Lorenzoni, Leiserowitz Et Al -- Cross-National Comparisons of Image Assocations With Global Warming...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University Of Melbourne]On: 18 September 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907695171]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Risk ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713685794

Cross-National Comparisons of Image Associations with “Global Warming” and“Climate Change” Among Laypeople in the United States of America and GreatBritainIrene Lorenzoni a; Anthony Leiserowitz b; Miguel De Franca Doria a; Wouter Poortinga c; Nick F. Pidgeon d

a Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research,School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK b Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon97401, USA c Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University, Wales, UK d School of Psychology, CardiffUniversity, Wales, UK

Online Publication Date: 01 April 2006

To cite this Article Lorenzoni, Irene, Leiserowitz, Anthony, Doria, Miguel De Franca, Poortinga, Wouter and Pidgeon, NickF.(2006)'Cross-National Comparisons of Image Associations with “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” Among Laypeople in theUnited States of America and Great Britain',Journal of Risk Research,9:3,265 — 281

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13669870600613658

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669870600613658

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713685794

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669870600613658

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

ARTICLE

Cross-National Comparisons ofImage Associations with ‘‘Global

Warming’’ and ‘‘Climate Change’’Among Laypeople in the United

States of America and Great Britain1

IRENE LORENZONI*, ANTHONY LEISEROWITZ**,MIGUEL DE FRANCA DORIA*, WOUTER POORTINGA{ &

NICK F. PIDGEON{{

*Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Zuckerman Institute for ConnectiveEnvironmental Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK,

**Decision Research, 1201 Oak Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401, USA, {Welsh School ofArchitecture, Cardiff University, Wales, UK, {{School of Psychology, Cardiff University,

Wales, UK

ABSTRACT Climate change poses significant risks to societies worldwide, yetgovernmental responses differ greatly on either side of the North Atlantic. Riskperception studies have shown that citizens in the United States and Great Britain havesimilar risk perceptions of climate change: it is considered a distant threat, of limitedpersonal importance. Engaging the public on this issue is thus challenging. Affect, thepositive or negative evaluation of an object, idea, or mental image, has been shown topowerfully influence individual processing of information and decision-making. Thispaper explores the affective images underlying public risk perceptions of climate changethrough comparative findings from national surveys in the USA and in Great Britain.American and British respondents predominantly referred to generic manifestations

Correspondence Address: Irene Lorenzoni, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research, School of EnvironmentalSciences, University of East Anglia, UK. Fax: +44 (0)1603 591327; Tel.: +44 (0)1603 593173;Email: [email protected]

1 The majority of the work for this paper was carried out when all the authors, exceptA. Leiserowitz, were affiliated to the Centre for Environmental Risk, Zuckerman Institute forConnective Environmental Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of EastAnglia, Norwich, UK.

Journal of Risk ResearchVol. 9, No. 3, 265–281, April 2006

1366-9877 Print/1466-4461 Online/06/030265–17 # 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13669870600613658

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

and impacts of climate change or to a different environmental problem (ozonedepletion). The terms ‘‘global warming’’ and ‘‘climate change’’, and their associatedimages, evoked negative affective responses from most respondents. Personally relevantimpacts, causes, and solutions to climate change, were rarely mentioned, indicatingthat climate change is psychologically distant for most individuals in both nations. Therole of affective images in risk judgements and individual decision-making deservesgreater study.

KEY WORDS: Affect, Great Britain, climate change, global warming, images, laypeople,perceptions, USA

Introduction and Context

A great proportion of the scientific community accepts that anthropogeni-cally-induced climate change poses significant risks to societies worldwideand therefore should be adequately addressed in the short to medium termby enacting mitigation and adaptation responses through individual andinstitutional behavioural changes (Houghton et al., 2001). However,governmental responses to climate change differ greatly on both sides ofthe North Atlantic. Successive US administrations have been at odds withmuch of the world community regarding the reality of climate change, theseriousness of its impacts and the actions that would need to be undertakento prevent future damage from occurring. In 2001, the Bush administration,citing concerns about economic competitiveness, withdrew from the KyotoProtocol, and subsequently proposed national energy legislation to stronglypromote continued use of fossil fuels. The United States, with only 5% of theworld’s population, is currently the world’s largest emitter of carbondioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, accounting for nearly 25% of globalemissions. Americans emit 5.40 metric tons of carbon per capita per year(Marland et al., 2003). By contrast, Britons emitted 2.5 metric tons ofcarbon per capita in 2000 (EIA, 2003), while the United Kingdom, as part ofthe European Union, ratified the Kyoto Protocol, committing to reducingdomestic emissions of six main greenhouse gases by 12.5% below 1990levels by 2008–2012. Although on a global scale the UK influence on theclimate is relatively limited (in 2000, the UK was responsible for 2.3% oftotal world carbon emissions; EIA, 2003), the UK government is setting thelead on climate change action. It has the aspiration to go far beyond the firstphase requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, curtailing domestic carbondioxide emissions by 60% by 2050 from 1990 levels (DTI et al., 2003). TheBritish and American publics will clearly play an important role in thisevolving process, both in terms of their direct consumption of fossil fuels andthrough their support for political leaders or government policies to mitigateor adapt to global climate change.

It cannot be assumed that British or American citizens will supportstrong policy measures or take individual action until they consider climate

266 Irene Lorenzoni et al.


change as a serious risk. Research on lay perceptions of climate change isimportant because future risk communications will need to be appropriatelydesigned and targeted, taking account of existing knowledge and beliefs (e.g.Morgan et al., 2002), as well as the extent to which multiple and complexdangers associated with climate change influence public views (Lorenzoni etal., 2005). Despite the trans-Atlantic political differences, research has foundsome similar risk perceptions of climate change/global warming2 amongAmerican and British publics. Opinion polls generally show high levels ofawareness and public concern regarding climate change in both countries(Dunlap, 1998; DEFRA, 2002; Brechin, 2003; Norton and Leaman, 2004);however, the priority of climate change is often secondary to most otherpersonal, social and environmental issues (see e.g., Leiserowitz, 2004, p. 30;Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2003). Mental models research in both countries hasfound that laypeople often inappropriately relate climate change to otherenvironmental issues, particularly stratospheric ozone depletion (in the USA,Bostrom et al., 1994; Read et al., 1994; Kempton et al., 1995; in the UK,Lorenzoni, 2003). When prompted, many individuals identify the maincontributors to climate change correctly, although some misunderstandingspersist (Bord et al., 1998; DEFRA, 2002). Generally, people in bothcountries perceive climate change as a greater threat to distant communitiesor geographical locations (for an overview, see also Leiserowitz, 2005;Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, in press). Surveys have also shown that most peopleexpress a willingness to adopt mitigation measures, yet there are indicationsthat this is limited and contingent upon convenience, personal benefits andtrust in government (Bord et al., 1998; O’Connor et al., 1999; Bickerstaff etal., 2004; Kirby, 2004).

To date, risk perception research has predominantly focused on thecognitive aspects of climate change among laypeople. Such research hashighlighted that whilst knowledge is an important component of riskperceptions, it does not sufficiently explain them (e.g. Epstein, 1994;Finucane et al., 2000; Slovic, 2000). Furthermore, various studies on hazardsand risks have demonstrated that although important, more detailed andaccurate information alone is often not sufficient to increase or decreasepublic concern about specific issues. It is increasingly recognised that humaninformation processing and decision-making are also influenced by affectand emotions, which form the basis of the experiential system (Epstein,1994). Although affect is sometimes measured in different ways (e.g., bipolarvs. unipolar scales) (Crites et al., 1994; Peters and Slovic, under review),affect is generally conceptualised as an overall positive or negative

2 The two terms imply a conceptual difference. Whereas global warming suggests a gradualwarming of the Earth’s atmosphere as a direct result of increased greenhouse gasconcentrations, the term climate change refers to the wider changes in temperature globally(warming as well as cooling) and variations in the climatic system (e.g. precipitation, extremeevents). The use of ‘‘global warming’’ is more widespread in common parlance in the USAand the UK; climate scientists prefer the term ‘‘climate change’’.

Public Associations with ‘‘Global Warming’’ and ‘‘Climate Change’’ 267


evaluation of a concrete object, abstract idea or image association (e.g.,Leiserowitz, in press; Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2005). For example, Slovic etal. (2002) define affect as a specific quality of ‘‘goodness’’ or ‘‘badness’’experienced as a feeling state and demarcating a positive or negative qualityof a stimulus. Note that affect is distinct from emotion, which refers tospecific states (such as anger or fear), and mood, which denotes lowintensity, transient feelings (Isen and Diamond, 1988; Benthin et al., 1995).Images are defined as mental representations referring to both the perceptual(pictures, sounds, smells) and the symbolic (words, numbers, and symbols)(Damasio, 1999, pp. 317–321). Affective images are thus ‘‘broadlyconstrued to include sights, sounds, smells, ideas, and words, to whichpositive and negative affect or feelings have become attached throughlearning and experience’’ (Slovic et al., 1998, p. 3).

Research has demonstrated the important role of affect in risk perceptionand behaviour (e.g. Finucane et al., 2000; Slovic et al., 2000), and the utilityof imagery analysis as a means to study the relationship between affect,imagery and perceived risk (e.g. Slovic et al., 1993; Benthin, 1995; Jenkins-Smith, 2001; Leiserowitz, 2003; Satterfield, 2001). Affective reactions occurinstantly and automatically and help individuals ‘‘navigate quickly andefficiently through a complex, uncertain and sometimes dangerous world’’(Zajonc, 1980, in Slovic et al., 2004, p. 313). Relying solely on affect as an‘‘orienting mechanism’’, however, does not always result in expectedoutcomes, as particular situations may be counter-intuitive or maynecessitate additional deliberation and analysis. Thus, individuals tend touse both the experiential and analytic modes of thinking interactively(Epstein, 1994; Slovic et al., 2004).

To date, research on how people’s perceptions and decision-makingabout climate change are influenced by affect and experience has been verylimited, although it has received more attention recently (e.g., OST/MORI,2004; Leiserowitz, in press). This article focuses on the affective imagesassociated with global warming/climate change in the USA and Great Britain(GB), through comparative findings from two national surveys. Given thegeneral correspondences identified in previous work on cognitive percep-tions of climate change among lay publics in the USA and GB, this paperinvestigates whether affective associations are also broadly similar acrossthe two countries. The following sections outline the methods used in datacollection and present the findings of public surveys. We then discussthese findings in relation to the methodologies used and other perceptionstudies.

Methods: the Two Studies

This paper is based on the findings of two national surveys. A study of USglobal climate change risk perceptions, worldviews, policy preferences andbehaviours, was conducted by co-author Anthony Leiserowitz in collabora-tion with the University of Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, from



November 2002 to February 2003, through a mail survey of a representativesample of the American public, using the Dillman (2000) tailored designmethod. A total of 673 completed surveys were returned for an overallCASRO response rate of 55.4% and a refusal rate of 11.2%. Compared topopulation distributions from the 2000 US Census, the sample slightly over-represented males (65%) and persons aged 55 years and over (47%). Thedata were weighted by sex and age to match Census parameters.

In Great Britain (i.e. England, Scotland and Wales) a survey on five riskcases was conducted in July 2002 by MORI on behalf of the Centre forEnvironmental Risk, University of East Anglia. Quota sampling was held at125 points, resulting in 1547 responses. These were subdivided into five sub-samples (of approximately 300 individuals each), which were askedspecifically about one of five risk cases, including climate change. As quotascontrolled all five sub-samples, the final demographic profile of the samplereported in this paper resembles that of the British population. Respondentswere asked in face-to-face interviews about their cultural and environmentalvalues, perceptions of risk and benefit, risk regulation, acceptability, trustand evaluation of government policy (for more details, see Poortinga andPidgeon, 2003). The 318 individual responses on climate change arereported in this paper.

In the American survey, three affective images were gathered from eachrespondent using the method of continued word associations (Szalay andDeese, 1978; Peters and Slovic, 1996). These associations minimise theresearcher bias typically imposed by closed questionnaires; they areunfiltered, relatively context-free, and spontaneous, thus providing a uniquemeans to access and assess subjective meanings. The national survey asked‘‘What is the first (second, third) thought or image that comes to your mindwhen you think of ‘global warming?’’’ Each self-reported image was thenrated by the respondent on a Likert affect scale ranging from 25 (verynegative) to +5 (very positive). A dataset of over 2000 respondent imageswas generated by this technique. Images often took the form of either singleword responses (e.g. ‘‘disaster’’) or short narrative statements (e.g. ‘‘sea levelrise will be a disaster, especially for small islands’’). An inductive contentanalysis was then performed by two independent coders to reduce the datainto thematic categories.

Similarly, respondents to the British survey were asked ‘‘Which threethings, if any, come to your mind when you hear the phrase ‘climatechange’?’’ Respondents then evaluated the associations they mentioned, byindicating if they were ‘‘a good thing’’ (+1), ‘‘a bad thing’’ (21), or ‘‘neithera good thing nor a bad thing’’ (0). For comparative purposes, the imageassociations in the GB survey were categorised following the codingpreviously developed by Leiserowitz (2003) for the American survey. Twoadditional coding categories (‘‘rain’’, ‘‘global warming’’) were added toaccommodate the GB findings.

The two surveys used different stimulus terms (‘‘global warming’’ in theUSA, ‘‘climate change’’ in GB), which may influence their interpretation and



the direct comparability of the two resulting datasets.3 The US surveyemployed a 10-point bipolar Likert scale from 25 (very negative feelings) to+5 (very positive feelings), while the British survey asked people to indicatewhether the first/second/third image mentioned was ‘‘good’’, ‘‘bad’’,‘‘neither good nor bad’’, or ‘‘don’t know’’. To make them comparable, theUS data were conservatively recoded to a corresponding scale of 21, 0, and+1. Hence, this paper focuses on the general survey findings in relation to theimages and affective ratings provided by respondents in both countries,without detailed point-by-point comparisons. The influence of the methodo-logical differences is considered in the discussion.

GB and US Imagery

First Image Associations

A total of 29 distinct categories of affective images associated with globalwarming/climate change were identified (the codebook is available from theauthors upon request). The most frequently mentioned first associations byBritish respondents relate to weather (e.g. ‘‘weather is haywire’’); globalwarming and re-wordings of the term ‘‘climate change’’ (i.e. any referencesto changing climate, for instance, ‘‘seasonal winter/summer changes’’); andozone (e.g. ‘‘deterioration of the ozone layer’’). Other common wordassociations referred to increasing temperatures (e.g. ‘‘winters gettingmilder’’; ‘‘long hot summers’’); pollution (e.g. ‘‘too many chemicals in theair’’; ‘‘changes in pollution levels escaping in the atmosphere’’); rainfall (‘‘alot of rain nowadays’’; ‘‘wet summers all too often these days’’) and disaster(‘‘future for kids caused by damage to Earth’’; ‘‘dangerous to Earth’’). Theaffect associated with all these image categories was on average negative,although some standard deviations from the mean indicate a range ofnegative to positive affect for some images (e.g. ‘‘heat’’, ‘‘changing climate’’,‘‘rain’’; see Figure 1).

Among Americans, the top 10 categories of first images represented justover 95% of all responses. Associations to melting ice were the single largestcategory of responses, suggesting that this current and projected impact ofclimate change is currently the most salient image among the Americanpublic (e.g. ‘‘melting polar ice caps’’, ‘‘Antarctica melting’’). This wasfollowed by generic associations to heat and rising temperatures (e.g.‘‘temperatures increasing’’), impacts on non-human systems (e.g. ‘‘upsetecological balance’’), ozone depletion (e.g. ‘‘a hole in the ozone layer’’),images of disaster (e.g. ‘‘world devastation’’, ‘‘the end of the world as weknow it’’), sea level rise and the flooding of rivers and coastal areas (e.g.

3 A survey in the UK showed that in 2001, 78% of respondents had heard of ‘‘climatechange’’. If they had not, they were asked if they recognised the terms ‘‘global warming’’ orthe ‘‘greenhouse effect’’: 21% of respondents identified these two latter terms (DEFRA,2002).



‘‘rising ocean levels’’, ‘‘flooding of Manhattan’’), references to climatechange (e.g. ‘‘a change in climate’’) and finally associations indicatingscepticism about the reality of climate change. The affect associated with allof these image categories was on average negative.

Comparison of the two datasets indicates that in their first replies,respondents in both countries mostly mentioned images related to potential

Figure 1. First images associated with ‘‘global warming’’ and ‘‘climate change’’ in the UnitedStates and Great Britain. Mean affect for each category is indicated next to each histogrambar using a scale from 21 ‘‘negative’’, to +1 ‘‘positive’’ (followed by the standard deviation)NB: The ‘‘No image provided’’ category identifies those respondents who did not provide anyimage, by combining actual ‘‘don’t know’’ responses with those where no image coded (i.e.refusal to reply and ‘‘missing’’). The composite ‘‘other’’ category also includes imagescategorised as ‘‘forests’’, ‘‘industry’’, ‘‘food’’, ‘‘future generations’’, ‘‘autos’’, ‘‘religion’’,‘‘fossil fuels’’, ‘‘positive’’, ‘‘changes in temperature’’, ‘‘need action’’, ‘‘happening’’ (US) and‘‘human health’’.



impacts of a changing climate. Causes of, and solutions to, climate changewere rarely mentioned. American and British respondents both referredto generic manifestations of climate change (such as increases intemperature, changing climate) and to a different environmental problem(‘‘ozone’’). In smaller proportions, they also associated climate change withadverse outcomes (e.g. ‘‘disasters’’), and flooding and sea level rise (seeFigure 1).

Comparison of Images Overall

Responses were also analysed to investigate how prevalent certain imageswere among the sampled populations. We calculated the percentage ofrespondents who mentioned a certain image at least once in theirassociations (see Figure 2) and a general comparison of responses showsthat:

- Around a third of the American public (roughly equivalent to three and ahalf times more than British respondents) mentioned images associatedwith melting ice, rising temperatures and impacts on nature at least oncein their responses. These images are also the top three first mentioned byAmericans (see Figure 1) which suggests that, as they are consistently andfrequently mentioned by Americans, they are strongly associated withglobal warming in that national context;

- A quarter of Americans referred to disasters associated with globalwarming at least once in their responses (twice the proportion of Britishmentions);

- Notably six times more Americans than British expressed scepticismabout global warming at least once in their responses;

- Associations with ‘‘ozone’’, ‘‘pollution’’ and ‘‘weather’’ are moreprevalent among the British population than among Americans(‘‘weather’’ was mentioned by more than twice the proportion ofAmericans);

- Very similar proportions of the US and GB respondents mentioned imagesrelating to ‘‘flood/sea level’’ at least once in their three replies (Britishrespondents referred to images of rising waters more frequently in theirsecond and third responses);

- The mean affect for all images mentioned at least once is negative in bothdatasets. This suggests that climate change tends invariably to evokenegative feelings, both amongst believers and sceptical members of thepublic.

Comparison of the affective ratings of the images provided in the threesets of replies by respondents in both countries shows that the average affectassigned by American respondents across all three images is relativelyconsistent, ranging from 20.71 to 20.68 (see Table 1). On the other hand,



the mean affect becomes progressively more negative in the second and thirdBritish responses, from 20.58 in the first image to 20.80 in the third. Thesedata may suggest that the longer the British respondents think about climatechange, the more negative they become about the phenomenon. However,the negative affect increase in the GB respondent population may also be dueto the reduction in the number of second and third replies, as people whowere more concerned about climate change may have replied with morenegative images.

Figure 2. All images associated with ‘‘global warming’’ and ‘‘climate change’’ in the UnitedStates and Great Britain. Mean affect for each category is indicated next to each histogrambar using a scale from 21 ‘‘negative’’, to +1 ‘‘positive’’ NB: Percentage of American andBritish respondents who mentioned a specific image at least once in their three associationswith global warming/climate change, and as note per Figure 1 above.



Discussion: Interpretation of the Affective Imagery Datasets

Despite some methodological differences, our main finding is that bothAmerican and British respondents primarily referred to generic manifesta-tions of climate change, increases in temperature, and to a differentenvironmental problem (‘‘ozone’’). Both, although in smaller proportions,also associated climate change with adverse outcomes (‘‘disasters’’).Importantly, the average affect of all the images mentioned by therespondents was negative, indicating that, overall, global warming/climatechange evoked predominantly negative connotations in both countries. Wealso found that American and British images of climate change were easilycoded using the same categories, thus indicating a strong qualitativecorrespondence in connotative meanings between the two countries. Onlyone cultural difference was evident: climate change was associated with‘‘rain’’ by a significant proportion in Britain, while in the US, globalwarming was not associated with ‘‘rain’’ by any of the respondents. Thissuggests a cross-national difference in the experience and interpretation ofprecipitation events and their possible link to climate change, although thisdifference could derive from the different stimulus terms used in the twocountries. Interestingly, some of the British associations found in this studymirror the main effects linked with climate change by UK respondents to a2001 survey: as a result of climate change, 50% of respondents felt changesin weather would occur; 44% mentioned flooding from rainfall; 34% highertemperatures; 34% sea level rise and coastal flooding (DEFRA, 2002).

The stronger association of climate change with ‘‘weather’’ amongBritish respondents also reflects previous research findings. It is known thatthe experiential system is sensitive to changes in the immediate environment(Slovic et al., 2004, p. 319): on individual timescales, climate change is oftenidentified with weather patterns, which are perceptible through the sensesand by direct experience. In other words, ‘‘weather’’ is the everyday manner

Table 1. Mean affect for all first, second and third image associations to ‘‘global warming’’and ‘‘climate change’’ among American and British respondents

CountryElicitation of image

association

Number (and percentage) ofrespondents who provided at least

one image per each imageassociation elicitation Mean affect

Standarddeviation

USA 1st 505 (75%) 20.71 0.712nd 472 (70%) 20.68 0.743rd 395 (59%) 20.68 0.73

GB 1st 251 (79%) 20.58 0.702nd 195 (61%) 20.74 0.613rd 119 (37%) 20.80 0.53



by which many individuals perceive and possibly make sense of the‘‘climate’’ (Read et al., 1994; Gowda et al., 1997; Murlis and Davies, 2001).Interestingly, however, Americans were less likely to associate globalwarming with ‘‘weather’’, yet Americans arguably experience weather justlike the British do. Again, this could be due to the methodological differencesin the two surveys (e.g. different stimulus terms). Alternatively, it could berelated to differences in mass media reporting of the issue in the twocountries: climate change in the British media is often framed within thecontext of ‘‘weather’’ related stories (Hargreaves et al., 2003, p. 19). On theother hand, the associations with ‘‘global warming’’ and ‘‘changingclimate’’, especially among the British population, suggest that manyrespondents simply paraphrased the terms ‘‘climate change’’ to the previousdesignation of ‘‘global warming’’ or vice versa.

These surveys also found convergent evidence that climate changecontinues to be confused and conflated with ozone depletion, as documentedin the mental models literature (e.g. Bostrom et al., 1994; Kempton et al.,1995). Research has shown that some individuals believe there is a directcausal link between the two phenomena. Although a few physical inter-relationships are recognised scientifically, psychology researchers haveargued that most of the individuals who make this link do not know aboutor fully appreciate the subtle molecular interactions that take place in theatmosphere and that connect the two phenomena. Rather, more simply,many people confuse the two, partly because the hole in the ozone layer isscientifically well-established, easy to imagine and remember, and has beenlinked with climate change even by popular information sources (Ungar,2000). Notably, associations with ‘‘ozone’’ evoked strong negative affectamong American and British respondents (see the affect ratings for all threeimages, Figure 2). Our images alone do not allow us to explain the reasonsunderlying these associations, although it is an interesting finding thatwarrants more cross-national research.

Both populations also referred to flooding and sea level changes. It ispossible that British respondents’ views could have been influenced byreporting of recent events, such as the extensive flooding and human plightin Mozambique, March 2001, and in the north of England, autumn 2000and 2001 (however, neither event received much press coverage in the US).For instance, 68% of respondents to a 2001 survey in the UK believed thatthe recent floods in their country were due to climate change (DEFRA,2002). An analysis of UK media coverage of climate change from 28 Januaryto 15 September 2002 also found that most of the coverage about the effectsof climate change focused on the British climate, whereas the impacts ondeveloping nations received less attention (Hargreaves et al., 2003, p. 21). Itis not possible for us to explore this effect further within our datasets,although media influence on perceptions are well documented (Mazur,1981; Stamm et al., 2000).

Also notable was the greater proportion (10%) of American respondentsexpressing scepticism about global warming, which both supports and



reflects the Bush administration’s stance on climate change. Our analysisalso demonstrates that while American respondents rated all three of theirassociations with global warming as consistently negative, British respon-dents rated their second and third associations with climate change asincreasingly negative.

One important finding was that none of the American respondentsassociated global warming with human health impacts in their first replies,whereas only a few were provided by British respondents. Potential healthimpacts of global warming include changes in temperature-related morbidityand mortality, spread of water and food-borne diseases, vector and rodent-borne disease (e.g. malaria, West Nile Virus) (e.g. Patz et al., 2000; Epstein,2000). A recent study by the World Health Organization estimated that154,000 people died worldwide in the year 2000 due to climate change,while an additional 5.5 million disability-adjusted years were lost (WHO,2002). Scientists project that the health impacts are likely to be among thegreatest dangers of climate change for human societies, especially for thepoor and children in developing countries.

In sum, the images provided by respondents in both nations carriednegative affect, but generally lacked personal relevance—they were eithervery generic or referred to events that bore little immediate or tangiblepertinence to inhabitants in the US or in Britain. Similar associations aredocumented in recent European research (Hohle, 2002, in Germany;Bickerstaff et al., 2004, in the UK). The image associations offered byAmerican and British respondents in this paper, however, are in line withscientific warnings published in the literature, i.e. effects on vulnerablelocations and populations (i.e. Small Island States, the Arctic, several plantand animal species; McCarthy et al., 2001). Likewise, most of the imagesprovided by the US public reflect media reporting of the phenomenon. Manystories about global warming in the US press describe melting of polaricecaps or glaciers, warming of the Earth and the impacts on vulnerableanimal/plant species or ecosystems, most of which are distant from theaverage American’s experience. The most frequently mentioned Britishassociations reflect general manifestations of climate change, some perhapsmore pertinent to the British Isles (e.g. ‘‘rain’’ and ‘‘weather’’, as mentionedabove). Individuals in both nations, therefore, appear to draw upon variouspublicly available interpretations of the phenomenon. Almost no links weremade with health impacts. Furthermore, they rarely associated climatechange with local events or occurrences. Thus, the affective images from thetwo surveys presented in this paper support previous findings and alsoindicate that although climate change generally evokes negative affect,people don’t relate it to themselves personally and very few people associateclimate change with either its causes or solutions.

These findings suggest that an understanding of individuals’ affectiveevaluations of climate change is a useful complement to mental modelsresearch and may help design communications intended to increaseindividuals’ engagement with the issue. It has been argued that knowledge



of the causes of climate change is a key component of intended individualbehaviour, alongside pro-environmental beliefs and concern about climatechange as a serious threat (Bord et al., 2000). Our study suggests thatcurrently the causes of climate change are not salient in people’s minds, andalthough the threat of climate change is acknowledged, it is seen as relativelydistant in space and time. Findings of a recent study in Norwich, UKinvestigating the saliency of climate change and individuals’ sense of efficacyin addressing the issue through images of potential impacts of climate changeand mitigation measures (Nicholson-Cole, 2004) indicate that only imagesthat personalise/localise the issue coupled with practical ways for anindividual to make a difference are likely to induce behavioural change.Combining images that promote saliency and agency, by communicating thenotion that ‘‘if you do ‘x’, then you can prevent ‘y’ from happening’’, appearto be much more effective than solely using images of potential negativeimpacts of climate change around the world. Images such as famines inAfrica and forest fires had become too familiar, yet distant, so thatindividuals participating to the study felt powerless to remedy thosesituations through their own actions. As specific risk judgements are knownto be driven by more general evaluative judgements (e.g. Poortinga andPidgeon, 2005), the analysis presented in this paper and the study byNicholson-Cole seem to suggest that if climate change communicators wereto associate negative affect with specific localised impacts and with enablingpersonal solutions linked to those effects, these together could exert asignificant positive influence on behavioural intentions.

In our analyses, we have focused on the general findings of both surveys,avoiding point-by-point comparisons. We demonstrate that affective imagesand connotative meanings of risk can be productively compared acrosscountries. Nevertheless, several methodological issues limit this analysis.First, in the USA, the results were obtained from a mail-out, mail-backsurvey, in which the respondents had as much time as they desired to answerthe questions, and therefore to provide images. In GB, the survey wasconducted through face-to-face interviews, through which respondents mayhave felt more time constrained in providing their answers. Thismethodological difference may explain why American respondents weremore likely to provide three images than GB respondents. Second, there weresome differences in the questionnaire wording and format. The Americansurvey used the stimulus term ‘‘global warming’’ while the British surveyused the term ‘‘climate change’’. The two surveys also differed slightly intheir method of image elicitation (see methods section above), and in theiraffective ratings of elicited images, which were recoded to make themcomparable.

Conclusions

The comparison of affective images among nationally-representative publicsin the United States and Great Britain points towards three major findings:



(a) the British and American publics used many of the same categories ofimages and their average affect regarding climate change was negative; (b)these image categories, however, were assigned different priority (salience)and levels of negative affect in the two countries, complicated by the use ofdifferent stimulus terms and elicitation methods; (c) neither public viewedclimate change/global warming as personally relevant: the impacts of climatechange, and most importantly its causes and solutions, were psychologicallydistant for most individuals in both nations. Overall, despite methodologicaldifferences, the similarities between the national responses are significant.

These findings also raise a question posed by Slovic and colleagues(2004, p. 321): how can our understanding of affect be put to use inconjunction with risk analysis to improve assessments and management ofrisks associated with global warming/climate change? These findingsdescribe the images and feelings evoked by climate change among thepublic in these two countries, which should be further investigated toidentify more effective ways of communicating the risks of climate changeand to promote mitigation behaviours by individuals. We suggest that oneavenue of research could explore how individuals come to make climatechange personally relevant and how individuals effectively assess the risksand benefits of climate change in relation to possible solutions. While theresults reported in this paper are strongly suggestive, the scientific study ofthe role of affect and imagery in risk assessment and behaviour is still in itsinfancy.

Acknowledgements

The British survey by the Centre for Environmental Risk (University of EastAnglia, Norwich, UK) was undertaken as part of the Programme onUnderstanding Risk funded by a grant of the Leverhulme Trust(RSK990021), with additional funding from the Economic and SocialResearch Council (ESRC) Science in Society Programme (L144250037). TheAmerican study was supported by the US National Science Foundation (SES-0221896) and by the Donald R. Barker Foundation. Two anonymousreviewers are thanked for their constructive comments.

References

Benthin, A., Slovic, P., Moran, P., Severson, H., Mertz, C. K. and Gerrard, M. (1995) Adolescent health

threatening and health-enhancing behaviors: a study of word association and imagery, Journal of

Adolescent Health, 17(3), pp. 143–152.

Bickerstaff, K., Simmons, P. and Pidgeon, N. (2004) Public perceptions of risk, science and governance:

main findings ofo ao qualitative study of five risk cases (unpublished working paper), Norwich:

Centre for Environmental Risk.

Bord, R. J., Fisher, A. and O’Connor, R. E. (1998) Public perceptions of global warming: United States

and international perspectives, Climate Research, 11, pp. 75–84.



Bord, R. J., O’Connor, R. E. and Fisher, A. (2000) In what sense does the public need to understand

global climate change? Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), pp. 205–218.

Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B. and Read, D. (1994) What do people know about global

climate change? 1. Mental models, Risk Analysis, 14(6), pp. 959–970.

Brechin, S. R. (2003) Comparative public opinion and knowledge on global climate change and the Kyoto

Protocol: the US versus the rest of the world? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,

23(10), pp. 106–134.

Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R. and Petty, R. E. (1994) Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of

attitudes: conceptual and methodological issues, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6),

pp. 619–634.

Damasio, A. (1999) The feeling of what happens (New York: Harcourt Inc.).

Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2002) Survey of public attitudes to

quality of life and to the environment—2001 (London: DEFRA).

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department for Transport (DfT) and Department for

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2003) Energy White Paper; Our energy future—

creating a low carbon economy (Norwich, UK: TSO).

Dillman, D. A. (2000) The Tailored Design Method, 2nd edn (New York: John Wiley & Sons).

Dunlap, R. E. (1998) Lay perceptions of global risk, International Sociology, 13(4), pp. 473–498.

Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2003) United Kingdom: Environmental Issues, available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/ukenv.html (accessed on 26 July 2005).

Epstein, S. (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious, American

Psychologist, 49, pp. 709–724.

Epstein, P. (2000) Health and climate change, in: L. Gobez-Echeverri (Ed) Climate Change and

Development, pp. 115–130 (New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies).

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. and Johnson, S. M. (2000) The affect heuristic in judgements of

risks and benefits, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, pp. 1–17.

Gowda, M. V. R., Fox, J. C. and Magelky, R. D. (1997) Students’ understanding of climate change:

insights for scientists and educators, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78(10), pp.

2232–2240.

Hargreaves, I., Lewis, J. and Speers, T. (2003) Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media

(Swindon, UK: ESRC).

Hohle, E. (2002) Global climate change as perceived by the public, in: M. M. Zwick & O. Renn

(Eds) Perception and Evaluation of Risks, pp. 115–130, Findings of the ‘‘Baden-Wurttemberg

Risk Survey 2001, Joint working report by the Centre of Technology Assessment in Baden-

Wurttemberg and the University of Stuttgart, Germany: Sociology of Technologies and

Environment.

Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X. and Johnson, C. A.

(Eds) (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the

Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press).

Isen, A. and Diamond, G. (1988) Affect and automaticity, in: J. Vleman & J. Bargh (Eds) Unintended

Through, pp. 124–152 (New York: Guilford).

Jenkins-Smith, H. (2001) Modeling stigma: An empirical analysis of nuclear images of Nevada, in: J.

Flynn, P. Slovic & H. Kunreuther (Eds) Risk, Media and Stigma, pp. 107–131 (London: Earthscan).

Kempton, W., Boster, J. S. and Hartley, J. A. (1995) Environmental Values in American Culture

(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Kirby, A. (2004) Britons unsure of climate costs, BBC News Online, at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/

tech/3934363.stm (accessed 3 August 2005) Poll results also available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/

shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_07_04_climatepoll.pdf



Leiserowitz, A. (2003) Global warming in the American mind: The roles of affect, imagery, and

worldviews in risk perception, policy preferences and behaviour, Unpublished Dissertation (Eugene,

OR: University of Oregon).

Leiserowitz, A. (2004) Before and after the day after tomorrow: a U.S. study of climate change risk

perception, Environment, 46(9), pp. 22–37.

Leiserowitz, A. (2005) American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 25(6),

pp. 1433–1442.

Leiserowitz, A. (in press) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect,

imagery, and values, Climatic Change.

Lorenzoni, I. (2003) Present Choices, Future Climates: A cross-cultural study of perceptions in Italy and

in the UK, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis (Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia).

Lorenzoni, I. and Pidgeon, N. F. (in press) Public views on climate change: European and USA

perspectives, Climatic Change.

Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N. F. and O’Connor, R. E. (2005) Dangerous climate change: the role for risk

research, Risk Analysis, 25(6), pp. 1387–1398.

Marland, G., Boden, T. and Andres, B. (2003) Trends: a compendium of data on global change, Carbon

Dioxide Information Analysis Center, USA, available at: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/

top2000.tot (last accessed 10 December 2005).

Mazur, A. (1981) The Dynamics of Technological Controversy (Washington, DC: Communication

Press).

McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Leary, N. A. and White, K. S. (Eds) (2001) Climate Change 2001:

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group 2 to the Third Assessment

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and Atman, C. J. (2002) Risk Communication: a Mental

Models Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Murlis, J. and Davies, G. (2001) Public perception of the health impacts of climate change, in: Health

Effects of Climate Change in the UK, pp. 50–54 (London: Department of Health).

Nicholson-Cole, S. (2004) Imag(in)ing climate change: exploring people’s visual imagery, issue salience

and personal efficacy, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis (Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia).

Norton, A. and Leaman, J. (2004) The Day After Tomorrow: Public Opinion on Climate Change

(London: MORI Social Science Research Institute).

O’Connor, R., Bord, R. J., Fisher, A., Staneva, M., Kozhouharova-Zhivkova, V. and Dobreva, S. (1999)

Determinants of support for climate change policies in Bulgaria and the USA, Risk Decision and

Policy, 4(3), pp. 255–269.

OST/MORI (2004) Science in Society—Findings from Qualitative and Quantitative Research, conducted

for the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry (London: MORI Social

Science Research Institute).

Patz, J. A., Engelberg, D. and Last, J. (2000) The effects of changing weather on public health, Annual

Review of Public Health, 21, pp. 271–307.

Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the

perception and acceptance of nuclear power, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, pp.

1427–1453.

Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (under review) Affective asynchrony and the measurement of the affective attitude

component, Cognition and Emotion.

Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F. (2003) Public perceptions of risk, science and governance, Main

findings of a British survey on five risk cases, Technical Report (Norwich, UK: Centre for

Environmental Risk).

Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F. (2005) Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the

acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 25(1), pp. 199–209.



Read, D., Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B. and Smuts, T. (1994) What do people know about

global climate change? Survey results of educated laypeople, Risk Analysis, 14(6), pp. 971–982.

Satterfield, T. (2001) Risk lived, stigma experienced: Reflections on the limits of adaptations, in: J. Flynn,

P. Slovic & H. Kunreuther (Eds) Risk, Media and Stigma, pp. 69–86 (London: Earthscan).

Slovic, P. (2000) The Perception of Risk (London: Earthscan).

Slovic, P., Layman, M. and Flynn, J. (1993) Perceived risk, trust and nuclear waste: lessons from Yucca

Mountain, in: R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft & E. A. Rosa (Eds) Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste:

Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting, pp. 54–86 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).

Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D. G. (2002) The affect heuristic, in: T. Gilovich, D.

Griffin & D. Kahnman (Eds) Heuristics and Biases: the Psychology of Intuitive Psychology, pp.

397–420 (New York: Cambridge University Press).

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D. G. (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings:

some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality, Risk Analysis, 24(2), pp. 311–322.

Slovic, P., Flynn, J., Mertz, C. K., Poumadere, M. and Mays, C. (2000) Nuclear power and the

public, a comparative study of risk perception in France and the United States, in: O. Renn & B.

Rohrmann (Eds) Cross-Cultural Risk Perception. A Survey of Empirical Studies, pp. 55–102 (The

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

Slovic, P., MacGregor, D. G. and Peters, E. (1998) Imagery, Affect, and Decision-making (Eugene, OR:

Decision Research).

Stamm, K. R., Clark, F. and Eblacas, P. R. (2000) Mass communication and public understanding of

environmental problems: the case of global warming, Public Understanding Of Science, 9(3), pp.

219–237.

Szalay, L. B. and Deese, J. (1978) Subjective Meaning and Culture: An Assessment Through Word

Associations (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

Ungar, S. (2000) Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole,

Public Understanding of Science, 9, pp. 297–312.

World Health Organization (WHO) (2002) The World Health Report 2002, Reducing Risks, Promoting

Healthy Life (Geneva: World Health Organization).

Zajonc, R. B. (1980) Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences, American Psychologist, 35, pp.

151–175.



Lorenzoni, Leiserowitz Et Al -- Cross-National Comparisons of Image Assocations With Global Warming...

Documents

Transcript of Lorenzoni, Leiserowitz Et Al -- Cross-National Comparisons of Image Assocations With Global Warming...