IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v174y2022i3d10.1007_s10584-022-03437-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence for three distinct climate change audience segments with varying belief-updating tendencies: implications for climate change communication

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Andreotta

    (University of Western Australia
    Data61, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation)

  • Fabio Boschetti

    (Oceans and Atmosphere, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation)

  • Simon Farrell

    (University of Western Australia)

  • Cécile Paris

    (Data61, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation)

  • Iain Walker

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Mark Hurlstone

    (Lancaster University)

Abstract

Mounting evidence suggests members of the general public are not homogeneous in their receptivity to climate science information. Studies segmenting climate change views typically deploy a top-down approach, whereby concepts salient in scientific literature determine the number and nature of segments. In contrast, in two studies using Australian citizens, we used a bottom-up approach, in which segments were determined from perceptions of climate change concepts derived from citizen social media discourse. In Study 1, we identified three segments of the Australian public (Acceptors, Fencesitters, and Sceptics) and their psychological characteristics. We find segments differ in climate change concern and scepticism, mental models of climate, political ideology, and worldviews. In Study 2, we examined whether reception to scientific information differed across segments using a belief-updating task. Participants reported their beliefs concerning the causes of climate change, the likelihood climate change will have specific impacts, and the effectiveness of Australia’s mitigation policy. Next, participants were provided with the actual scientific estimates for each event and asked to provide new estimates. We find significant heterogeneity in the belief-updating tendencies of the three segments that can be understood with reference to their different psychological characteristics. Our results suggest tailored scientific communications informed by the psychological profiles of different segments may be more effective than a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Using our novel audience segmentation analysis, we provide some practical suggestions regarding how communication strategies can be improved by accounting for segments’ characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Andreotta & Fabio Boschetti & Simon Farrell & Cécile Paris & Iain Walker & Mark Hurlstone, 2022. "Evidence for three distinct climate change audience segments with varying belief-updating tendencies: implications for climate change communication," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-29, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:174:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-022-03437-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-022-03437-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-022-03437-5
    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/s10584-022-03437-5?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. Ariel Malka & Jon A. Krosnick & Gary Langer, 2009. "The Association of Knowledge with Concern About Global Warming: Trusted Information Sources Shape Public Thinking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 633-647, May.
    2. Stefan Drews & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2016. "What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 855-876, October.
    3. Kay, Aaron C. & Jost, John T., 2003. "Complementary Justice: Effects of "Poor But Happy" and "Poor But Honest" Stereotype Exemplars on System Justification and Implicit Activation of the Justice Motive," Research Papers 1753r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    4. Travis William Reynolds & Ann Bostrom & Daniel Read & M. Granger Morgan, 2010. "Now What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1520-1538, October.
    5. Adam Corner & Ezra Markowitz & Nick Pidgeon, 2014. "Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 411-422, May.
    6. Tai-Yi Yu & Tai-Kuei Yu, 2017. "The Moderating Effects of Students’ Personality Traits on Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions in Response to Climate Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Matthew J. Hornsey & Emily A. Harris & Kelly S. Fielding, 2018. "Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(7), pages 614-620, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Daniel Read & Ann Bostrom & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Tom Smuts, 1994. "What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 2. Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 971-982, December.
    10. Donald W Hine & Joseph P Reser & Mark Morrison & Wendy J Phillips & Patrick Nunn & Ray Cooksey, 2014. "Audience segmentation and climate change communication: conceptual and methodological considerations," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 441-459, July.
    11. Edward W Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz & Connie Roser-Renouf & C K Mertz, 2011. "Identifying Like-Minded Audiences for Global Warming Public Engagement Campaigns: An Audience Segmentation Analysis and Tool Development," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-9, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Raya Muttarak & Thanyaporn Chankrajang, 2015. "Who is concerned about and takes action on climate change? Gender and education divides among Thais," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 13(1), pages 193-220.
    2. Hayam Elshirbiny & Wokje Abrahamse, 2020. "Public risk perception of climate change in Egypt: a mixed methods study of predictors and implications," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 242-254, September.
    3. Whitney Fleming & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman & Ann Bostrom, 2021. "Indiscriminate, Irrelevant, and Sometimes Wrong: Causal Misconceptions about Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 157-178, January.
    4. E. Keith Smith & Lynn M. Hempel, 2022. "Alignment of values and political orientations amplifies climate change attitudes and behaviors," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-28, May.
    5. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas & Yang, Xiaojun, 2021. "The climate decade: Changing attitudes on three continents," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    7. Rosalind Pidcock & Kate Heath & Lydia Messling & Susie Wang & Anna Pirani & Sarah Connors & Adam Corner & Christopher Shaw & Melissa Gomis, 2021. "Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-22, October.
    8. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    9. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.
    10. Tae Kyung Yoon & SoEun Ahn, 2020. "Clustering Koreans’ Environmental Awareness and Attitudes into Seven Groups: Environmentalists, Dissatisfieds, Inactivators, Bystanders, Honeybees, Optimists, and Moderates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-18, October.
    11. Thomas F. Thornton & Diana Mangalagiu & Yuge Ma & Jing Lan & Mahir Yazar & Ali Kerem Saysel & Abdel Maoula Chaar, 2020. "Cultural models of and for urban sustainability: assessing beliefs about Green-Win," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 521-537, June.
    12. Delley, Mathilde & Brunner, Thomas A., 2017. "Foodwaste within Swiss households: A segmentation of the population and suggestions for preventive measures," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 172-184.
    13. Katherine M. Crosman & Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes, 2019. "Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2329-2347, October.
    14. Andrew G. Meyer, 2022. "Do economic conditions affect climate change beliefs and support for climate action? Evidence from the US in the wake of the Great Recession," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 64-86, January.
    15. Anthony Snider & Shanhong Luo & Theresa Schell & Jeffery Hill, 2021. "Comparing Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors between an Indigenous and a Non-indigenous Sample from New Zealand and the United States of America," Environmental Management and Sustainable Development, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(1), pages 1-23, February.
    16. 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.
    17. Julie C. Libarkin & Anne U. Gold & Sara E. Harris & Karen S. McNeal & Ryan P. Bowles, 2018. "A new, valid measure of climate change understanding: associations with risk perception," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 403-416, October.
    18. Sverker C. Jagers & Erick Lachapelle & Johan Martinsson & Simon Matti, 2021. "Bridging the ideological gap? How fairness perceptions mediate the effect of revenue recycling on public support for carbon taxes in the United States, Canada and Germany," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 529-554, September.
    19. Yan Cao & William L. McGill, 2013. "LinkIT: A Ludic Elicitation Game for Eliciting Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1066-1082, June.
    20. Yeheng Pan & Yu Xie & Hepeng Jia & Xi Luo, 2022. "Ideologies, Conspiracy Beliefs, and the Chinese Public’s Politicized Attitudes to Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.

    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:174:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-022-03437-5. 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.