organization and pathology of thought: Selected sources (pp. 95–153). Colum-
bia University Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/10584-005
Lichtenfeld, L. L., Naro, E. M., & Snowden, E. (2019). Community, conservation, and collaboration: A framework for success. National Geo-
graphic Society and African People & Wildlife.
Mandalaywala, T. M., Gonzalez, G., & Tropp, L. R. (2020). Early perceptions of COVID-19 intensity and anti-Asian prejudice among White
Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26, 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211049721
Marcotte, L. M., Krimmel-Morrison, J., & Liao, J. M. (2020). How to keep diffusion of responsibility from undermining value-based care.
American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 22(9), 802–807. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2020.802
Markkanen, S., & Anger-Kraavi, A. (2019). Social impacts of climate change mitigation policies and their implications for inequality. Climate
Policy, 19(7), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1596873
Markowitz, D. M., Shoots-Reinhard, B., Peters, E., Silverstein, M. C., Goodwin, R., & Bjälkebring, P. (2021). Dehumanization during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 285. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634543
Markowitz, E., & Shariff, A. (2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate Change, 2, 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate1378
Markowitz, E. M., Slovic, P., Västfjäll, D., & Hodges, S. D. (2013). Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation. Judg-
ment and Decision Making, 8(4), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S193029750000526X
Mascarenhas, M. (2007). Where the waters divide: First nations, tainted water and environmental justice in Canada. Local Environment,
12(6), 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830701657265
McClatchey, D. F. (1996). Chernobyl and Sandoz one decade later: The evolution of state responsibility for international disasters, 1986–
1996. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 25(3), 659–680.
McGrath, A. (2017). Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(12),
e12362. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12362
McLaughlin, L. E., Luberto, C. M., O'Bryan, E. M., Kraemer, K. M., & McLeish, A. C. (2019). The indirect effect of positive affect in the rela-
tionship between trait mindfulness and emotion dysregulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 145, 70–74. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2019.03.020
Meijers, M. H., Scholz, C., Torfadottir, R., Wonneberger, A., & Markov, M. (2021). Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic to combat climate
change: Comparing drivers of individual action in global crises. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 12, 272–282. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13412-021-00727-9
Meleady, R., Crisp, R. J., Dhont, K., Hopthrow, T., & Turner, R. N. (2020). Intergroup contact, social dominance, and environmental concern:
A test of the cognitive-liberalization hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(6), 1146–1164. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pspi0000196
Mischel, W. (1974). Processes in delay of gratification. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 249–292). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60039-8
Mohai, P., & Bryant, B. (1992). Environmental injustice: Weighing race and class as factors in the distribution of environmental hazards. Uni-
versity of Colorado Law Review, 63, 921.
Mohai, P., Pellow, D., & Roberts, J. T. (2009). Environmental justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 405–430. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348
Morgan, R., Baker, P., Griffith, D. M., Klein, S. L., Logie, C. H., Mwiine, A. A., Scheim, I. A., Shapiro, R. J., Smith, J., Wenham, C., &
White, A. (2021). Beyond a zero-sum game: How does the impact of COVID-19 vary by gender? Frontiers in Sociology, 6, 126. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.650729
Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Review, 3(2), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4
Nagda, B. R. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 6(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001015
Njoku, A., Joseph, M., & Felix, R. (2021). Changing the narrative: Structural barriers and racial and ethnic inequities in COVID-19 vaccina-
tion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18), 9904. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189904
Noor, M., Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & Nadler, A. (2012). When suffering begets suffering: The psychology of competitive victimhood between
adversarial groups in violent conflicts. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Sage Publications Inc.), 16(4), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1088868312440048
Norgaard, K. M. (2006). “People want to protect themselves a little bit”: Emotions, denial, and social movement nonparticipation. Sociologi-
cal Inquiry, 76(3), 372–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2006.00160.x
Norgaard, K. M. (2011). Climate denial: Emotion, psychology, culture, and political economy. Oxford Handbook on Climate Change and Soci-
ety, 18, 399–413.
Pan, Y., Opgenhaffen, M., & Van Gorp, B. (2019). Negotiating climate change: A frame analysis of COP21 in British, American, and Chinese
news media. Public Understanding of Science, 28(5), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518823969
Patel, J. A., Nielsen, F. B. H., Badiani, A. A., Assi, S., Unadkat, V. A., Patel, B., Ravindrane, R., & Wardle, H. (2020). Poverty, inequality and
COVID-19: The forgotten vulnerable. Public Health, 183, 110–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.05.006
Pearce, L., & Cooper, J. (2021). Fostering COVID-19 safe behaviors using cognitive dissonance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 43(5),
267–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2021.1953497
Perkins, K. M., Munguia, N., Ellenbecker, M., Moure-Eraso, R., & Velazquez, L. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic lessons to facilitate future
engagement in the global climate crisis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 290, 125178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125178
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90,
751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Pinner, D., Rogers, M., & Samandari, H. (2020). Addressing climate change in post-pandemic world. McKinsey Quarterly, April.
Prachand, V. N., Milner, R., Angelos, P., Posner, M. C., Fung, J. J., Agrawal, N., Jeevanandam, V., & Matthews, J. B. (2020). Medically neces-
sary, time-sensitive procedures: Scoring system to ethically and efficiently manage resource scarcity and provider risk during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 231(2), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.04.011
Rattan, A., & Ambady, N. (2013). Diversity ideologies and intergroup relations: An examination of colorblindness and multiculturalism.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1892
Rendsvig, R. K. (2014). Pluralistic ignorance in the bystander effect: Informational dynamics of unresponsive witnesses in situations calling
for intervention. Synthese, 191(11), 2471–2498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0435-0
Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology,
48(5), 858–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749
Richards, C. E., Lupton, R. C., & Allwood, J. M. (2021). Re-framing the threat of global warming: An empirical causal loop diagram of cli-
mate change, food insecurity and societal collapse. Climatic Change, 164(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-02957-w
Ricke, K., Drouet, L., Caldeira, K., & Tavoni, M. (2018). Country-level social cost of carbon. Nature Climate Change, 8(10), 895–900. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0282-y
Ringquist, E. J. (2005). Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: a meta-analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2),
223–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20088
Roberts, R., Wong, A., Jenkins, S., Neher, A., Sutton, C., O'Meara, P., Frost, M., Bamberry, L., & Dwivedi, A. (2021). Mental health and well-
being impacts of COVID-19 on rural paramedics, police, community nurses and child protection workers. Australian Journal of Rural
Health, 29(5), 753–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12804
Rogers, K., Jakes, L., & Swanson, A. (2020). Trump defends using “Chinese Virus” label, ignoring growing criticism. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/us/politics/china-virus.html
R _
ożycka-Tran, J., Piotrowski, J. P., Zemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Jurek, P., Osin, E. N., Adams, B. G., Ardi, R., Balțatescu, S., Bhomi, A. L.,
Bogomaz, S. A., Cieciuch, J., Clinton, A., de Clunie, G. T., Czarna, A. Z., Esteves, C. S., Gouveia, V., Halik, M. H. J., Kachatryan, N., …
Maltby, J. (2021). Belief in a zero-sum game and subjective well-being across 35 countries. Current Psychology, 40, 3575–3584. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00291-0
Ruiz-Fernandez, M. D., Ramos-Pichardo, J. D., Ibañez-Masero, O., Cabrera-Troya, J., Carmona-Rega, M. I., & Ortega-Galan, Á. M. (2020).
Compassion fatigue, burnout, compassion satisfaction and perceived stress in healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 health crisis
in Spain. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(21–22), 4321–4330. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15469
Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 21(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420210102
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2013). Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing
in engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196
Schlosberg, D., & Collins, L. B. (2014). From environmental to climate justice: Climate change and the discourse of environmental justice.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.275
Shaffer, D. R., Rogle, M., & Hendrlck, C. (1975). Intervention in the library: The effect of increased responsibility on bystanders' willingness
to prevent a theft. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5(4), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb00683.x
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment,
10. University Book Exchange.
Shih, M., Wang, E., Trahan Bucher, A., & Stotzer, R. (2009). Perspective taking: Reducing prejudice towards general outgroups and specific
individuals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209337463
Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & Noor, M. (2013). Overcoming competitive victimhood and facilitating forgiveness through recategorization into a
common victim or perpetrator identity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 867–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.
04.007
Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as
a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 94(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116
Silverman, Y. (2020). The dynamics of intrapersonal conflict resolution. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 17,
18–23. http://www.epess.net/en/download/article-file/1174257
Simon, C. J., & Gutsell, N. J. (2021). Recognizing humanity: Dehumanization predicts neural mirroring and empathic accuracy in face-to-
face interactions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(5), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsab014
Sinatra, G. M., & Lombardi, D. (2020). Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising
plausibility judgments. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181
Sinclair, S., Raffin-Bouchal, S., Venturato, L., Mijovic-Kondejewski, J., & Smith-MacDonald, L. (2017). Compassion fatigue: A meta-narrative
review of the healthcare literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 69, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.01.003
Skinner-Dorkenoo, A. L., Sarmal, A., Rogbeer, K. G., André, C. J., Patel, B., & Cha, L. (2022). Highlighting COVID-19 racial disparities can
reduce support for safety precautions among White US residents. Social Science & Medicine, 301, 114951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socscimed.2022.114951
Smith, D. L. (2011). Less than human: Why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others. St. Martin's Press.
Somaraju, A. V., Griffin, D. J., Olenick, J., Chang, C.-H. (. D.)., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2021). The dynamic nature of interpersonal conflict and
psychological strain in extreme work settings. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27, 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000290
Sterman, J., Franck, T., Fiddaman, T., Jones, A., McCauley, S., Rice, P., Sawin, E., Siegel, L., & Rooney-Varga, J. N. (2015). World climate: A
role-play simulation of climate negotiations. Simulation & Gaming, 46(3–4), 348–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878113514935
Stevenson, C., Wakefield, J. R., Felsner, I., Drury, J., & Costa, S. (2021). Collectively coping with coronavirus: Local community identification
predicts giving support and lockdown adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(4), 1403–1418.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12457
Stevenson, M. C., College, K., Schaefer, C. T., & Ravipati, V. M. (2021). COVID-19 patient care predicts nurses' parental burnout and child
abuse: Mediating effects of compassion fatigue. Child Abuse & Neglect, 130, 105458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105458
Stühlinger, M., Schmutz, J. B., Grote, G., Nicca, D., & Flury, D. (2021). To get vaccinated or not? Psychological safety as a catalyst for the
alignment between individual beliefs and behavior. Group & Organization Management, 46(1), 38–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1059601120983964
Suh, S. M., Chapman, D. A., & Lickel, B. (2021). The role of psychological research in understanding and responding to links between
climate change and conflict. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.02.003
Supady, A., Curtis, J. R., Abrams, D., Lorusso, R., Bein, T., Boldt, J., Brown, C. E., Duerschmied, D., Metaxa, V., & Brodie, D. (2021).
Allocating scarce intensive care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic: Practical challenges to theoretical frameworks. The Lancet
Respiratory Medicine, 9(4), 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30580-4
Swim, J. K., & Bloodhart, B. (2018). The intergroup foundations of climate change justice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(3),
472–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217745366
Szasz, A., & Meuser, M. (1997). Environmental inequalities: Literature review and proposals for new directions in research and theory.
Current Sociology, 45(3), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/001139297045003006
Tessler, H., Choi, M., & Kao, G. (2020). The anxiety of being Asian American: Hate crimes and negative biases during the COVID-19
pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 636–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09541-5
Tobin, P. (2020). Economics from zero-sum to win-win. Nature Climate Change, 10(5), 386–387. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0760-x
Todd, A. R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). Perspective-taking as a strategy for improving intergroup relations: Evidence, mechanisms, and qualifi-
cations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12116
Tsai, J. Y., Phua, J., Pan, S., & Yang, C. C. (2020). Intergroup contact, COVID-19 news consumption, and the moderating role of digital media
trust on prejudice toward Asians in the United States: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), e22767. https://
doi.org/10.2196/22767
Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, inter-
actionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25(3), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x
Van Overmeire, R., Van Keer, R. L., Cocquyt, M., & Bilsen, J. (2021). Compassion fatigue of funeral directors during and after the first wave
of COVID-19. Journal of Public Health (Oxford, England)., 43, 703–709.
Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mayorga, M., & Peters, E. (2014). Compassion fade: Affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need. PLoS
One, 9(6), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100115
Voisin, D., Gosling, P., Amoura, C., Miraucourt, D., Weber, T., & Dappe, Q. (2020). If they are all green, I take responsibility for my eco-
unfriendly behaviors: Effects of injunctive norm on sense of responsibility following cognitive dissonance. International Review of Social
Psychology, 33(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.113
Vollmann, M., & Salewski, C. (2021). To get vaccinated, or not to get vaccinated, that is the question: Illness representations about
COVID-19 and perceptions about COVID-19 vaccination as predictors of COVID-19 vaccination willingness among young adults in the
Netherlands. Vaccine, 9(941), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9090941
Von Braun, J., Zamagni, S., & Sorondo, M. S. (2020). The moment to see the poor. Science, 368(6488), 214. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
abc225
Wamsler, C., & Brink, E. (2018). Mindsets for sustainability: Exploring the link between mindfulness and sustainable climate adaptation.
Ecological Economics, 151, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.029
Wismans, A., Thurik, R., Baptista, R., Dejardin, M., Janssen, F., & Franken, I. (2021). Correction: Psychological characteristics and the medi-
ating role of the 5C Model in explaining students' COVID-19 vaccination intention. PLoS One, 16(11), e0259922. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0259922
Wlodarczyk, A., Basabe, N., Paez, D., & Zumeta, L. (2017). Hope and anger as mediators between collective action frames and participation
in collective mobilization: The case of 15-M. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(1), 200–223. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.
v5i1.471
Wood, J. (2020). China is sending medical experts and supplies to help Italy fight coronavirus. World Economic Forum. https://www.
weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/coronavirus-Covid-19-italy-china-supplies/
Wullenkord, M. C., & Reese, G. (2021). Avoidance, rationalization, and denial: Defensive self-protection in the face of climate change nega-
tively predicts pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 77, 101683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101683
Yang, C., Manchanda, S., & Greenstein, J. (2021). Educators' online teaching self-efficacy and compassion fatigue during the COVID-19
pandemic: The dual roles of “connect”. School Psychology, 36(6), 504–515. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000475
Young, I. F., & Sullivan, D. (2016). Competitive victimhood: A review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Current Opinion in Psychol-
ogy, 11, 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.004
Zúñiga, X., & Sevig, T. D. (1997). Bridging the “us/them” divide through intergroup dialogue and peer leadership. Diversity Factor, 6(2),
23–28.
How to cite this article: Burrows, B., Abellera, C., & Markowitz, E. M. (2023). COVID-19 and climate change:
The social-psychological roots of conflict and conflict interventions during global crises. WIREs Climate Change,
14(5), e837. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.837

The Social Psychological Roots of Conflict and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Social Psychological Roots of Conflict and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 17 February 2022 Revised: 13 February 2023 Accepted: 9 March 2023

COVID-19 and climate change: The social-psychological

Brooke Burrows 1 | Cierra Abellera 1 | Ezra M. Markowitz 2

This article is categorized under:

Brooke Burrows and Cierra Abellera contributed equally to this study.

WIREs Clim Change. 2023;14:e837. wires.wiley.com/climatechange © 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 1 of 18

2.1 | When attitudes and behaviors conflict: Action-hindering cognitive dissonance

Psychological COVID-climate change

2.2 | Not my problem: Personal accountability prevented by responsibility diffusion

3 | INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT: A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE NEEDS OF

4.1 | Dehumanization and prejudicial bias against outgroup members

4.2 | Zero-sum beliefs and competitive victimhood: Conflict as an inevitable reality

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

You might also like