The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition

Risk Analysis

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 937-948

  Smith, Nicholas ^a   Leiserowitz, Anthony ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Yale School of the Environment   (United States)

Author keywords

Emotion; Global warming; Policy preferences

Indexed keywords

DATA PROCESSING;

CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES; EMOTION; NEGATIVE AFFECTS; POLICY SUPPORT; PUBLIC SUPPORT; RISK INFORMATION; SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES;

GLOBAL WARMING;

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GLOBAL WARMING; LITERATURE REVIEW; POLICY STRATEGY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

UNITED STATES;

EMOTION; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; HUMAN; POLICY;

EMOTIONS; GLOBAL WARMING; HUMANS; PUBLIC POLICY;

EID: 84900533491     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12140     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
2. United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Rio de Janeiro: United Nation, 1992.
3. Nisbet MC, Myers T. The polls-trends-twenty years of public opinion about global warming. Public Opinion Quarterly, 2007; 71(3):444-470.
4. Pew Research Center for People & the Press. Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for People & the Press, 2009.
5. Gallup. Americans Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop. Princeton, NJ: Gallup, 2010.
6. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C. Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans' Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in January 2010. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change, 2010.
7. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N. Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans' Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2011.
8. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, et al. Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans' Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in November 2011. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2011.
9. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Hmielowski JD. Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans' Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in March 2012. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2012.
10. Department for Transport. Public Attitudes Towards Climate Change and the Impact of Transport. London: Department for Transport, UK Government, 2010.
11. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF, Lorenzoni I. Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted During October and November 2005. Technical Report, Working Paper 06-02. Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk, University of East Anglia, 2005.
12. Spence A, Venables D, Pidgeon N, et al. Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January-March 2010. Technical Report, Understanding Risk. Working Paper 10-01. Cardiff: School of Psychology, Cardiff University, 2010.
13. Pidgeon N. Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. Climate Policy, 2012; 12:S85-S106.
14. Brulle RJ, Carmichael J, Jenkins JC. Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002-2010. Climatic Change, 2012; 114(2):169-188.
15. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Press. Public Priorities: Deficit Rising, Terrorism Slipping. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 2012.
16. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Hmielowski JD. Climate Change in the American Mind: Public Support for Climate & Energy Policies in March 2012. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2012.
17. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987; 236:280-285.
18. O'Connor RE, Bord RJ, Fisher A. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19(3):461-471.
19. Stedman RC. Risk and climate change: Perceptions of key policy actors in Canada. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(5):1395-1406.
20. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 2001; 127(2):267-286.
21. Slovic P, Peters E. Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2006; 15(6):322-235.
22. Finucane ML. Emotion, affect, and risk communication with older adults: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Risk Research, 2008; 11(8):983-997.
23. Smith N, Leiserowitz A. The rise of global warming scepticism: Exploring affective image associations in the United States over time. Risk Analysis, 2012; 32:1021-1032.
24. Leiserowitz AA. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 2006; 77(1-2):45-72.
25. Siegrist M, Keller C, Cousin ME. Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: Support for the affect heuristic. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26(4):1021-1029.
26. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2000; 13(1):1-17.
27. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19(4):689-701.
28. Lerner JS, Keltner D. Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 2000; 14(4):473-493.
29. 2 risks. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(5):955-966.
30. Forgas JP. Affect in social judgments and decisions: A multiprocess model. Pp. 227-275 in Zanna MP (ed). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 25. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1992.
31. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. The affect heuristic. Pp. 397-420 in Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
32. Lerner JS, Gonzalez RM, Small DA, Fischhoff B. Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 2003; 14(2):144-150.
33. Sjoberg L. Emotions and risk perception. Risk Management, 2007; 9:223-237.
34. Peters EM, Burraston B, Mertz CK. An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: Cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(5):1349-1367.
35. Nauta MJ, Fischer ARH, van Asselt ED, et al. Food safety in the domestic environment: The effect of consumer risk information on human disease risks. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(1):179-192.
36. Schwarz N, Bless H, Bohner G. Mood and persuasion-Affective states influence the processing of persuasive communications. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1991; 24:161-199.
37. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Pp. 123-205 in Berkowitz L (ed). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 19. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1986.
38. Chaiken S. Heuristic versus systematic information-processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980; 39(5):752-766.
39. Hoijer B. Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 2010; 19(6):717-731.
40. Nabi RL. Exploring the framing effects of emotion-Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 2003; 30(2):224-247.
41. Truelove HB. Energy source perceptions and policy support: Image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs. Energy Policy, 2012; 45:478-489.
42. Damasio AR. The Feeling of What Happens. New York: Harcourt Inc, 1999.
43. Slovic P, MacGregor DG, Peters E. Imagery, Affect, and Decision-Making. Eugene, OR: Decision Research, 1998.
44. Szalay LN, Deese J. Subjective Meaning and Culture: An Assessment Through Word Associations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978.
45. Peters E, Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1996; 26(16):1427-1453.
46. Leiserowitz A. American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(6):1433-1442.
47. Dake K. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk-An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1991; 22(1):61-82.
48. Dake K. Myths of nature-Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 1992; 48(4):21-37.
49. Rippl S. Cultural theory and risk perception: A proposal for a better measurement. Journal of Risk Research, 2002; 5:147-165.
50. Plutchik R. A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. Pp. 3-31 in Plutchik R, Kellerman H (eds). Emotion: Theory, Research, and Experience. 1: Theories of Emotion. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
51. Silvia PJ. Interest-The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2008; 17(1):57-60.
52. Lorenzoni I, Leiserowitz A, Doria MD, et al. Cross-national comparisons of image associations with "global warming'' and "climate change'' among laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain. Journal of Risk Research, 2006; 9(3):265-281.
53. Hulme M. The conquering of climate: Discourses of fear and their dissolution. Geographical Journal, 2008; 174:5-16.
54. Feinberg M, Willer R. Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychological Science, 2011; 22(1):34-38.
55. O'Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S. "Fear won't do it": Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 2009; 30(3):355-379.
56. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer Publishing, 1984.
57. Witte K, Allen M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior, 2000; 27(5):591-615.
58. Moser SC. More bad news: The risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change information. Pp. 64-80 in Moser SC, Dilling L (eds). Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
59. Moser S. Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. WIREs Climate Change, 2010; 1:31-53.
60. Öhman A. Fear and anxiety: Evolutionary, cognitive, and clinical perspectives. Pp. 573-593 in Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM (eds). Handbook of Emotions. New York: Guilford Press, 2000.
61. Goleman D. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. London: Bloomsbury, 1996.
62. National Research Council. Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2010.
63. Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX. Hidden hazards. Pp. 9-28 in Mayo DC, Hollander R (eds). Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Hazard Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
64. Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 2007; 17(3-4):445-459.
65. Hart PS, Nisbet E. Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 2012; 39(6):701-723.
66. Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Mertz CK. Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: An audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PLoS One, 2011; 6(3):e17571.
67. Beckjord EB, Rutten LJF, Arora NK, et al. Information processing and negative affect: Evidence from the 2003 health information national trends survey. Health Psychology, 2008; 27(2):249-257.
68. Cameron LD, Reeve J. Risk perceptions, worry, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Psychology and Health, 2006; 21(2):211-230.
69. Weber EU. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 2006; 77(1-2):103-120.
70. Macgregor D. Worry over technological activities and life concerns. Risk Analysis, 1991; 11(2):315-324.
71. Brosschot JF, Gerin W, Thayer JF. The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A review of worry, prolonged stress-related physiological activation, and health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 2006; 60(2):113-124.
72. Knepp MM, Friedman BH. Cardiac reactivity in high and low trait worry women. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, Austin, TX, 2008.
73. Simons J, Zimmer R, Vierboom C, et al. The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2009; 11(7):1555-1571.
74. Diaz Meneses G. Refuting fear in heuristics and in recycling promotion. Journal of Business Research, 2010; 63(2):104-110.
75. Roeser S. Risk communication, public engagement, and climate change: A role for emotions. Risk Analysis, 2012; 32(6):1033-1040.
76. Markowitz EM, Shariff AF. Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate Change, 2012; 2(4):243-247.
77. Magaletta PR, Oliver JM. The hope construct, will, and ways: Their relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1999; 55(5):539-551.
78. Myers TA, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz AA. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 2012; 113(3-4):1105-1112.
79. Spence A, Pidgeon N. Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 2010; 20:656-667.
80. Lewis I, Watson B, White KM. An examination of message-relevant affect in road safety messages: Should road safety advertisements aim to make us feel good or bad? Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2008; 11(6):403-417.