An experimental examination of measurement disparities in public climate change beliefs

Matthew Motta, Daniel Chapman, Dominik Stecula, Kathryn M Haglin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The extent to which Americans—especially Republicans—believe in anthropogenic climate change (ACC) has recently been the subject of high profile academic and popular disagreement. We offer a novel framework, and experimental data, for making sense of this debate. Using a large (N = 7,019) and demographically diverse sample of US adults, we compare several widely used methods for measuring belief in ACC. We find that seemingly trivial decisions made when constructing questions can, in some cases, significantly alter the proportion of the American public who appear to believe in human-caused climate change. Critically, we find that some common measurement practices may nearly double estimates of Republicans’ acceptance of human-caused climate change. We conclude by discussing how this work can help improve the consumption of research on climate opinion.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)37-47
Number of pages11
JournalClimatic Change
Volume154
Issue number1-2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2019

Fingerprint

climate change
public
climate
consumption
decision
opinion
method
measuring

Cite this

An experimental examination of measurement disparities in public climate change beliefs. / Motta, Matthew; Chapman, Daniel; Stecula, Dominik; Haglin, Kathryn M.

In: Climatic Change, Vol. 154, No. 1-2, 01.05.2019, p. 37-47.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Motta, Matthew ; Chapman, Daniel ; Stecula, Dominik ; Haglin, Kathryn M. / An experimental examination of measurement disparities in public climate change beliefs. In: Climatic Change. 2019 ; Vol. 154, No. 1-2. pp. 37-47.
@article{d5fcacadb3d442e099ad413ec1581230,
title = "An experimental examination of measurement disparities in public climate change beliefs",
abstract = "The extent to which Americans—especially Republicans—believe in anthropogenic climate change (ACC) has recently been the subject of high profile academic and popular disagreement. We offer a novel framework, and experimental data, for making sense of this debate. Using a large (N = 7,019) and demographically diverse sample of US adults, we compare several widely used methods for measuring belief in ACC. We find that seemingly trivial decisions made when constructing questions can, in some cases, significantly alter the proportion of the American public who appear to believe in human-caused climate change. Critically, we find that some common measurement practices may nearly double estimates of Republicans’ acceptance of human-caused climate change. We conclude by discussing how this work can help improve the consumption of research on climate opinion.",
author = "Matthew Motta and Daniel Chapman and Dominik Stecula and Haglin, {Kathryn M}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10584-019-02406-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "154",
pages = "37--47",
journal = "Climatic Change",
issn = "0165-0009",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1-2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An experimental examination of measurement disparities in public climate change beliefs

AU - Motta, Matthew

AU - Chapman, Daniel

AU - Stecula, Dominik

AU - Haglin, Kathryn M

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - The extent to which Americans—especially Republicans—believe in anthropogenic climate change (ACC) has recently been the subject of high profile academic and popular disagreement. We offer a novel framework, and experimental data, for making sense of this debate. Using a large (N = 7,019) and demographically diverse sample of US adults, we compare several widely used methods for measuring belief in ACC. We find that seemingly trivial decisions made when constructing questions can, in some cases, significantly alter the proportion of the American public who appear to believe in human-caused climate change. Critically, we find that some common measurement practices may nearly double estimates of Republicans’ acceptance of human-caused climate change. We conclude by discussing how this work can help improve the consumption of research on climate opinion.

AB - The extent to which Americans—especially Republicans—believe in anthropogenic climate change (ACC) has recently been the subject of high profile academic and popular disagreement. We offer a novel framework, and experimental data, for making sense of this debate. Using a large (N = 7,019) and demographically diverse sample of US adults, we compare several widely used methods for measuring belief in ACC. We find that seemingly trivial decisions made when constructing questions can, in some cases, significantly alter the proportion of the American public who appear to believe in human-caused climate change. Critically, we find that some common measurement practices may nearly double estimates of Republicans’ acceptance of human-caused climate change. We conclude by discussing how this work can help improve the consumption of research on climate opinion.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065434634&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065434634&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10584-019-02406-9

DO - 10.1007/s10584-019-02406-9

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85065434634

VL - 154

SP - 37

EP - 47

JO - Climatic Change

JF - Climatic Change

SN - 0165-0009

IS - 1-2

ER -