IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v74y2023i9p1086-1099.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Climate change information seeking

Author

Listed:
  • Chun Wei Choo

Abstract

This research develops and tests a model of individual intentions to actively seek information about climate change. Our premise is that the individual's intention to actively seek information about climate change would determine their knowledge of and attitudes towards climate change, and this would in turn influence how they act or change their behaviors in response to that risk. Our model identifies key cognitive, affective, and situational variables drawn from research in human information behavior and risk communication. We conducted an online survey in which 212 participants in Canada and the United States responded. The results showed that the model was able to explain more than 40% of the variance in intention to seek climate change information. Social Norms, Affective Response, and Social Trust were the most important variables in influencing intention to seek climate change information. We conclude that climate change information seeking has a strong social dimension where social norms and expectations of relevant and respected others exert a major influence, and that the individual's emotional response towards the risk of climate change is more important than the individual's cognitive perception of how much information they need on climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Chun Wei Choo, 2023. "Climate change information seeking," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(9), pages 1086-1099, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:74:y:2023:i:9:p:1086-1099
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.24805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24805
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.24805?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich & Claudia Roth, 2000. "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 353-362, June.
    2. Ethel Auster & Chun Wei Choo, 1993. "Environmental scanning by CEOs in two Canadian industries," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 44(4), pages 194-203, May.
    3. Elfreda A. Chatman, 1999. "A theory of life in the round," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 50(3), pages 207-217.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. N. Badullovich & J. Kotcher & T. A. Myers & S. A. Rosenthal & A. Leiserowitz & E. Maibach, 2025. "Understanding six “key truths” about climate change predicts policy support, discussion, and political advocacy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 178(5), pages 1-23, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Timothy C. Earle, 2009. "Trust, Confidence, and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(6), pages 785-792, June.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    3. Skarlicki, Daniel & Lo, Kin & Rogo, Rafael & Avolio, Bruce J. & DeHaas, CodieAnn, 2023. "The role of CEO accounts and perceived integrity in analysts’ forecasts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    5. Yanbo Zhang & Yibao Wang & Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Wen Qing, 2021. "How Do Individual-Level Characteristics Influence Cross-Domain Risk Perceptions Among Chinese Urban Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    6. Ebrahimi, Bahman P., 2000. "Perceived Strategic Uncertainty and Environmental Scanning Behavior of Hong Kong Chinese Executives," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 67-77, July.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5246 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Ching‐Hsun Chang, 2018. "How to Enhance Green Service and Green Product Innovation Performance? The Roles of Inward and Outward Capabilities," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 411-425, July.
    9. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2010. "Nanotechnology Risk Communication Past and Prologue," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1645-1662, November.
    10. Nelson, Jake & Gorichanaz, Tim, 2019. "Trust as an ethical value in emerging technology governance: The case of drone regulation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    11. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    12. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Afef Znaidi & Dorra Gherib, 2021. "Environmental Scanning Practices and CEO’s Profile," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(6), pages 160-160, July.
    14. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    15. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    16. Aurora González-Teruel & Gregorio González-Alcaide & Maite Barrios & María-Francisca Abad-García, 2015. "Mapping recent information behavior research: an analysis of co-authorship and co-citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 687-705, May.
    17. Charis Vlados & Dimos Chatzinikolaou, 2020. "Methodological Redirections for an Evolutionary Approach of the External Business Environment," Journal of Management and Sustainability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, March.
    18. Bruno Chauvin & Danièle Hermand & Etienne Mullet, 2007. "Risk Perception and Personality Facets," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 171-185, February.
    19. Vanessa L. Kitzie & Travis L. Wagner & Valerie Lookingbill & Nicolas Vera, 2022. "Advancing information practices theoretical discourses centered on marginality, community, and embodiment: Learning from the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and as," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(4), pages 494-510, April.
    20. Timothy C. Earle, 2004. "Thinking Aloud about Trust: A Protocol Analysis of Trust in Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 169-183, February.
    21. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:74:y:2023:i:9:p:1086-1099. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.