• About
    • About
    • What is Public Interest Communications?
    • Our Team
    • Theories We Use
    • What We’ve Shared
    • Center Updates
    • Programs & Affiliates
      • frank gathering
      • The Research Prize in Public Interest Communications
      • Journal of Public Interest Communications
      • UF Programs
    • Contact Us
  • Our Services
    • Strategy Consulting
    • Issue Research
    • Training – Frameworks and Custom
  • Frameworks & Resources
  • Training
  • Case Studies
Center for Public Interest Communications
Support
  • About
    • About
    • What is Public Interest Communications?
    • Our Team
    • Theories We Use
    • What We’ve Shared
    • Center Updates
    • Programs & Affiliates
      • frank gathering
      • The Research Prize in Public Interest Communications
      • Journal of Public Interest Communications
      • UF Programs
    • Contact Us
  • Our Services
    • Strategy Consulting
    • Issue Research
    • Training – Frameworks and Custom
  • Frameworks & Resources
  • Training
  • Case Studies
  • Research & Insights

Some Chilling Findings About Global Warming Surveys

  • April 28, 2015
  • 2 minute read
Total
0
Shares
0
0
0
0

Although there’s scientific consensus that the planet is warming and that human activities are largely responsible, many Americans still don’t believe things are so dire. New research suggests that at least some of this disconnect can be chalked up to language, particularly, the wording of opinion surveys about whether people believe in “global warming” or “climate change.”

Writing in the March 2015 issues of The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, communications scholars Jonathon Schuldt and Sungjong Roh from Cornell University and University of Southern California professor of psychology and marketing Norbert Schwarz describe the results of a study that found that surveys that use the phrase “climate change” or “global warming” produce unique results about how people feel about the problem.

Researchers questioned respondents on their beliefs about climate change, their opinions on whether “most scientists believe that climate change… is occurring,” and whether “the federal government should… regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories” to mitigate the effects of climate change. Some of the surveys used the phrase “climate change” in the questions while others used “global warming.”

The researchers found that language matters. While nearly 70 percent of participants said they believe in “climate change,” only 62 percent believed in “global warming.” The divide was even starker when the researchers compared Democrats with Republicans. For Democrats, belief in climate change was mostly steady whether the survey asked about “climate change” or “global warming.” But for Republican participants, only 46 percent believed in “global warming,” while 59 percent expressed a belief in “climate change.”

The order in which questions were asked also affected how participants responded. “[W]hen support for climate mitigation policy was asked directly after personal existence beliefs [i.e. do respondents believe that climate change exist?], Republicans were less likely to support limiting greenhouse gas emissions to reduce ‘global warming’ as compared to ‘climate change,’” the researchers write.

Schuldt, Roh and Schwarz say their work has implications for understanding Americans’ attitudes about climate change and policy. “Many national surveys purporting to measure partisans’ beliefs about climate change employ questions that are worded in terms of global warming – a less trivial detail than it may at first appear,” they note. “[O]ur results suggest that the well-known political divide… may partly derive from question wording, given our finding that the pronounced partisan gap on ‘global warming’ gives way to a broader consensus when the questionnaire instead asks about ‘climate change.’” These findings highlight the importance of wording in climate change communications.

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 2015 

Researchers:
Jonathon P. Schuldt and Sungjong Roh, Cornell University
Norbert Schwarz , University of Southern California

0
0
0
Total
0
Shares
Share 0
Tweet 0
Share 0
Related Topics
  • frankology
Previous Article
  • Research & Insights

In Times of Disaster, Some Tweet, More Reach For Phone

  • March 30, 2015
View Post
Next Article
  • Research & Insights

Google this: You’re not as smart as you think you are

  • May 6, 2015
View Post
Think we can help with your goals? Read about our services and how we work.
Or reach out today to tell us a bit about your project and inquire how we might help.

 
 

Join our network

We'll send insights and opportunities when you least expect

More of our work
  • How to Tell Stories About Complex Issues
  • Why Intersectional Stories Are Key to Helping the Communities We Serve
  • The Science of Story Building
  • Photo by Klaus Nielsen:
    How to Use Stories to Bring ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ Together
Latest from the Center
  • Teresa Gonzales and Nicole Bronzan
    Paper exploring local discursive frames of poverty and race wins 2023 research prize
  • Center welcomes two collaborators in research and strategy
  • 2023 Research Prize Finalists
    Center announces three finalists for the $10,000 public interest communications research prize
  • Rakeem Robinson
    Center honors the memory of colleague Rakeem Robinson
How We Help – Case Studies
  • BROKE project screenshot
    Re-examining narratives on poverty and wealth — the BROKE project
  • Strategic Communications Academy for University of Florida Engineering Scholars
  • hands with medicine
    Invest in Trust – a vaccine communications guide for CNAs

Subscribe

Keep up with our latest; request our periodic newsletter.

UF Logo

Center for Public Interest Communications
PO Box 118400
Gainesville, FL 32611-8400

An auxiliary unit of the College of Journalism and Communications

Copyright © 2022

Contact Us

We are eager to chat with you about your project or training need.

Send us a note

The Center for Public Interest Communications, the first of its kind in the nation, is designed to study, test and apply the science of strategic communication for social change. We are based at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications.

  • Social Change Communication
  • Science Communication
  • Strategic Communication
  • Broader Impacts
  • Public Interest Communication
  • Narrative Change
  • Leadership Development
  • Strategy Development
  • Effective Presentations
  • Research Translation & Insights

Input your search keywords and press Enter.