Why do some people carry reusable bags, cycle to work, refuse fast fashion, or use steel straws, while others dismiss such choices? Why do conversations about the climate impact of our diets and transport so often turn divisive? The answer may lie in how these issues intersect with our identities. 

In a two-part essay, I explore how identity shapes our relationship with climate action in India. In this first part, I define identity and look at how it intersects with our everyday choices and consumption patterns.

In India, people’s identities are being reshaped at an unprecedented pace. Rapid urbanisation and digitalisation, along with rising incomes, especially in mid-sized cities, are dramatically transforming social norms and personal aspirations. While traditional Indian identities were often nature-and-place-centric, these are now clashing with consumer-oriented urban lifestyles. Urban Indians are thus constantly renegotiating how they see themselves and how they wish to be seen. 

Developmental psychologist Erik Erikson defined identity as “A subjective sense of an invigorating sameness and continuity” reinforced by how others perceive and affirm us. Identity tells us, and tells the world, who we are, what we like and dislike, where we’ve come from, and where we’re going. Our sense of identity shields us from anything that might be alien, uncomfortable, or disruptive. Just as often, it acts as a compass guiding us towards what feels authentic, what feels like us.  

Our beliefs and actions are deeply influenced, not just by practical considerations, like finances or technical merit, but also by the social construction of identity and the identity repercussions of our choices. Take the curious case of the rise and fall of the ‘people's car’ in India. Tata’s Nano car was marketed as the cheapest car in the world. Yet, despite its affordability and innovation, the Nano failed to gain traction. Nielsen and Wilhite argue that the Nano did not align with the aspirations of India’s growing middle class. The Nano would not serve the purpose that a typical Indian consumer needed a car to serve: reaffirming the buyer’s identity as socially mobile and economically prosperous. Instead, the Nano was perceived as a symbol of lower status or poverty. Thus, it failed. The Nano case study illustrates that we buy products, not solely for their rational costs and benefits, but because they affirm – or fail to – the stories we want to tell about ourselves.

Similarly, climate action faces challenges when the prescribed actions contradict our sense of identity. Our choices are deeply shaped by who we are and who we want to be. Identity influences how we interpret information, which solutions we accept, and even whether we perceive a problem at all. Norwegian psychologist Per Espen Stoknes, in his framework on psychological barriers to climate engagement, places identity among the five most powerful forces shaping climate action, alongside perceived psychological distance, framing, dissonance, and denial.

We rarely encounter climate messages as neutral information. Instead, we filter them through the lens of who we are and the groups we belong to. When climate action is framed in ways that seem to threaten a person’s cultural, political, or social identity, it can trigger defensiveness or outright rejection. To catalyse change, climate communication must address concerns about identity alongside knowledge, attitudes, and actions. Identity is thus a key determinant of what new behaviours one is willing to adopt and what habits they are prepared to forgo. 

Identity Shapes Perception and Everyday Choices

Our identities can shape how we perceive environmental problems. In a study examining beach pollution in England, researchers found that students with stronger local and national identities were significantly more likely to perceive their beaches as less polluted, even in areas where pollution was visibly present. When someone identifies strongly with their neighbourhood, city, or nation, these places then become part of their extended sense of self, and we become likely to deploy defence mechanisms to ignore threats to these places – just as we often ignore threats to ourselves and our loved ones. The authors suggest that this kind of downplaying of environmental harm may help individuals protect valued aspects of their identity. 

The choices we make in our daily lives are also shaped by our identities. For instance, in a study on transport choices, researchers found that people who identified as car drivers were not only more likely to commute by car, but also more resistant to reducing car use, especially when their car-driving identity overlapped with the identity of being career-focused. Similarly, those who identified as cyclists or pedestrians were more likely to use those modes regularly and less willing to give them up. Who would’ve thought that identifying as a walker vs. a driver can influence our transport choices as much as (or more than) rational factors like cost or convenience!

Preliminary analysis of a large, ongoing study by Transitions Research in mid-sized and large cities in Rajasthan shows that aspirations and social status play a critical role in shaping climate-related behaviours. In Jaipur, for instance, affluent families are less focussed on lowering electricity bills or installing rooftop solar than with keeping their roofs free for leisure activities and cultural celebrations, such as flying kites during Makar Sankranti. However, the idea of being self-reliant and generating their own electricity has prompted interest in rooftop solar in this group.

Interestingly, we have also found that middle-income households in Udaipur, a mid-sized city, are concerned by rising power tariffs. These households are adopting solar power both to save money and to project a modern, sustainable identity. Early adopters of rooftop solar take pride in influencing peers and positioning themselves as pioneers of renewable energy. These choices reveal how social mobility and identity, alongside cost considerations, drive power consumption choices, and how these choices can vary by factors including city size and the household’s socioeconomic status. 

This shift in choices reflects a deeper transformation in how urban Indians see themselves and their role in addressing environmental challenges. Research shows that our cultural mindset influences how we respond to climate change. In collectivist cultures like India, where people see themselves as part of a larger community, climate change is viewed as a shared responsibility, and even small personal actions are considered meaningful. In individualistic cultures like the US, where people prioritise personal goals and independence, climate change is often seen as a personal challenge, and individuals may doubt the impact of their own efforts. Collectivists also tend to care more about meeting social expectations, making them more likely to act when society values climate responsibility! 

Identity shapes action—but it can also spark resistance. In the next part, I’ll explore why some climate messages backfire, and how smarter framing can turn rejection into resonance.