IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v114y2012i3p463-478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Corner

    ()

  • Lorraine Whitmarsh
  • Dimitrios Xenias

Abstract

‘Scepticism’ in public attitudes towards climate change is seen as a significant barrier to public engagement. In an experimental study, we measured participants’ scepticism about climate change before and after reading two newspaper editorials that made opposing claims about the reality and seriousness of climate change (designed to generate uncertainty). A well-established social psychological finding is that people with opposing attitudes often assimilate evidence in a way that is biased towards their existing attitudinal position, which may lead to attitude polarisation. We found that people who were less sceptical about climate change evaluated the convincingness and reliability of the editorials in a markedly different way to people who were more sceptical about climate change, demonstrating biased assimilation of the information. In both groups, attitudes towards climate change became significantly more sceptical after reading the editorials, but we observed no evidence of attitude polarisation—that is, the attitudes of these two groups did not diverge. The results are the first application of the well-established assimilation and polarisation paradigm to attitudes about climate change, with important implications for anticipating how uncertainty—in the form of conflicting information—may impact on public engagement with climate change. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Corner & Lorraine Whitmarsh & Dimitrios Xenias, 2012. "Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 463-478, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:114:y:2012:i:3:p:463-478 DOI: 10.1007/s10584-012-0424-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-012-0424-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynn Frewer & Steve Hunt & Mary Brennan & Sharron Kuznesof & Mitchell Ness & Chris Ritson, 2003. "The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 75-85, January.
    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. Dan M. Kahan, 2013. "Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(4), pages 407-424, July.
    2. Xenias, Dimitrios & Whitmarsh, Lorraine, 2013. "Dimensions and determinants of expert and public attitudes to sustainable transport policies and technologies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 75-85.
    3. Amanda Hinnant & Roma Subramanian & Rachel Young, 2016. "User comments on climate stories: impacts of anecdotal vs. scientific evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 411-424, October.
    4. Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Nash, Nick & Upham, Paul & Lloyd, Alyson & Verdon, James P. & Kendall, J.-Michael, 2015. "UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support," Applied Energy, Elsevier, pages 419-430.
    5. Uehleke, Reinhard, 2016. "The role of question format for the support for national climate change mitigation policies in Germany and the determinants of WTP," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 148-156.
    6. Christian Harlos & Tim C. Edgell & Johan Hollander, 2017. "No evidence of publication bias in climate change science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 375-385, February.
    7. Rachel A. Howell & Stuart Capstick & Lorraine Whitmarsh, 2016. "Impacts of adaptation and responsibility framings on attitudes towards climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 445-461, June.
    8. Amelia Sharman, 2013. "Mapping the climate sceptical blogosphere," GRI Working Papers 124, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

    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:spr:climat:v:114:y:2012:i:3:p:463-478. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.