In a survey of 1,218 Americans, the key determinant of behavioral intentions to address global warming is a correct understanding of the causes of global warming. Knowing what causes climate change, and what does not, is the most powerful predictor of both stated intentions to take voluntary actions and to vote on hypothetical referenda to enact new government policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Identifying bogus causes (e.g., insecticides) correlates with the belief that the globe will warm, but is only weakly related to voluntary actions and not at all related to support for government policies. General pro-environmental beliefs and perceptions that global warming poses serious threats to society also help to explain behavioral intentions. The explanatory power of an air pollution framework is substantial in bivariate analyses, but has little explanatory power in multivariate analyses that include knowledge, risk perceptions, and general environmental beliefs. Translating public concern for global warming into effective action requires real knowledge. General environmental concern or concern for the negative effects of air pollution appear not to motivate people to support programs designed to control global warming.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Richard J. Bord , Ann Fisher, and Robert E. O'Connor, “Public perceptions of global warming: United States and international perspectives,”Climate Research11, no. 1 (1998): 75-84.
2.
Riley E. Dunlap and Rik Scarce, “The polls—poll tends: environmental problems and protection.”Public Opinion Quarterly55, no. 4 (1991): 651-672.
3.
Everett C. Ladd and Karlyn H. Bowman, Attitudes Toward the Environment: Twenty-Five Years After Earth Day (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1995).
4.
Sheldon Ungar , “The rise and (relative) decline of global warming as a social problem,”Sociological Quarterly33, no. 4 (1992): 483-501.
5.
Jon Krosnick , Penny Visser, and Allyson Holbrook, “American opinion on global warming: the impact of the Fall 1997 Debate,”Resources133 (Fall 1998): 5-9.
6.
See, for example: The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, http://www.people-press.org/nov., accessed December, 1999.
7.
Bord, Fisher , and O'Connor, “Public perceptions of global warming.”
8.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) , “Technical summary,” in Climate Change—the Science of Climate Change, ed. J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meiro Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 9-94.
9.
Daniel Read , Ann Bostrom, M.Granger Morgan, Baruch Fischhoff, and Tom Smuts, “What do people know about global climate change? II. Survey studies of educated paypeople,”Risk Analysis14, no. 6 (1994): 971-982.
10.
Andrew M. Greely and Paul B. Sheatsley, “Attitudes toward racial integration,”Scientific American115, no. 6 (1971): 13-19.
11.
Paul Slovic , “Perceptions of risk,”Science236 (1987): 280-285.
12.
Lennart Sjöberg , “Explaining risk perception: an empirical evaluation of cultural theory,”Risk Decision and Policy2 (1997): 113-130.
13.
Sjoberg , “Explaining risk perception.”
14.
Icek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980).
15.
Riley E. Dunlap , “The `new environmental paradigm:' a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results.”Journal of Environmental Education9, no. 4 (1978): 10-19.
16.
IPCC , “Technical Summary.”
17.
We used a modified “total design method” devised by Donald Dillman. We included a dollar bill with each questionnaire. One week after sending out questionnaires, we mailed postcards reminding people of the survey. One month later, we sent a fresh questionnaire to nonrespondents. Finally, one month after that we called nonrespondents and asked them to return the survey instrument. See Donald Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978). The purchased sample of names and addresses represents a random sample of residential addresses from the 48 contiguous states. In comparison with census population figures, our sample over-represents males (62%) and persons 66 and older (24%). Weighting procedures produce minimal to no changes in the data used here, so we are not weighting the data.
18.
Rex Warland and Arthur Sterngold, “Do surveys overstate public concern?”Public Opinion Quarterly58, no. 2 (1994): 255-263.
19.
Robert E. O'Connor , Richard J. Bord, and Ann Fisher, “The curious impact of knowledge about climate change on risk perceptions and willingness to sacrifice,”Risk Decision and Policy3, no. 2 (1998): 145-155.
20.
Susan G. Hadden , “Public perception of hazardous waste,”Risk Analysis11, no. 1 (1991): 47-57.
21.
Paul Slovic , Baruch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein, “Characterizing perceived risk,” in Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology, ed. R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, and J. X. Kasperson (Boulder: Westview Press, 1985), 91-125.
22.
Bord, Fisher , and O'Connor, “Public perceptions of global warming.”
23.
Paul Stern , Thomas Dietz, and Linda Kalof, “Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern,”Environment and Behavior25, no. 3 (1993): 322-348.
24.
Dunlap , “The `new environmental paradigm.' ”
25.
John C. Pierce , Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Taketsugu Tsurutani, “Culture, politics and mass publics: traditional and modern supporters of the new environmental paradigm in Japan and the United States,”Journal of Politics49, no. 1 (1987): 54-79.
26.
Timothy L. McDaniels , “The structured value referendum: eliciting preferences for environmental political alternatives,”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management15, no 2 (1996): 227-251.
27.
In an attempt to discover whether higher costs or more severe regulations would lower support for a particular referendum initiative, the cost or regulation options were presented in greater or lesser magnitudes to split halves of the sample. The wording in Table 4 presents only the high-end options. The low-end options were as follows: new international organization—$100 million per year; rain forest preservation program—$100 million per year; fuel efficiency program—new car prices increase by $1000; a temperature regulation law for public buildings—65 and 75 degrees; gas tax—60 cents; gas guzzler tax—add $1000 a year to the cost of a new car; energy use tax on business—annual per-person cost of $380. Because the relative cost of the particular initiative had little impact on voting intentions, both high- and low-cost versions are combined in this analysis.
28.
Peter Kennedy , A Guide to Econometrics, 4th ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).
