Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Explaining topic prevalence in answers to open-ended survey questions about climate change


Citizens’ opinions are crucial for action on climate change, but are, owing to the complexity of the issue, diverse and potentially unformed1. We contribute to the understanding of public views on climate change and to knowledge needed by decision-makers by using a new approach to analyse answers to the open survey question ‘what comes to mind when you hear the words ‘climate change’?’. We apply automated text analysis, specifically structural topic modelling2, which induces distinct topics based on the relative frequencies of the words used in 2,115 responses. From these data, originating from the new, nationally representative Norwegian Citizen Panel, four distinct topics emerge: Weather/Ice, Future/Impact, Money/Consumption and Attribution. We find that Norwegians emphasize societal aspects of climate change more than do respondents in previous US and UK studies3,4,5,6. Furthermore, variables that explain variation in closed questions, such as gender and education, yield different and surprising results when employed to explain variation in what respondents emphasize. Finally, the sharp distinction between scepticism and acceptance of conventional climate science, often seen in previous studies, blurs in many textual responses as scepticism frequently turns into ambivalence.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Effects of climate concern and age on topic prevalence.
Figure 2: Effect of gender and education on topic prevalence.


  1. Hulme, M. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Roberts, M. E. et al. Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. Am. J. Political Sci. 58, 1064–1082 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Leiserowitz, A. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77, 45–72 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Leiserowitz, A. A. American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal. 25, 1433–1442 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith, N. & Leiserowitz, A. The rise of global warming skepticism: Exploring affective image associations in the United States over time. Risk Anal. 32, 1021–1032 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lorenzoni, I., Leiserowitz, A., de Franca Doria, M., Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. F. Cross-national comparisons of image associations with “global warming” and “climate change” among laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain. J. Risk Res. 9, 265–281 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Austgulen, M. H. & Stø, E. Norsk skepsis og usikkerhet om klimaendringer. Tidsskr. Samfunnsforskning 54, 124–150 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dunlap, R. E. & McCright, A. M. A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustainable Dev. 50, 26–35 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Engels, A., Hüther, O., Schäfer, M. & Held, H. Public climate-change skepticism, energy preferences and political participation. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1018–1027 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Scruggs, L. & Benegal, S. Declining public concern about climate change: Can we blame the great recession? Glob. Environ. Change 22, 505–515 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tingley, D. & Tomz, M. Conditional cooperation and climate change. Comp. Polit. Stud. 47, 344–368 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McCright, A. M. The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population Environ. 32, 66–87 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Watson, R. T. & Albritton, D. L. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fløttum, K, Gjesdal, A. M., Gjerstad, Ø., Koteyko, N. & Salway, A. Representations of the future in English language blogs on climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 213–222 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D. & Bretschneider, P. The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 103–109 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stoneman, P., Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. Exploring public discourses about emerging technologies through statistical clustering of open-ended survey questions. Public Underst. Sci. 22, 850–868 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shwom, R., Bidwell, D., Dan, A. & Dietz, T. Understanding US public support for domestic climate change policies. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 472–482 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sunstein, C. R. On the divergent American reactions to terrorism and climate change. Columbia Law Rev. 107, 503–557 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lyons, J. Semantics Vol. 1, 2 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. L’énonciation: de la Subjectivité dans le Langage (Armand Colin, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M. & Tingley, D. stm: R Package for Structural Topic Models (2014);

    Google Scholar 

  22. Roberts, M. E. et al. Online appendix to structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. Am. J. Political Sci. 58, 1064–1082 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bischof, J. & Airoldi, E. M. Proc. 29th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-12) 201–208 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ivarsflaten, E. et al. Endre Tvinnereim and Jacob Aars. Norsk Medborgerpanel [Norwegian Citizen Panel] Round 1: Data file (Univ. Bergen, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Høgestøl, A. & Skjervheim, Ø. Norwegian Citizen Panel 2013: First Wave Methodology Report (Univ. Bergen, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tourangeau, R. & Bradburn, N. Handbook of Survey Research (Emerald, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Weijters, B., Geuens, M. & Schillewaert, N. The proximity effect: The role of inter-item distance on reverse-item bias. Int. J. Res. Mark. 26, 2–12 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K. A., Bradburn, N. & D’Andrade, R. Belief accessibility and context effects in attitude measurement. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25, 401–421 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Leviston, Z., Walker, I. & Morwinski, S. Your opinion on climate change might not be as common as you think. Nature Clim. Change 3, 334–337 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The Research Council of Norway provided financial support for part of the work under the Lingclim project (grant no. 220654). We are very grateful to B. M. Stewart for support on technical issues related to our structural topic models. We also thank participants at the Norwegian Citizen Panel conference, Bergen, 6–7 November 2014.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



E.T. conceived the study and performed the quantitative analysis. E.T. and K.F. performed the qualitative analysis and structured and wrote the text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Endre Tvinnereim.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tvinnereim, E., Fløttum, K. Explaining topic prevalence in answers to open-ended survey questions about climate change. Nature Clim Change 5, 744–747 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing