Emotional reactions to environmental risks: Consequentialist versus ethical evaluation

By Gisela Böhm. 2003

171 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a9a9a88d5cba7718beea4c8523ab8c0c536fe465

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Anxiety and climate change: a validation of the Climate Anxiety Scale in a German-speaking quota sample and an investigation of psychological correlates (2021, background): “Complex emotional responses to the climate crisis such as anxiety, fear, and worry (Böhm 2003; Pikhala 2020), grief (Cunsolo & Ellis, 2018), guilt (Rees et al.”
Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions (2013, background): “So far, fear of environmental risks seems to attract themost attention (e.g., Böhm, 2003; Van Zomeren, Spears, & Leach, 2010).”
Bringing appraisal theory to environmental risk perception: a review of conceptual approaches of the past 40 years and suggestions for future research (2012, background): “Bohm and Pfister (Bohm 2003; Bohm and Pfister 2000) further distinguished between consequentialist vs.”
Emotions predict policy support: Why it matters how people feel about climate change (2018, background): “Böhm and Pfister have extensively examined how the relationship between cognitions and behaviour toward environmental risks are mediated by emotional evaluations, showing that two particular cognitive appraisals, one concerning the anticipation of negative consequences and loss, and one concerning w”
Judgmental Discounting and Environmental Risk Perception: Dimensional Similarities, Domain Differences, and Implications for Sustainability (2007, background): “” For instance, in studies on temporal discounting, financial choices (Benzion, Rapoport, & Yagil, 1989; Stevenson, 1986), consumer decisions (Hausman, 1979; Loewenstein, 1988), medical and health issues (Cairns & Van der Pol, 1997; Christensen-Szalanski, 1984), as well as environmental risks (Böhm ”
The psychological impacts of global climate change. (2011, background): “Climate change does not evoke strong reactions in some individuals (Weber, 2006), while for others it is a manifestation of a “global ecological crisis” causing uncertainty and emotional distress (Stokols et al., 2009, p. 181; Böhm, 2003).”
Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges A Report by the American Psychological Association's Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change Members (2009, background): “…is of particular importance to ask how emotional and symbolic aspects of climate change risk appraisals and sense making are influencing the nature and levels of public concern and underlying protection motivation processes (e.g., Weinstein, 1989; Bohm, Nerb, McDaniels, & Spada, 2001; Bohm, 2003).”
Consequences, morality, and time in environmental risk evaluation (2005, methodology): “Another main assumption of the model is that people can focus on two aspects when evaluating risks (for a detailed description of the model see Böhm, 2003 and Böhm and Pfister, 2000).”
Temporal discounting and environmental risks: The role of ethical and loss-related concerns (2004, methodology): “The other three dependent variables were measured using the methodology developed by Böhm and Pfister (2000). Evaluative focus (EF): To measure the relative importance of lossrelated and ethical concerns, participants were asked to rank eight different arguments ‘‘ywhy this is a serious situation’’ ”