People tend to overestimate the impact of small, visible actions and underestimate the power of major lifestyle changes \u2013 like cutting back on flying or eating less beef.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople are very misinformed around how their actions can translate into actual impact in terms of reducing carbon,\u201d said study senior author Madalina Vlasceanu. <\/p>\n \u201cWe think, \u2018I have to recycle<\/a> this and it will help the planet.\u2019 It\u2019s less likely you will hear that if you fly less, that\u2019s the best you can possibly do, lifestyle-wise.\u201d<\/p>\n The study included nearly 4,000 U.S. participants who completed an online survey. They were divided into three groups. One group actively rated 21 common behaviors \u2013 like biking<\/a> to work or using energy-efficient<\/a> appliances \u2013 on how much they thought each reduced emissions. <\/p>\n After submitting their guesses, the individuals received feedback comparing each action\u2019s impact.<\/p>\n \u201cWe compared the actions to each other \u2013 not tons of carbon. That\u2019s something nobody understands. It\u2019s so abstract, you\u2019ll forget it immediately,\u201d Vlasceanu said.<\/p>\n Another group passively received the same information without first guessing. A third group received no information at all.<\/p>\n Then, all participants were asked about their willingness to adopt the same 21 behaviors, as well as five larger system-level actions, such as voting for climate-focused politicians or attending a protest.<\/p>\n Informed but disengaged?<\/p>\n After the exercise, many participants showed a shift in thinking. They expressed stronger intentions to take meaningful steps, like choosing lower-carbon meats. Poultry, for example, has a far smaller climate impact than beef.<\/p>\n \u201cParticipants found this can be really easy to do, and has one of the highest impacts that has been actually documented,\u201d Vlasceanu said.<\/p>\n Those who had the biggest gaps between perception and reality showed the most change. The clearer the feedback, the more likely they were to say they would make high-impact changes.<\/p>\n But there was an unexpected downside. When the study focused only on personal actions, participants were less inclined to support collective efforts \u2013 like voting or joining demonstrations. <\/p>\n Even with better understanding, they became less likely to engage in actions that drive systemic change.<\/p>\n \u201cThese interventions also decreased commitment to collective action, where you\u2019re really trying to influence some sort of policy, and this is a problem,\u201d Vlasceanu said.<\/p>\n The personal vs. political dilemma<\/p>\n This finding highlights a key challenge in climate communication: encouraging individuals to act without making them forget the power of public pressure and policy change.<\/p>\n \u201cNow we have to go back and understand how we would better design these interventions so we don\u2019t have those negative spillovers,\u201d Vlasceanu said.<\/p>\n Individual actions are easier to measure. For instance, skipping one long flight can significantly cut your personal carbon emissions. But broader actions \u2013 like voting \u2013 may be harder to quantify even though they\u2019re incredibly powerful.<\/p>\n One previous analysis found that a single vote in a Canadian national election was over 20 times more effective than skipping a long flight, in terms of climate impact<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you extrapolate from that, you can conclude that all the collective actions are way more effective than all the lifestyle changes you can do, although this still remains to be empirically quantified,\u201d Vlasceanu said.<\/p>\n The carbon choices we make<\/p>\n The study also revealed a deeper truth regarding how people make decisions about their lifestyle choices and carbon footprint.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople will engage in lifestyle changes when they think it\u2019s easy to do. It\u2019s less important to them if it\u2019s effective,\u201d Vlasceanu said. \u201cFor collective action, it is more important to people that the action they engage in will actually result in a meaningful change.\u201d<\/p>\n The research included a broad political spectrum: about half of participants identified as Democrats, 22% as Republicans, and 26% as independents or others.<\/p>\n \u201cDemocrats were more sensitive to incorporating what they learned into their behaviors compared to Republicans,\u201d Vlasceanu said.<\/p>\n The researchers weren\u2019t trying to push an agenda. Their goal was to learn more about how people think and how simple tools might help change behavior.<\/p>\n \u201cOur job as academics is not to be activists or fight for a particular cause,\u201d Vlasceanu said. \u201cThese are research questions we scientifically care about that uncover essential processes about the human mind.\u201d<\/p>\n This work is part of a larger research effort looking at how low-cost, scalable interventions can influence people\u2019s choices. Climate change<\/a> presents a perfect test case.<\/p>\n \u201cWe pick the context in which we apply these investigations such that they are societally relevant,\u201d Vlasceanu said.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we understand how the mind works in this context, then we can document ways in which practitioners, policymakers \u2013 people whose job it is to address this crisis \u2013 can most effectively address it.\u201d<\/p>\n Future studies might explore other ways to boost both personal and public engagement \u2013 such as using stories or emotional messages instead of facts alone.<\/p>\n \u201cIn order to meaningfully address climate change, experts have agreed that we will need lifestyle change and collective action,\u201d Vlasceanu said. \u201cThis is a critical part of the pathway to net zero.\u201d<\/p>\n Understanding how people perceive carbon impact isn\u2019t just about correcting facts. It\u2019s about shaping better conversations.<\/p>\n When education focuses on both personal habits and collective responsibility, it can build a more balanced response to climate change.<\/p>\n Getting carbon literacy right could be one of the most powerful tools we have \u2013 not just for reducing emissions, but for encouraging meaningful action on every level.<\/p>\n The full study was published in the journal PNAS Nexus<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2013<\/p>\n Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter<\/a> for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.\u00a0<\/p>\n Check us out on EarthSnap<\/a>, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls<\/a> and Earth.com.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
\n ![\"EarthSnap\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/earthsnap-banner-news.webp.webp\")
\n<\/a><\/p>\n