(Why) do people self-silence?

Given the extensive concern and desire for action on climate change, why is it that people do not talk about it more than they do? Asked in surveys how frequently they share their opinions about climate change with family, friends and acquaintances, over half say rarely or not at all. This gap between high public concern and low levels of climate talk is often seen as a puzzle. Limited talk about climate change is also said to slow down momentum for collective climate action (Zanin 2025).

Social psychology explanations and norms of inattention

Our own research offers a different perspective compared to conventional approaches which only tell a partial story. For example, social psychological explanations suggest that people are discouraged from talking about climate change because they mistakenly think that their own concern is not widely shared. This phenomenon, known as pluralistic ignorance (Sparkman et al. 2022), is seen to contribute to a ‘spiral of silence’ around climate change (Ettinger et al. 2023).

Another important argument, developed by Norgaard (2011), explores ‘norms of inattention’ shaped by cultural contexts and political economy drivers which encourage people to look away. This means that while they are aware of climate change, they are not inclined to talk or think about it in their day to day lives

However, while important, neither of these perspectives are sufficient for understanding as they do not engage with the relational contexts in which climate talk does or does not happen, or how it is closed down by others or limited through strategic self-silencing. They overlook how everyday interactions and relationship work (Davies 2022) influence whether people feel able, willing or motivated to bring climate change into conversation.

Social relationships

In our own mixed methods research into lay perceptions of climate change, we explored how and when people talk about climate change in their everyday interactions (Wright & Irwin 2024), alongside how they see the possibilities for addressing climate change and how responsibilities for doing so should be distributed (Irwin & Wright 2024).

Relationship work has not been much considered in accounts of climate self-silencing within everyday interactions. Our evidence on climate conversations highlights the profound importance of social context for understanding climate talk and, crucially, the role of social relationships in influencing how often people talk about climate change, who they talk to and what they discuss.

How often do people talk about climate issues in everyday conversations?

We do not want to overstate climate silences. National surveys show that those who are very concerned about climate change appear to talk quite routinely about it in certain contexts (Latkin 2024). In our own survey most of the very concerned group said that they talked about climate change quite or very often. Their reflections are illustrated in our qualitative interviews:

“…in a lot of circles I’m in, it’s frequently talked about…  it’s become much more the norm”

In contrast, a majority of those who were fairly concerned about climate change said that they only discussed climate change ‘every now and again’. Our qualitative data suggested that for this group climate talk was more contingent, usually prompted by something specific. For those who were ‘not especially concerned’, climate was not a subject they tended to speak about at all or, where it arose, this was only in passing and it did not prompt further discussion

Who do people talk to, and why are relationships so important?

When exploring who people talk to and the role of relationships, we focused on those who were most concerned about climate change. Even for this group climate talk was often closed down and our most climate-concerned participants spoke about self-silencing in certain contexts.  Our evidence highlights the emphasis that people place on nurturing positive relationships and protecting people’s feelings in their everyday interactions, showing the importance of social relational contexts in shaping climate talk.  In our paper we discuss three aspects of this pattern.

Those who were pro-active in talking about climate change when they were talking with like-minded friends said that they often self-silenced with other friends and acquaintances who they felt held differing degrees of concern or interest. This was to avoid coming over as ‘preachy’ or ’a bore’:

“there’s a group of … us that have been friends for a long time, [and two of them] they’re not bothered, that’s it. “Oh, it’s boring”, you know, … and [with one person] I thought I’d rather keep her as a friend and shut up about these things”

Participants were also wary about imposing their own views on others saying, “you have to live your life how you want to”. While these examples to some extent echo arguments that people self-silence as a form of impression management (Geiger and Swim, 2016), they illustrate how people also aim to maintain positive relationships and are wary of being seen to impose their beliefs on others.

Some concerned participants also reported avoiding climate talk so as not to upset others. For example, one had stopped talking about climate issues in front of her son because “he doesn’t need doom and gloom”, while for another: “I might stop and say, “oh let’s talk about something that’s less distressing”, because it is very . . . it is distressing”. This suggests that people are not simply concerned with how they are perceived by other people, but also about others’ feelings.

What do people discuss? Is apolitical talk another kind of climate silence?

We were initially surprised to find that even amongst climate concerned participants, climate conversations with others – particularly those who were less concerned – were often quite narrow in their scope. Even the most politically engaged participants in our research recounted – in positive terms – talking to friends about relatively trivial consumer choices such as buying a more sustainable toilet roll or substituting shampoo bars for a shampoo that comes in plastic bottles. Writers focused on political economy have asked if the absence of political engagement reflects the power of vested interests, whereby we have all become focused on trivial consumer choices and are oblivious to the wider economic and systemic drivers of climate change.

However, whilst speaking about “all sorts of little things that people share” with friends, seeing this as an opportunity to raise awareness and encourage greater engagement, these participants were often politically active and engaged in other contexts. In this sense, they are not naïve about what is needed to address climate change, rather they are acting within everyday practical constraints, engaging in different ways and at different scales according to context.

Our evidence suggests that everyday climate silences and limited climate talk need to be understood with reference to social relational contexts and mundane forms of practical constraint. This deepens our understanding of why everyday climate talk under-reaches extensive    public climate concern. It has implications not only for academic research but also for policy and practice, given the growing calls for the public to engage in ‘climate conversations’ as a way to drive climate action. Such calls underestimate just how hard it can be for people to bring climate change, an emotive and often contentious issue, into everyday conversation, even (and sometimes especially) with family and friends. Supporting climate talk may instead require a more nuanced national conversation and increased democratic engagement on climate issues, alongside wider systemic changes that make it easier to live in more climate‑friendly ways, reducing sensitivities around implied judgement and helping to normalise both climate action and climate discussion.

Katy Wright and Sarah Irwin (University of Leeds) are the winners of this year’s SAGE Prize for Innovation and Excellence (Sociology journal) for their paper, Not talking about Climate Change: Everyday interactions, relational work and climate silence.

References

• Davies, K. (2022). “Sticking together in ‘divided Britain’: Talking Brexit in everyday family relationships”. Sociology 56(1): 97–113
• Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (2025). “Public Attitudes Tracker: Net Zero and climate change, Winter 2025, UK”.
• Ettinger, J., McGivern, A., Spiegel, M.P. (2023) “Breaking the climate spiral of silence: Lessons from a COP26 climate conversations campaign”. Climatic Change 176: 22
• Irwin, S., Wright, K. (2024) “Acting on climate change concerns: Lay perceptions of possibility, complexity and constraint”. Environmental Sociology 10(4): 397-407
• Latkin, C.A., Dayton, L., Winiker, A. (2024) “’They talk about the weather, but no one does anything about it’: A mixed-methods study of everyday climate change conversations”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21: 279
• Norgaard, K.M. (2011) Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions and Everyday Life. Cambridge: MIT Press
• Sparkmann, G., Geiger, N., Weber, E.U. (2022) “Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half”. Nature Communications 13: 4479
• Zanin (2025). “How to talk to your friends about climate action”. The Conversation. August 6^th 2025.
• Wright, K. & Irwin, S. (2025). “Not talking about Climate Change: Everyday interactions, relational work and climate silence“. Sociology. 59(3): 406-423