There are 2 major biases in our perceptions of risk. This can be applied in the climate change scenario as well.

Primary Bias

The effects of climate change can already be seen presently and is expected to be more pronounced in future! In 2016, Meteorological Service Singapore projected  climate change effects even in future.

Therefore, for such a high probability event, it may be expected that we should react actively to tackle it. However, we tend to underestimate high likelihood events…Just like Lucy in the comic strip (below), we usually ignore warning signs of such events until the effects really happen to us.

Detenber, Rosenthal, Liao, and Ho (2016) found out that 35% of Singaporeans are disengaged with respect to climate change. They are not worried about global warming, and they do not think that global warming puts them at personal risk. Hence, they pay little attention to relevant news.

Ironically, according to NCCS (2013), there was an increase in the number of respondents who felt that Singapore would be affected by climate change in 2013 (78.5%) as compared to 2011 (63.4%). However, the proportion of respondents who thought they were playing a part in taking action on climate change decreased from 2011 (86.0%) to 2013 (62.9%)!

Secondary Bias

We usually overestimate events when the consequences are vivid and sensational [availability heuristic].

According to Sander (2017), the mass media shapes and circulates social representations of a given risk in society. Hence, we tend to overestimate sensationalised risks e.g. terrorism, more than climate change. The low priority of climate change could also be due to its long-term effects – people may not directly perceive and experience its consequences.

Not only that, Capstick and Pidgeon (2014) found that the use of the term “global warming” rather than “climate change” in mass media may add on to the dampening of its impact on risk perception. “Global warming” seems to indicate a mere warming of the Earth. The other effects of climate change may not be known and perceived by people.

Psychological Stress Theory: I will be using this theory to explain our individual inactivity towards mitigating the effects of climate change.

Step 1: Primary appraisal:

Climate change is considered an ambient stressor as it is a global phenomenon with relatively chronic effects that have been persistently resurfacing. This stressor could have relatively high magnitude, even without our conscious awareness – due to the constant negative effects that sometimes lead to huge costs and discomfort to us.

Step 2: Secondary appraisal:

Climate change efforts require the cooperation of everyone, therefore there is no complete control by one individual over stopping its effects.

• We do not perceive individual control over climate change outcomes:
  According to NCCS Public Perception Survey in 2016, over 1/3 of Singaporeans do not perceive such control.

Individual Singapore residents tend towards emotion-focused coping mechanism.

• Detenber, Rosenthal, Liao, and Ho (2016) study:
  Around 50% of Singaporeans wait for the government to undertake actions rather than taking action as individuals.
• Some Avoidance:
  According to Ho and Chuah (2017), only 50% of Singaporeans were keen to receive information about climate change.

However, with the increased emphasis by our Government on tackling climate change via individual and collective efforts, there could be a shift to a problem-focused coping mechanism in future.