IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v658y2015i1p67-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Questionnaire Design Effects in Climate Change Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathon P. Schuldt
  • Sungjong Roh
  • Norbert Schwarz

Abstract

Despite strong agreement among scientists, public opinion surveys reveal wide partisan disagreement on climate issues in the United States. We suggest that this divide may be exaggerated by questionnaire design variables. Following a brief literature review, we report on a national survey experiment involving U.S. Democrats and Republicans ( n = 2,041) (fielded August 25–September 5, 2012) that examined the effects of question wording and order on the belief that climate change exists, perceptions of scientific consensus, and support for limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Wording a questionnaire in terms of “global warming†(versus “climate change†) reduced Republicans’ (but not Democrats’) existence beliefs and weakened perceptions of the scientific consensus for both groups. Moreover, “global warming†reduced Republicans’ support for limiting greenhouse gases when this question immediately followed personal existence beliefs but not when the scientific consensus question intervened. We highlight the importance of attending to questionnaire design in the analysis of partisan differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathon P. Schuldt & Sungjong Roh & Norbert Schwarz, 2015. "Questionnaire Design Effects in Climate Change Surveys," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 67-85, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:658:y:2015:i:1:p:67-85
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716214555066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716214555066
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716214555066?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaron McCright & Riley Dunlap & Chenyang Xiao, 2013. "Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 511-518, July.
    2. Stephan Lewandowsky & Gilles E. Gignac & Samuel Vaughan, 2013. "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 399-404, April.
    3. Teresa Myers & Matthew Nisbet & Edward Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2012. "A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 1105-1112, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emőke Kiss & Dániel Balla & András Donát Kovács, 2022. "Characteristics of Climate Concern—Attitudes and Personal Actions—A Case Study of Hungarian Settlements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, April.
    2. Robin Bayes & James N. Druckman & Alauna C. Safarpour, 2022. "Studying Science Inequities: How to Use Surveys to Study Diverse Populations," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 220-233, March.
    3. Toby Bolsen & James N. Druckman & Fay Lomax Cook, 2015. "Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs about Global Warming," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 271-295, March.
    4. Jennifer Hochschild & Maya Sen, 2015. "Technology Optimism or Pessimism about Genomic Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 236-252, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    2. Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    3. Mark J Hurlstone & Stephan Lewandowsky & Ben R Newell & Brittany Sewell, 2014. "The Effect of Framing and Normative Messages in Building Support for Climate Policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Tatyana Deryugina & Olga Shurchkov, 2016. "The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Ting Liu & Nick Shryane & Mark Elliot, 2022. "Attitudes to climate change risk: classification of and transitions in the UK population between 2012 and 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Sander Linden & Anthony Leiserowitz & Geoffrey Feinberg & Edward Maibach, 2014. "How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 255-262, September.
    7. Jason Gainous & Rodger A. Payne & Melissa K. Merry, 2021. "Do Source cues or frames matter? Convincing the public about the veracity of climate science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1894-1906, July.
    8. Oana Georgiana SECUIAN & Anamaria Gabriela VLAD & Mihaela VLAD, 2021. "Smart city a solution for dealing with climate change in European cities," Smart Cities International Conference (SCIC) Proceedings, Smart-EDU Hub, Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies & Public Administration, vol. 9, pages 285-296, November.
    9. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    10. Toby Bolsen & Justin Kingsland & Risa Palm, 2018. "The impact of frames highlighting coastal flooding in the USA on climate change beliefs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 359-368, March.
    11. Matias Spektor & Guilherme N. Fasolin & Juliana Camargo, 2023. "Climate change beliefs and their correlates in Latin America," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Sander L van der Linden & Anthony A Leiserowitz & Geoffrey D Feinberg & Edward W Maibach, 2015. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
    13. Karine Lacroix & Robert Gifford & Jonathan Rush, 2020. "Climate change beliefs shape the interpretation of forest fire events," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 103-120, March.
    14. Bo MacInnis & Jon Krosnick & Adina Abeles & Margaret Caldwell & Erin Prahler & Debbie Dunne, 2015. "The American public’s preference for preparation for the possible effects of global warming: impact of communication strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 128(1), pages 17-33, January.
    15. Stefano Pinardi & Matteo Salis & Gabriele Sartor & Rosa Meo, 2023. "EU−Africa: Digital and Social Questions in a Multicultural Agroecological Transition for the Cocoa Production in Africa," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-29, July.
    16. Sedona Chinn & P. Sol Hart, 2021. "Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    17. Ericson, Torgeir & Kjønstad, Bjørn Gunaketu & Barstad, Anders, 2014. "Mindfulness and sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 73-79.
    18. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.
    19. Samantha K. Stanley & Caroline Ng Tseung-Wong & Zoe Leviston & Iain Walker, 2021. "Acceptance of climate change and climate refugee policy in Australia and New Zealand: The case against political polarisation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Beatriz Carmona-Moya & Antonia Calvo-Salguero & María-del-Carmen Aguilar-Luzón, 2021. "EIMECA: A Proposal for a Model of Environmental Collective Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:658:y:2015:i:1:p:67-85. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.