Article | Published:

Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change

Nature Climate Change volume 6, pages 622626 (2016) | Download Citation

Abstract

Recent growth in the number of studies examining belief in climate change is a positive development, but presents an ironic challenge in that it can be difficult for academics, practitioners and policy makers to keep pace. As a response to this challenge, we report on a meta-analysis of the correlates of belief in climate change. Twenty-seven variables were examined by synthesizing 25 polls and 171 academic studies across 56 nations. Two broad conclusions emerged. First, many intuitively appealing variables (such as education, sex, subjective knowledge, and experience of extreme weather events) were overshadowed in predictive power by values, ideologies, worldviews and political orientation. Second, climate change beliefs have only a small to moderate effect on the extent to which people are willing to act in climate-friendly ways. Implications for converting sceptics to the climate change cause—and for converting believers’ intentions into action—are discussed.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , , & Global Warming’s Six Americas, March 2012 and November 2011 (Yale Project on Climate Change, Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., 2012);

  2. 2.

    , , , & Australians’ Views of Climate Change (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2011).

  3. 3.

    Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. Clim. Policy 12, S85–S106 (2012).

  4. 4.

    & Declining public concern about climate change: can we blame the great recession? Glob. Environ. Change 22, 505–515 (2012).

  5. 5.

    & The unbearable lightness of politics: climate change denial and political polarization. Sociol. Q. 52, 195–202 (2011).

  6. 6.

    The growing climate divide. Nature Clim. Change 1, 195–196 (2011).

  7. 7.

    & The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming. Sociol. Q. 52, 155–194 (2011).

  8. 8.

    , & Increasing influence of party identification on perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA, 2006–2012. Weath. Clim. Soc. 6, 194–201 (2013).

  9. 9.

    & Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 1163–1172 (2011).

  10. 10.

    , & Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Anal. 28, 113–126 (2008).

  11. 11.

    , & The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Anal. 29, 633–647 (2009).

  12. 12.

    , , & Investigating the effects of knowledge and ideology on climate change beliefs. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44, 421–429 (2014).

  13. 13.

    Education, politics, and opinions about climate change: evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change 104, 231–242 (2011).

  14. 14.

    Did the Arctic ice recover? Demographics of true and false climate facts. Weath. Clim. Soc. 4, 236–249 (2012).

  15. 15.

    , & Public attention to science and political news and support for climate change mitigation. Nature Clim. Change 5, 541–545 (2015).

  16. 16.

    et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change 2, 732–735 (2012).

  17. 17.

    Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 690–700 (2011).

  18. 18.

    , , , & Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Clim. Change 1, 462–466 (2011).

  19. 19.

    , & The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Clim. Change 3, 399–404 (2013).

  20. 20.

    , & Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Climatic Change 119, 511–518 (2013).

  21. 21.

    , , & Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425–442 (2000).

  22. 22.

    Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? J. Soc. Issues 50, 19–45 (1994).

  23. 23.

    , , & Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25, 1611–1636 (1995).

  24. 24.

    & Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers (Univ. California Press, 1982).

  25. 25.

    , & Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147–174 (2011).

  26. 26.

    & Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: the case of belief in global climate change. Environ. Behav. 38, 48–71 (2006).

  27. 27.

    , & NASA faked the Moon landing—Therefore (climate) science is a hoax: an anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychol. Sci. 24, 622–633 (2013).

  28. 28.

    , , & Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature Clim. Change 1, 46–49 (2011).

  29. 29.

    Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. J. Soc. Issues 56, 407–424 (2000).

  30. 30.

    et al. The 2014 Environmental Performance Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, 2014).

  31. 31.

    , & System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of system-sanctioned change. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36, 326–338 (2010).

  32. 32.

    , , & Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Clim. Change 2, 600–603 (2012).

  33. 33.

    et al. Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Clim. Change 6, 154–157 (2016).

  34. 34.

    et al. Evidence for motivated control: understanding the paradoxical link between threat and efficacy beliefs about climate change. J. Environ. Psychol. 42, 57–65 (2015).

  35. 35.

    & Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts of climate change. Am. Psychol. 66, 277–289 (2011).

  36. 36.

    , , & Introduction to Meta-Analysis (Wiley, 2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Henry and J. Higgins for their helpful advice on a previous version of this paper. We also thank Essential Research for providing access to their polling data. Finally, we thank the dozens of authors of papers included in the meta-analyses who provided data and helped clarify their analyses.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia

    • Matthew J. Hornsey
    • , Emily A. Harris
    •  & Kelly S. Fielding
  2. School of Psychology and Counselling and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Australia

    • Paul G. Bain

Authors

  1. Search for Matthew J. Hornsey in:

  2. Search for Emily A. Harris in:

  3. Search for Paul G. Bain in:

  4. Search for Kelly S. Fielding in:

Contributions

M.J.H. conceived and designed the meta-analyses, and led the writing. E.A.H. gathered and analysed the data, and co-wrote the paper. P.G.B. and K.S.F. contributed expertise in terms of materials and analysis tools, contributed to the design of the meta-analysis, and co-wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Hornsey.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943

Further reading