Personality plays a role in whether you believe in climate change, Dalhousie study finds
The research from Dalhousie University in Halifax found people who are more skeptical about climate change are more likely to rank higher on scales of narcissism, machiavellianism and psychopathy — traits that reflect a tendency to be self-centred, manipulative, callous and socially aversive.
People who are less skeptical about climate change are more likely to have pro-social personality traits of openness, agreeableness, honesty, humility and emotionality.
Scott Pruysers is an associate professor in the political science department at Dalhousie University and the lead author of the study, published in March in the journal Climatic Change.
He says understanding the personality roots of climate skepticism can help develop more effective strategies to encourage environmentally conscious behaviour.
"The precursor to developing good policy or understanding why people care about this issue is understanding who doesn't care about it, who remains skeptical," he said. "And so we're going to have to get kind of creative and smarter with the messaging."
The researchers analyzed data from a survey of 1,725 Canadians conducted in 2020.
The survey respondents were asked to rate how much they agreed or disagreed with the following statements:
I am certain that climate change is happening.
Claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated.
Floods and heat waves are not increasing; there is just more reporting of it in the media these days.
Climate change is just a result of natural variation in the climate.
Climate change is a scam.
Government should do more to address climate change.
Pruysers says while researchers have previously looked at the roots of climate skepticism, some of those studies had limitations that the Dalhousie study tried to overcome.
While other studies have relied primarily on undergraduates as participants, his study ensured the participants reflected the income, gender and age distribution of the Canadian population.
In addition, previous studies have used as few as 10 descriptors (for example, reserved/quiet, or disorganized/careless) to assess personality. Pruysers's study used more robust measures that included more than 160 descriptors.
There is worldwide scientific consensus that the Earth's climate is changing, and that human activity has unequivocally caused climate change.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produces assessments written by hundreds of leading scientists, has found that climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health, and that changes must be made to ensure a liveable and sustainable future.
The Dalhousie study found that more than 20 per cent of participants believe claims that human activity is changing the climate are exaggerated, 17 per cent believe climate-related events such as floods or heat waves are not increasing, and more than 10 per cent disagree that governments should be doing more to address climate change.
More recent data has also found similar levels of skepticism among Canadians and dwindling concern about climate change.
Demographic and political factors do affect climate skepticism. For instance, the study found that men and people who are more right wing are more skeptical, while those with higher education levels, income and political knowledge are less skeptical.
While the participants' self-placement on the left-right ideology scale was the factor that most accurately predicted climate skepticism, openness was the second most predictive factor, outperforming factors such as age, education, income and political interest and knowledge.
The study made it clear to Pruysers that personality does play a role, so in order to convince skeptics to adopt planet-friendly practices, he says different tactics may be needed.
For example, Pruysers said, other research has shown that people who score higher in narcissism are more likely to buy environmentally friendly products if they might be seen and admired by others while doing it.
Pruysers emphasized that the study is not labelling climate skeptics as narcissists or psychopaths.
"When people hear something like narcissism or psychopathy, right, it's jarring. We're not talking about clinical levels of these things," he says.
Rather, he says, the traits are measured on a spectrum and most people will exhibit elements of those traits.
Matthew Hornsey is a professor in the business school at the University of Queensland in Australia who researches the psychological motivations for rejecting scientific consensus, including climate change skepticism.
He said the Dalhousie study is "one of the more authoritative statements" around the role of personality and climate skepticism and its methodology is more sophisticated than other studies on the topic.
While the data makes it clear there is a relationship between climate skepticism and darker personality traits, and pro-social traits and acceptance of climate science, those relationships are not particularly strong.
"Just because something is there, doesn't mean it's a big, big effect," Hornsey said. "You would have a hard time predicting people's climate change views just from their personality."
He said putting the study's findings to use would be challenging.
"What do you do with this information? You can't change people's personalities, and so it's not easy to have an intervention around that."
Hornsey did note, however, that developments in artificial intelligence have improved the ability to detect personality from the media people consume and how they write on social media. That ability could be harnessed to develop "micro-targeted" messages based on personality.
"But, you know, that's a whole can of worms," he said.
MORE TOP STORIES
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Exercise Intervention Boosts Colon Cancer Survival Benefits
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello, everyone. I'm Dr Bishal Gyawali, associate professor of oncology at Queens University, Kingston, Canada. I'm very happy to share with you some of the most exciting data that I just saw at the plenary session at ASCO 2025. Before that, I'm going to talk to you about a fantastic new drug called exercisumab. I'm joking, of course. Exercise has been shown to improve the lives of patients with colon cancer. I'm joking that if there were a drug called exercisumab, the data would be so compelling that we'd all want to use it and fund it today. Because this is not a drug and it's about exercise, I see some challenges in implementation. I hope that I'm able to convince you that the data are really compelling and we should make an effort so that our health systems will integrate this as a part of cancer care for patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. The trial I'm talking about is called the CHALLENGE trial, which was not presented at the plenary but should have been. In this trial, patients who had high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer, after they completed their adjuvant chemotherapy, were randomized to receive a structured exercise program vs the standard-of-care arm. The standard-of-care arm patients received health education but did not receive a structured exercise program. The goal of the structured exercise program was to improve physical activity by at least 10 MET-hours compared to the baseline of these patients. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. Disease-free survival was significantly improved, and overall survival was also significantly improved. The 5-year disease-free survival rates improved by almost 7%, and the 8-year overall survival rates also improved by a similar amount. The hazard ratio for disease-free survival was 0.72, and the hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.63. These are very compelling results. If you compare these results with results from other trials, you'll see that this is a no-brainer. If this were a drug, you would want to use it today. There are some nuances about this trial that I want to highlight. When we talk about the results, some of the comments were, 'Oh yes, I have been asking my patients to exercise anyway.' Exercise improves quality of life, it'll reduce weight, and these are all known to benefit patients. I have been telling my patients to exercise, but this trial is not about telling patients to exercise. This trial is about having a formal, structured exercise program. There are particular details. Patients need to have an in-person visit with a therapist every 2 weeks for the first year and then every month for the next 2 years, so it's a 3-year therapy program. It's a scientifically designed and tailored program. It's not just saying, oh, you should exercise. In fact, saying you should exercise and giving some health education was the control arm of this treatment, not the interventional arm. The control arm patients were told about this trial, the potential benefits of the exercise, why they should enroll in this trial, and they were given health education materials. An interesting observation is that even the control arm patients had improvements in their physical functioning, VO 2 , and all those parameters from baseline to subsequent visits. One limitation is the adherence rate to exercise. We see that the adherence rate kept falling with time. I think that by the end of 3 years, the adherence rate to the exercise program was around 60%-65% in that ballpark, which is a limitation. Having said that, the analysis accounts for all of that. Despite that limitation, we are seeing this substantial benefit. If you want to compare that with the ATOMIC trial, which was a plenary presentation of immunotherapy plus FOLFOX for patients who needed adjuvant FOLFOX in stage III colon cancer patients, of course, the addition of atezolizumab to FOLFOX improved disease-free survival rates. The primary endpoint here was 3-year disease-free survival, and it improved significantly. It was a plenary, and people were making the argument that this should immediately change practice. If you compare that with this exercise trial that I just discussed: A, think about the added toxicities; B, think about the added cost; and C, think about how feasible it is to implement. I think it's a no-brainer that we need to start having health systems funds for a structured exercise program for our patients with colon cancer. Yes, the atezolizumab data and the ATOMIC trial data look very interesting and this is one of the first advances in treatment of adjuvant colon cancer in a long time. This is for patients with microsatellite instability-high status. We don't have overall survival results yet. Disease-free survival is a much more reliable predictor of overall survival in this particular setting. I believe that overall survival might be positive, but we also need to know what percentage of these patients got immunotherapy when they relapsed, because immunotherapy is already standard of care for these patients when they relapse. The other point about this trial is, do they all actually need 1 year of atezolizumab? Probably not. As the discussant highlighted in her talk, in many settings, we are now using neoadjuvant strategies. Using two or three cycles might be enough. The broader point that I'm trying to make is contrasting these two studies and inviting you to think about how different these are, even in terms of magnitude of benefit. The exercise trial has overall survival, not just disease-free survival, at an 8-year time point. When I asked Dr Booth about the cost of this intervention, he said for the whole 3-year time point, it might be around $3000 Canadian dollars. This trial was conducted mostly in Canada and in Australia. As opposed to atezolizumab, where a month of atezolizumab alone is going to cost $15,000, so that's just a perspective I wanted to put forward. One more thing I wanted to talk about today is the SERENA-6 trial, which was discussed at the plenary session. This is a trial for patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who have been on a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus aromatase inhibitor for 6 months. They were then tested with ctDNA to detect ESR1 mutations early, and if this was detected, then they were randomized to either follow the same treatment, which is the control arm, or get the new drug. The primary endpoint here was progression-free survival. This was debated often during the season. We have so many debates about progression-free and overall survival, but for this particular trial, progression-free survival makes no sense because this is just detecting relapse early. Detecting relapse early does not always mean that you need to intervene early. Of course, if you are intervening early, then you are going to prolong time to tumor progression. The progression-free survival in this sense is more like time on treatment with this drug rather than true progression-free survival. You're just changing treatment early, and the control arm patients are not getting that treatment when they progress. Measuring progression-free survival alone here felt similar to measuring CA-125, or whatever tumor markers we measure, then instituting treatment early and claiming that patients have a longer time on treatment, when in fact, it's just lead time bias or intervening early without knowing that it's going to improve outcomes. A final trial from the plenary session was the MATTERHORN trial. I want to bring that up as well because this trial was investigating durvalumab plus perioperative FLOT in patients with esophageal cancers. This trial had a significant improvement in event-free survival, but has not improved overall survival yet. It may or may not translate into an overall survival improvement. The discussant did not cover the limitations of this trial well, and that's why I wanted to bring it up. There are several factors to consider here. There are other trials in similar settings, where event-free or disease-free survival have improved, but overall survival has not. There is no point in getting super excited about this because it may not translate to overall survival, just like other immunotherapy trials in this space. The other thing is, we need to make sure what treatments patients are getting at the time of progression or at the time of relapse. Are they getting the right treatment?If they're not getting the right treatment, then any survival difference can be simply a function of the control arm patients not getting the right treatment at the time of relapse. If we compare these results with results of other immunotherapy trials, I don't think the results are substantially different. Yes, an event-free survival improvement is important, but especially in this setting, in this disease, we have seen other trials where disease-free or event-free survival have not necessarily led to an overall survival improvement. We need to be asking ourselves, can we claim that it is already practice changing without having those results? I don't think that's the case. Those are some of my thoughts from this year's plenary session at ASCO 2025. Thank you.


E&E News
3 hours ago
- E&E News
Satellite tracking oil and gas emissions goes dark
An $88 million methane-tracking satellite that attracted funding from the likes of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and the government of New Zealand is no longer operating. Ground crews lost contact June 20 with MethaneSAT, which was launched in March 2024, the Environmental Defense Fund announced Tuesday. Officials said they recently learned that the satellite lost power and was 'likely not recoverable.' EDF said MethaneSAT was the first satellite developed by an environmental nonprofit, and the group sought to publicly distribute the methane data collected by the project. EDF began publishing some of that data last year and had partnered with Google to create a massive, global map of methane emissions from oil and gas sites. Advertisement 'While this is difficult news, it is not the end of the overall MethaneSAT effort, or of our work to slash methane emissions,' EDF officials wrote in a statement.


Medscape
4 hours ago
- Medscape
Teens Oversleeping Post-Concussion May Have Worse Recovery
TOPLINE: Kids and teens sleeping longer, even as little as an hour more, during the first week after a concussion were more likely to have worse cognitive and somatic symptoms. Sleeping longer was also linked to persistent symptoms and slower recovery. METHODOLOGY: Researchers used data from a randomized clinical trial that took place across three emergency pediatric departments in Ontario, Canada, over a 2-year period beginning in March 2017. The study included 291 kids and teens between the ages of 10 and 18 years (median age, 13.2 years; 44% female) who received treatment for a concussion within 48 hours of injury. Each patient wore an accelerometer on their waist 24 hours a day for 2 weeks and completed sleep logs to monitor sleep patterns. Symptoms were tracked using the Health and Behavior Inventory (HBI), a questionnaire that measures cognitive and somatic symptoms at 1 , 2 , and 4 weeks following their concussion. Symptom change was measured using conservative (z score ≥ 1.65) and liberal (z score ≥ 1.28) cutoffs; estimates were measured in HBI units. TAKEAWAY: Kids and teens who slept 10.5 vs 9.5 hours per night during the first week after a concussion had higher symptom scores at 1 week (estimate, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.25-2.28). Longer sleep duration was linked to higher odds of persisting symptoms at 4 weeks (conservative: odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% CI, 0.91-3.26; liberal: OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.07-3.47). Teens who slept 10.9 vs 9.9 hours were more likely to have increased symptoms at 4 weeks (estimate, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.85-3.47). IN PRACTICE: 'Long sleep duration may be associated with increased odds of being reliably symptomatic at 4 weeks, therefore a greater risk of PSAC [persisting symptoms after a concussion],' the study authors wrote. 'Clinicians should monitor youths' sleep after concussion.' SOURCE: This study was led by Lauren Butterfield, MSc, of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada. It was published online on June 18 in JAMA Network Open. LIMITATIONS: The HBI used for symptom assessment is not validated for youths older than 16.99 years, and 16 participants were older than 17 years. Recruitment from three Canadian pediatric emergency departments may have introduced sampling bias. DISCLOSURES: Various study authors reported receiving stipend support, research grants, and travel awards from the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Canadian Concussion Network, among others. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.