Climate Change Risk Perceptions of Audiences in the Climate Change Blogosphere
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Dimensions of the Climate Change Risk Perception Model
2.2. CCRPM+
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Design
3.2. Materials and Procedure
3.3. Measures
3.3.1. Risk Perception
3.3.2. Knowledge about Climate Change
3.3.3. Holistic Affect
3.3.4. Personal Experience with Extreme Weather Events
3.3.5. Broad Value Orientations
3.3.6. Social Norms
3.3.7. Socio-Demographic Factors
3.3.8. Trust in Sources of Information about Climate Change
3.4. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Overview of Socio-Demographic Characteristics
4.2. Descriptive Statistics of Variables CCRPM+
4.3. Multiple Regression CCRPM+
4.4. The Relative Importance of CCRPM+ Predictor Variables
5. Discussion
5.1. Evaluation of CCRPM+
5.2. Implications for Practice and Future Research
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lewandowsky, S.; Cook, J.; Fay, N.; Gignac, G.E. Science by Social Media: Attitudes towards Climate Change Are Mediated by Perceived Social Consensus. Mem. Cogn. 2019, 47, 1445–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leiserowitz, A.A.; Maibach, E.W.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Smith, N.; Dawson, E. Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust. Am. Behav. Sci. 2013, 57, 818–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lewandowsky, S.; Oberauer, K.; Gignac, G.E. NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24, 622–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Edwards, A.; Bekkers, V.; De Kool, D.; Straten, G. Recent Developments in Dutch Climate Politics and the Role of the Sceptical Dutch Climate Weblog Climategate.Nl. Evid. Policy 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nerlich, B. “Climategate”: Paradoxical Metaphors and Political Paralysis. Environ. Values 2010, 14, 419–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farrell, H.; Drezner, D.W. The Power and Politics of Blogs. Public Choice 2007, 134, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elgesem, D.; Steskal, L.; Diakopoulos, N. Structure and Content of the Discourse on Climate Change in the Blogosphere: The Big Picture. Environ. Commun. 2015, 9, 169–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Jacques, P.J. Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks. Am. Behav. Sci. 2013, 57, 699–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oreskes, N.; Conway, E.M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming; Bloomsbury Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Farrell, J. Network Structure and Influence of the Climate Change Counter-Movement. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 370–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Eck, C.W.; Mulder, B.C.; Dewulf, A. “The Truth Is Not in the Middle”: Journalistic Norms of Climate Change Bloggers. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 59, 10198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elgesem, D. The Meaning of Links: On the Interpretation of Hyperlinks in the Study of Polarization in Blogging about Climate Change. Nord. Rev. 2019, 40, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaiser, J.; Puschmann, C. Alliance of Antagonism: Counterpublics and Polarization in Online Climate Change Communication. Commun. Public 2017, 2, 371–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Eck, C.W.; Feindt, P.H. Parallel Routes from Copenhagen to Paris: Climate Discourse in Climate Sceptic and Activist Blogs. Under Rev. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2020, unpublished work. [Google Scholar]
- Brüggeman, M.; Elgesem, D.; Bienzeisler, N.; Dedecek Gertz, H.; Walter, S. Mutual Group Polarization in the Blogosphere: Tracking the Hoax Discourse on Climate Change. Int. J. Commun. 2020, 14, 24. [Google Scholar]
- Van Eck, C.W.; Mulder, B.C.; Dewulf, A. Online Climate Change Polarization: Interactional Framing Analysis of Climate Change Blog Comments. Sci. Commun. 2020, 42, 454–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthews, P. Why Are People Skeptical about Climate Change? Some Insights from Blog Comments. Environ. Commun. 2015, 9, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breakwell, G.M. Models of Risk Construction: Some Applications to Climate Change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 857–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moser, S.C. Communicating Climate Change: History, Challenges, Process and Future Directions. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 31–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasperson, R.E.; Renn, O.; Slovic, P.; Brown, H.S.; Emel, J.; Goble, R.; Kasperson, J.X.; Ratick, S. The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Anal. 1988, 8, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van der Linden, S. Determinants and Measurement of Climate Change Risk Perception, Worry, and Concern. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication; Nisbet, M.C., Ed.; University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Linden, S. The Social-Psychological Determinants of Climate Change Risk Perceptions: Towards a Comprehensive Model. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, B.; Brewer, M.B.; Hayes, B.K.; McDonald, R.I.; Newell, B.R. Predicting Climate Change Risk Perception and Willingness to Act. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 65, 101331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharman, A. Mapping the Climate Sceptical Blogosphere. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Poortinga, W.; Spence, A.; Whitmarsh, L.; Capstick, S.; Pidgeon, N.F. Uncertain Climate: An Investigation into Public Scepticism about Anthropogenic Climate Change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 1015–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helgeson, J.; Van der Linden, S.; Chabay, I. The Role of Knowledge, Learning and Mental Models in Public Perceptions of Climate Change Related Risks. In Learning for Sustainability in Times of Accelerating Change; Wals, A., Corcoran, P.B., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 329–346. [Google Scholar]
- Brody, S.D.; Zahran, S.; Vedlitz, A.; Grover, H. Examining the Relationship between Physical Vulnerability and Public Perceptions of Global Climate Change in the United States. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 72–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sundblad, E.L.; Biel, A.; Gärling, T. Cognitive and Affective Risk Judgements Related to Climate Change. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hornsey, M.J.; Harris, E.A.; Bain, P.G.; Fielding, K.S. Meta-Analyses of the Determinants and Outcomes of Belief in Climate Change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 622–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Milfont, T.L. The Interplay between Knowledge, Perceived Efficacy, and Concern about Global Warming and Climate Change: A One-Year Longitudinal Study. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 1003–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, N.; Leiserowitz, A. The Rise of Global Warming Skepticism: Exploring Affective Image Associations in the United States over Time. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 1021–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Akerlof, K.; Maibach, E.W.; Fitzgerald, D.; Cedeno, A.Y.; Neuman, A. Do People “Personally Experience” Global Warming, and If so How, and Does It Matter? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonald, R.I.; Chai, H.Y.; Newell, B.R. Personal Experience and the “psychological Distance” of Climate Change: An Integrative Review. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 44, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern. Environ. Behav. 1993, 25, 322–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 25, 1–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renn, O. The Social Amplification/Attenuation of Risk Framework: Application to Climate Change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 154–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swim, J.; Clayton, S.; Doherty, T.; Gifford, R.; Howard, G.; Reser, J.; Stern, P.; Weber, E. Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges A Report by the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change Members; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Steg, L.; De Groot, J.I.M.; Dreijerink, L.; Abrahamse, W.; Siero, F. General Antecedents of Personal Norms, Policy Acceptability, and Intentions: The Role of Values, Worldviews, and Environmental Concern. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2011, 24, 349–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L.; Poortinga, W. Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy. Risk Anal. 2013, 33, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Slovic, P. Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Anal. 1993, 13, 675–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Whitmarsh, L. What’s in a Name? Commonalities and Differences in Public Understanding of “Climate Change” and “Global Warming.” Public Underst. Sci. 2009, 18, 401–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buys, L.; Aird, R.; van Megen, K.; Miller, E.; Sommerfeld, J. Perceptions of Climate Change and Trust in Information Providers in Rural Australia. Public Underst. Sci. 2014, 23, 170–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Malka, A.; Krosnick, J.A.; Langer, G. The Association of Knowledge with Concern about Global Warming: Trusted Information Sources Shape Public Thinking. Risk Anal. 2009, 29, 633–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellstedt, P.M.; Zahran, S.; Vedlitz, A. Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States. Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamilton, L.C.; Hartter, J.; Saito, K. Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines. SAGE Open 2015, 5, 2158244015602752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bråten, I.; Strømsø, H.I.; Salmerón, L. Trust and Mistrust When Students Read Multiple Information Sources about Climate Change. Learn. Instr. 2011, 21, 180–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hmielowski, J.D.; Feldman, L.; Myers, T.A.; Leiserowitz, A.; Maibach, E. An Attack on Science? Media Use, Trust in Scientists, and Perceptions of Global Warming. Public Underst. Sci. 2014, 23, 866–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderegg, W.R.L.; Prall, J.W.; Harold, J.; Schneider, S.H. Expert Credibility in Climate Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 12107–12109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuce, A. Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 024024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Doran, P.T.; Zimmerman, M.K. Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 2009, 90, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, D.; Maibach, E.W.; Zhao, X.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Leiserowitz, A. Support for Climate Policy and Societal Action Are Linked to Perceptions about Scientific Agreement. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2011, 1, 462–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewandowsky, S.; Gignac, G.E.; Vaughan, S. The Pivotal Role of Perceived Scientific Consensus in Acceptance of Science. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Linden, S.; Leiserowitz, A.; Maibach, E. The Gateway Belief Model: A Large-Scale Replication. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 62, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pachauri, R.K.; Allen, M.R.; Barros, V.R.; Broome, J.; Cramer, W.; Christ, R.; Church, J.A.; Clarke, L.; Dahe, Q.; Dasgupta, P.; et al. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; p. 151. ISBN 978-92-9169-143-2. [Google Scholar]
- De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value Orientations and Environmental Beliefs. Validity of an Instrument to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic and Biospheric Value Orientations. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 2007, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pratt, J.W. Dividing the Indivisible: Using Simple Symmetry to Partition Variance Explained. Proc. Second Int. Tampere Conf. Stat. 1987, 1987, 245–260. [Google Scholar]
- Sjöberg, L. Will the Real Meaning of Affect Please Stand Up? J. Risk Res. 2006, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curnock, M.I.; Marshall, N.A.; Thiault, L.; Heron, S.F.; Hoey, J.; Williams, G.; Taylor, B.; Pert, P.L.; Goldberg, J. Shifts in Tourists’ Sentiments and Climate Risk Perceptions Following Mass Coral Bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustafson, A.; Ballew, M.T.; Goldberg, M.H.; Cutler, M.J.; Rosenthal, S.A.; Leiserowitz, A. Personal Stories Can Shift Climate Change Beliefs and Risk Perceptions: The Mediating Role of Emotion. Commun. Rep. 2020, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jovarauskaite, L.; Böhm, G. The Emotional Engagement of Climate Experts Is Related to Their Climate Change Perceptions and Coping Strategies. J. Risk Res. 2020, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salama, S.; Aboukoura, K. Role of Emotions in Climate Change Communication. In Climate Change Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception; Earthscan: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- van der Linden, S. On the Relationship between Personal Experience, Affect and Risk Perception: The Case of Climate Change. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 44, 430–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leiserowitz, A. Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. Clim. Chang. 2006, 77, 45–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Corner, A.; Markowitz, E.; Pidgeon, N. Public Engagement with Climate Change: The Role of Human Values. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2014, 5, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ranney, M.A.; Clark, D. Climate Change Conceptual Change: Scientific Information Can Transform Attitudes. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2016, 8, 49–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Engdahl, E.; Lidskog, R. Risk, Communication and Trust: Towards an Emotional Understanding of Trust. Public Underst. Sci. 2014, 23, 703–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corner, A.; Clarke, J. Talking Climate: From Research to Practice in Public Engagement; Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socio-Demographic Characteristics | Valid Percent |
---|---|
Gender | |
Female | 10.4% |
Male | 89.6% |
Age | |
24 or younger | 2.2% |
25–34 | 5.9% |
35–44 | 8.8% |
45–54 | 17.8% |
55–65 | 32.8% |
66 or older | 32.5% |
Country of residence | |
United States | 44.7% |
United Kingdom | 12.3% |
Australia | 9.2% |
Canada | 7.4% |
The Netherlands | 4.5% |
Other | 21.9% |
Highest Level of Education | |
No qualification | 1.3% |
High school degree or equivalent | 5.6% |
Vocational degree or equivalent | 5.5% |
Bachelor’s degree or equivalent | 27.6% |
Master’s degree or equivalent | 32.2% |
Doctoral degree | 26.9% |
Prefer not to answer | 0.9% |
Political Views | |
Left-wing | 85.8% |
Right-wing | 14.2% |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.Biospheric values | (0.90) | ||||||||||||||
2. Egoistic values | 0.09 * | (0.57) | |||||||||||||
3. Altruistic values | 0.71 ** | 0.09 * | (0.82) | ||||||||||||
4. Human cause | −0.121 ** | −0.10 ** | −0.06 | (0.45) | |||||||||||
5. Impact | 0.26 ** | 0.03 | 0.25 ** | 0.28 ** | (0.77) | ||||||||||
6. Response | 0.18 ** | 0.01 | 0.19 ** | 0.37 ** | 0.72 ** | (0.68) | |||||||||
7. Scientific consensus | 0.24 ** | 0.05 | 0.23 ** | 0.17 ** | 0.68 ** | 0.57 ** | (1.0) | ||||||||
8. Descriptive norm | 0.19 ** | 0.16 ** | 0.22 ** | 0.04 | 0.26 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.18 ** | (0.87) | |||||||
9. Prescriptive norm | 0.32 ** | 0.14 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.04 | 0.35 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.66 ** | (0.79) | ||||||
10. Affect | 0.46 ** | 0.04 | 0.42 ** | 0.04 | 0.66 ** | 0.50 ** | 0.56 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.39 ** | (0.94) | |||||
11. Personal experience | 0.22 ** | 0.01 | 0.16 ** | −0.07 | 0.29 ** | 0.23 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.21 ** | 0.25 ** | 0.33 ** | (1.0) | ||||
12. Trust scientists | 0.31 ** | 0.07 | 0.27 ** | 0.14 ** | 0.62 ** | 0.53 ** | 0.57 ** | 0.25 ** | 0.34 ** | 0.63 ** | 0.31 ** | (1.0) | |||
13. Trust climate mainstream blogs | 0.36 ** | 0.08 * | 0.31 ** | 0.08 * | 0.60 ** | 0.50 ** | 0.49 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.65 ** | 0.27 ** | 0.65 ** | (1.0) | ||
14. Distrust climate skeptical blogs | 0.36 ** | 0.04 | 0.31 ** | 0.08 * | 0.61 ** | 0.51 ** | 0.64 ** | 0.23 ** | 0.33 ** | 0.69 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.63 ** | 0.57 ** | (1.0) | |
15. Risk perceptions | 0.50 ** | 0.05 | 0.45 ** | 0.01 | 0.69 ** | 0.56 ** | 0.62 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.43 ** | 0.86 ** | 0.43 ** | 0.69 ** | 0.71 ** | 0.72 ** | (0.95) |
Mean | 7.22 | 3.58 | 7.19 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 93.68 | 4.01 | 5.05 | 6.55 | 0.81 | 6.38 | 5.70 | 6.30 | 5.73 |
SD | 1.50 | 1.06 | 1.36 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 13.69 | 1.46 | 1.24 | 0.82 | 0.39 | 1.16 | 1.31 | 1.19 | 1.40 |
Independent Variables | Socio-Demographics Model 1 (β) | Cognitive Factors Model 2 (β) | Experiential Processes Model 3 (β) | Socio-Cultural Influences Model 4 (β) | Trust Model 5 (β) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | 0.08 * | 0.11 ** | 0.07 ** | 0.06 ** | 0.06 ** |
Income | −0.11 ** | −0.08 ** | −0.04 * | −0.04 * | −0.04 ** |
Political views | 0.47 ** | 0.16 ** | 0.06 ** | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Human causes | −0.19 ** | −0.08 ** | −0.06 ** | −0.06 ** | |
Impact | 0.44 ** | 0.11 ** | 0.11 ** | 0.07 * | |
Responses | 0.14 ** | 0.10 ** | 0.09 ** | 0.06 ** | |
Scientific consensus | 0.20 ** | 0.10 ** | 0.10 ** | 0.06 ** | |
Affect | 0.61 ** | 0.56 ** | 0.45 ** | ||
Personal experience | 0.13 ** | 0.11 ** | 0.10 ** | ||
Biospheric values | 0.10 ** | 0.07 ** | |||
Egoistic values | 0.01 | −0.01 | |||
Altruistic values | 0.01 | 0.02 | |||
Descriptive norm | 0.06 ** | 0.05 * | |||
Prescriptive norm | 0.01 | −0.01 | |||
Trust in scientists | 0.08 ** | ||||
Trust in climate mainstream blogs | 0.14 ** | ||||
Distrust in climate skeptical blogs | 0.09 ** | ||||
N | 674 | 674 | 674 | 674 | 674 |
adj. R2 | 0.25 | 0.60 | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.84 |
Δ adj. | 0.35 | 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.02 | |
Fchange | 76.41 | 146.05 | 367.06 | 9.86 | 30.01 |
Independent Variables | Partitioning of Explained Variance |
---|---|
Socio-Demographics | |
Gender | 0.66% |
Income | 0.56% |
Total Variance Explained | 1.22% |
Cognitive Factors | |
Human causes–knowledge | −0.06% |
Impacts-knowledge | 4.83% |
Responses-knowledge | 3.36% |
Scientific consensus-knowledge | 3.72% |
Total Variance Explained | 11.85% |
Experiential Processes | |
Affect | 38.70% |
Personal experience | 4.30% |
Total Variance Explained | 43.00% |
Socio-Cultural Influences | |
Biospheric values | 3.50% |
Descriptive norm | 1.60% |
Total Variance Explained | 5.10% |
Trust | |
Trust in scientists | 5.52% |
Trust in climate mainstream blogs | 9.94% |
Distrust in climate skeptical blogs | 6.48% |
Total Variance Explained | 21.94% |
Overall Variance Explained | 83.11% |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
van Eck, C.W.; Mulder, B.C.; van der Linden, S. Climate Change Risk Perceptions of Audiences in the Climate Change Blogosphere. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197990
van Eck CW, Mulder BC, van der Linden S. Climate Change Risk Perceptions of Audiences in the Climate Change Blogosphere. Sustainability. 2020; 12(19):7990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197990
Chicago/Turabian Stylevan Eck, Christel W., Bob C. Mulder, and Sander van der Linden. 2020. "Climate Change Risk Perceptions of Audiences in the Climate Change Blogosphere" Sustainability 12, no. 19: 7990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197990