Multilevel predictors of climate change beliefs in Africa

impact it—or so the argument goes. In this line, in-depth case study evidence suggests that even when climate change information is available, a less educated public may lack the tools to understand it, inducing incorrect beliefs [16]. This is further corroborated by large-N studies that find a statistical relationship between higher levels of education and more accurate climate change beliefs [8, 10, 11, 17, 18]. Biased interpretation. By contrast, others suggest that even when information is attain- able, people’s political and religious beliefs often clash with climate science facts, leading to a biased interpretation of climate facts in order to reconcile them with conflicting beliefs and thus reduce cognitive dissonance [19]. This phenomenon, known as motivated reasoning, has been shown to influence individual CCBs, mainly for political and religious motivations [3, 8, 20]. For instance, Hart and Nisbet [21] conducted an experiment where they presented Repub- lican and Democratic voters in the United States with the same news story about possible cli- mate change-related impacts on human health. Their study found that the impact of this information was interpreted differently along party lines: risk perception and support for green policies increased among Democrats, while the information produced a “boomerang effect” by reinforcing skeptical views among Republicans. Therefore, even when presented with the same information, this can be interpreted biasedly to avoid compromising political

beliefs. Also, what people consider to be credible information vary depending on ideological proximity to the source, and other political variables, such as participation, trust in institutions and political perceptions also shape climate change beliefs [6, 22–24]. Religious beliefs are also important to CCBs formation, since they can make individuals interpret climate change facts in a way that avoids conflict with their beliefs. In Africa, some people attribute climate-related disasters such as droughts and floods to Allah (“Allah brings the rain. The one who causes the drought is Allah.”), Yahweh (“We gather in church and pray for rain. There is nothing we can do.”), or local deities (“whose anger can unleash flooding and destruction”) [16]. Therefore, individuals who believe in a deity are more likely to attribute cli- mate change and its repercussions to that deity’s whim rather than to human activity [25]. Similarly, attending religious services has been linked to more incorrect CCBs [26]. However, these effects vary across religions [27, 28]. Thus, even when people have access to rigorous information and the ability to understand it, politically or religiously motivated reasoning can lead to incorrect beliefs. Understanding climate change trough personal experiences. A second psychological approach suggests that individuals perceive climate change as a distant phenomenon that is more likely to affect people living elsewhere and in the distant future [29]. This psychological

distance from possible climate change risks often results in a lack of emotional responses to it [30, 31]. As a consequence, individuals try to make sense of the changing natural world around them using more available and emotionally salient cues, such as local climate shocks or extreme weather events and their consequences [29]. This so-called attribute substitution sug- gests that personal experiences often replace science-based evidence and climate change facts [3, 32]. Previous literature has found that individuals who experience extreme climate-related events such as hurricanes, floods, or temperature anomalies tend to perceive climate change as a greater risk [26, 33–38]. Even less extreme events, such as a hotter-than-usual day, can make people more aware of and concerned about climate change [39], and increase donations to environmental charities [40]. In other words, experiencing local climate shocks or extreme weather events can construct or reinforce climate change beliefs. Climate change facts take a backseat. A final argument postulates that individuals have more urgent daily concerns (e.g., “bread and butter” issues), which relegate climate science information and its possible consequences to the backburner [10, 11, 41–43]. In other words, CCBs are deemed less important than immediate day-to-day concerns. This does not suggest PLOS ONE Multilevel predictors of climate change beliefs in Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266387 April 5, 2022 3 / 14