IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v154y2019i1d10.1007_s10584-019-02406-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An experimental examination of measurement disparities in public climate change beliefs

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Motta

    (University of Pennsylvania
    Yale Law School)

  • Daniel Chapman

    (University of Pennsylvania
    Yale Law School)

  • Dominik Stecula

    (University of Pennsylvania
    Simon Fraser University)

  • Kathryn Haglin

    (University of Pennsylvania
    Yale Law School)

Abstract

The extent to which Americans—especially Republicans—believe in anthropogenic climate change (ACC) has recently been the subject of high profile academic and popular disagreement. We offer a novel framework, and experimental data, for making sense of this debate. Using a large (N = 7,019) and demographically diverse sample of US adults, we compare several widely used methods for measuring belief in ACC. We find that seemingly trivial decisions made when constructing questions can, in some cases, significantly alter the proportion of the American public who appear to believe in human-caused climate change. Critically, we find that some common measurement practices may nearly double estimates of Republicans’ acceptance of human-caused climate change. We conclude by discussing how this work can help improve the consumption of research on climate opinion.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Motta & Daniel Chapman & Dominik Stecula & Kathryn Haglin, 2019. "An experimental examination of measurement disparities in public climate change beliefs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 37-47, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:154:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-019-02406-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-019-02406-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-019-02406-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-019-02406-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    2. Peter Groothuis & John Whitehead, 2002. "Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(15), pages 1935-1940.
    3. Jonathon P. Schuldt & Peter K. Enns & Victoria Cavaliere, 2017. "Does the label really matter? Evidence that the US public continues to doubt “global warming” more than “climate change”," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 271-280, July.
    4. 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.
    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. Catherine Chen & Bo MacInnis & Matthew Waltman & Jon A. Krosnick, 2021. "Public opinion on climate change in the USA: to what extent can it be nudged by questionnaire design features?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Lee, Nathan & Stecula, Dominik, 2020. "Subnational Bipartisanship on Climate Change: Evidence from Surveys of Local and State Policymakers," OSF Preprints znr52, Center for Open Science.
    3. Shannan K. Sweet & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Johannes Lehmann & Deborah A. Bossio & Dominic Woolf, 2021. "Perceptions of naturalness predict US public support for Soil Carbon Storage as a climate solution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-15, May.
    4. A. M. Valkengoed & G. Perlaviciute & L. Steg, 2022. "Relationships between climate change perceptions and climate adaptation actions: policy support, information seeking, and behaviour," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Dimuthu Ratnadiwakara & Buvaneshwaran Venugopal, 2023. "Climate risk perceptions and demand for flood insurance," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 52(2), pages 297-331, June.
    6. Nathan R. Lee & Dominik Stecula, 2021. "Subnational bipartisanship on climate change: evidence from surveys of local and state policymakers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-12, January.

    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. Carisa Bergner & Bruce A. Desmarais & John Hird, 2019. "Speaking truth in power: Scientific evidence as motivation for policy activism," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    2. Jessica E. Hughes & James D. Sauer & Aaron Drummond & Laura E. Brumby & Matthew A. Palmer, 2023. "Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Adam Seth Levine & Reuben Kline, 2017. "A new approach for evaluating climate change communication," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 301-309, May.
    4. Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2018. "A Model of Ideological Thinking," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 85, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    5. Vivianne H. M. Visschers, 2018. "Public Perception of Uncertainties Within Climate Change Science," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 43-55, January.
    6. Brandi S. Morris & Polymeros Chrysochou & Jacob Dalgaard Christensen & Jacob L. Orquin & Jorge Barraza & Paul J. Zak & Panagiotis Mitkidis, 2019. "Stories vs. facts: triggering emotion and action-taking on climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 19-36, May.
    7. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2018. "Self-assessed understanding of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 349-362, November.
    8. Aaron Drummond & Lauren C. Hall & James D. Sauer & Matthew A. Palmer, 2018. "Is public awareness and perceived threat of climate change associated with governmental mitigation targets?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(2), pages 159-171, July.
    9. Gordon Gauchat & Timothy O’Brien & Oriol Mirosa, 2017. "The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 297-306, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Uehleke, Reinhard, 2016. "The role of question format for the support for national climate change mitigation policies in Germany and the determinants of WTP," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 148-156.
    12. Casey A. Klofstad & Joseph E. Uscinski & Jennifer M. Connolly & Jonathan P. West, 2019. "What drives people to believe in Zika conspiracy theories?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    13. Michel, Hanno, 2020. "From local to global: The role of knowledge, transfer, and capacity building for successful energy transitions," Discussion Papers, Research Group Digital Mobility and Social Differentiation SP III 2020-603, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    15. Morrison, Mark & Duncan, Roderick & Parton, Kevin A., 2013. "Targeting segments in the Australian community to increase support for climate change policy," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 212-217.
    16. Kaitlin T Raimi & Paul C Stern & Alexander Maki, 2017. "The Promise and Limitations of Using Analogies to Improve Decision-Relevant Understanding of Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    17. Anthony Evans & Willem Sleegers & Žan Mlakar, 2020. "Individual differences in receptivity to scientific bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 401-412, May.
    18. Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent & Shannon Hagerman & Robert Kozak, 2018. "What risks matter? Public views about assisted migration and other climate-adaptive reforestation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 573-587, December.
    19. Stephanie F. Stefanski & Jay P. Shimshack, 2016. "Valuing Marine Biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico: Evidence from the Proposed Boundary Expansion of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 211-232.
    20. Mahdi Rezapour & F. Richard Ferraro, 2021. "The impact of commuters’ psychological feelings due to delay on perceived quality of a rail transport," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:climat:v:154:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-019-02406-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.