Climate Silence, Moral Disengagement, and Self-Efficacy: How Albert Bandura's Theories Inform our Climate-Change Predicament

Abstract

Although Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about climate change, only one in five Americans hear people they know talk about the issue at least once a month. This has been described as a “spiral of silence,” because when people don’t hear others talk about climate change, they tend not to talk or think about it themselves. This paper examines climate silence in the United States, arguing that climate silence can be more subtle than simply not talking about climate change, such as where people talk about certain aspects of climate change, but avoid mentioning the more disturbing or negative implications of climate change. The paper considers two major theories developed by Albert Bandura at Stanford University, self-efficacy and moral disengagement theory. In his recent book Moral Disengagement Bandura links climate change to U.S. overconsumption, “excessive consumerism,” “unbridled economic self-interest,” “free-market principles,” “free-market fundamentalists,” and our “market-driven culture.” These arguments align Bandura with scholars and writers who urge Americans to focus on capitalism, economic growth, neoliberalism, and overconsumption as both the causes of climate change, and major obstacles to addressing it. The paper concludes that in challenging moral disengagement surrounding climate change, climate activists and climate communicators would be well advised to consider both of Bandura’s theories, and to consult a growing literature in sociology that has examined the role of neoliberalism as a root cause of our climate predicament.