"Global warming" or "climate change"?: Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording
Abstract
In public discourse and survey research, global climate change is sometimes referred to as “global warming” and sometimes as “climate change.” An analysis of web sites of conservative and liberal think tanks suggests that conservatives prefer to use the term “global warming” whereas liberals prefer “climate change.” A question wording experiment (N = 2267) illustrates the power of these frames: Republicans were less likely to endorse that the phenomenon is real when it was referred to as “global warming” (44.0%) rather than “climate change” (60.2%), whereas Democrats were unaffected by question wording (86.9% vs. 86.4%). As a result, the partisan divide on the issue dropped from 42.9 percentage points under a “global warming” frame to 26.2 percentage points under a “climate change” frame. Theoretical and methodological implications are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 22 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data§ Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'')
Others showed a small and non-significant wording effect: 77.1% endorsed high belief under 'climate change' vs 68.3% under 'global warming' (chi-square(1, n=212)=2.12, ns).
“and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'')
Independents showed a small and non-significant wording effect: 74.0% endorsed high belief under 'climate change' vs 69.5% under 'global warming' (chi-square(1, n=514)=1.27, ns).
“Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns )”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'')
Overall, respondents reported lower belief in the phenomenon when the question referred to 'global warming' rather than 'climate change' (67.7% vs 74.0% high belief; M=5.05 vs 5.30; chi-square(1, N=2261)=10.66, p=.001; F(1,2253)=10.76, p<.01).
“As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001).”
- Also stated in: § Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'') · plain
“belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'') · plain
- Findingown data§ ' 'GLOBAL WARMING'' OR ''CLIMATE CHANGE''? WHETHER THE PLANET IS WARMING DEPENDS ON QUESTION WORDING
The partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening dropped from 42.9 percentage points under 'global warming' framing to 26.2 percentage points under 'climate change' framing.
“As a result, the partisan divide on the issue dropped from 42.9 percentage points under a ''global warming'' frame to 26.2 percentage points under a ''climate change'' frame.”
- Also stated in: § Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'') · plain
“As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'') · plain
- Findingown data§ Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'')
No other political group (Democrats, Independents, Others) was significantly affected by the wording manipulation (Fs<1.74, ns).
“no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data§ Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'')
The predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F(3,2253)=5.32, p=.001.
“More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Conclusions
There was no interaction between question wording and educational attainment.
“Given that we found no interaction between question wording and educational attainment, this possibility seems unlikely.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Conclusions
Both the directional prediction and human causation aspects make 'global warming' a more appealing frame for those who favor the status quo in climate policy.
“Both of these aspects make ''global warming'' a more appealing frame for those who favor the status quo in climate policy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation§ ' 'Global warming'' vs. ''climate change''
Minor changes in question wording can elicit major shifts in obtained responses.
“minor changes in question wording can elicit major shifts in the obtained responses, a message reiterated in the literature on framing effects in judgment and decision research (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman 1981).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Tversky & Kahneman 1981 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data§ Conclusions
The 'global warming' frame has the intended effects, at least for a conservative audience.
“Our results suggest that this frame has the intended effects, at least for a conservative audience”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation§ Conclusions
Survey researchers' choice of term seems somewhat haphazard, with some surveys using 'global warming', others 'climate change', and still others using both.
“At present, survey researchers Õ choice of term seems somewhat haphazard -some surveys refer to the phenomenon as ''global warming'' (e.g., CBS News and New York Times 2006), others as ' 'climate change'' (e.g., Bloomberg 2009), and still others use the terms simultaneously (e.g., ''global warming or climate change''; PIPA/Knowledge Networks 2005).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites CBS News and New York Times 2006
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Bloomberg 2009
Not checked in the free run.
- cites PIPA/Knowledge Networks 2005
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationcitation§ ' 'Global warming'' vs. ''climate change''
The term 'global warming' focuses attention on temperature increases, for which seemingly contradictory evidence abounds.
“The term ''global warming'' focuses attention on temperature increases , for which seemingly contradictory evidence abounds -for example, record snowfalls in the Eastern U.S. in 2010 (Samenow 2010).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Samenow 2010
Not checked in the free run.
- May combine two claims. 17
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ ' 'GLOBAL WARMING'' OR ''CLIMATE CHANGE''? WHETHER THE PLANET IS WARMING DEPENDS ON QUESTION WORDINGRepublicans were less likely to endorse that the phenomenon is real when it was referred to as 'global warming' (44.0%) rather than 'climate change' (60.2%), a wording effect of 16.2 percentage points (chi-square(1, n=732)=19.60, p<.001); mean belief was lower for 'global warming' (M=3.95) than 'climate change' (M=4.62), p<.001.
“Republicans were less likely to endorse that the phenomenon is real when it was referred to as ''global warming'' (44.0%) rather than ''climate change'' (60.2%)”
- Also stated in: § Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'') · plain
“60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001).”
- Also stated in: § Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'') · plain
“Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'') · plain
May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data§ ' 'GLOBAL WARMING'' OR ''CLIMATE CHANGE''? WHETHER THE PLANET IS WARMING DEPENDS ON QUESTION WORDINGDemocrats were unaffected by question wording: 86.9% endorsed high belief under 'global warming' vs 86.4% under 'climate change' (chi-square(1, n=803)<1, ns); mean belief was 5.94 in both conditions.
“whereas Democrats were unaffected by question wording (86.9% vs. 86.4%)”
- Also stated in: § Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'') · plain
“In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Results and discussion Recall that we expected belief in the existence of global climate change to be lower when the phenomenon was referred to as ''global warming'' rather than ' 'climate change,' ' especially among Republican respondents. As shown in Table 2, overall, 74.0% of respondents endorsed a value of 5 or above (implying that they believed the phenomenon to be real) when the question referred to ' 'climate change.' ' Only 67.7% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 2261) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001). A breakdown by political self-identification reveals that this pattern is driven by Republican respondents: 60.2% of Republicans endorsed a value of 5 or above when the question referred to ' 'climate change,' ' whereas only 44.0% did so when it referred to ' 'global warming,' ' resulting in a wording effect among Republicans of 16.2 percentage points ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 732) ¼ 19.60, p < .001). Put otherwise, a majority of Republicans endorsed that ' 'climate change'' is real (60.2% provided ratings of 5 or above) but doubted that ' 'global warming'' is real (56.0% provided ratings of 4 or below). In contrast, Democrats were unaffected by the framing manipulation: 86.4% of Democrats endorsed a value of 5 or above for ''climate change'' and 86.9% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 803) < 1, ns ). As a result, the partisan divide on whether global climate change is really happening drops from 42.9 percentage points under ''global warming'' framing to 26.2 percentage points under ''climate change'' framing. Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0% of Independents endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 69.5% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 514) ¼ 1.27, ns ), and 77.1% of Others endorsed 5 or above for ''climate change'' whereas 68.3% did so for ''global warming'' ( v 2 (1, n ¼ 212) ¼ 2.12, ns ). A 2 (Condition: ''global warming'' vs. ''climate change'') x 4 (Political selfidentification: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other) between-subjects ANOVA tested for corresponding effects on mean levels of belief. Reiterating the above observations, belief in the phenomenon was significantly lower when the question referred to ''global warming'' ( M ¼ 5.05, SD ¼ 1.90) rather than ' 'climate change' ' ( M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.74); F (1, 2253) ¼ 10.76, p < .01, for the main effect of question wording. In addition, a main effect of political selfidentification emerged ( F (3, 2253) ¼ 121.89, p < .001), and post-hoc contrasts revealed that Democrats reported significantly greater belief ( M ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.37) than all other groups, whereas Republicans ( M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 1.93) reported significantly less belief than all other groups ( p s < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); Independents and Others fell in between ( M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.81 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.72, respectively). More importantly, the predicted interaction of question wording with political self-identification was significant, F (3, 2253) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .001. Specifically, Republicans were less likely to believe that ' 'global warming' ' is real ( M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.96) than that ' 'climate change'' is real ( M ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 1.84) ( p < .001, Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons); no other political group was significantly affected by the wording manipulation ( F s < 1.74, ns ). These effects remained significant when controlling for personal background variables; importantly, the influence of question wording was not moderated by any of them Table 2. Distribution of Existence Beliefs by Political Self-identification and Question Wording (GW ¼ ''global warming''; CC ¼ ''climate change'') · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ ' 'GLOBAL WARMING'' OR ''CLIMATE CHANGE''? WHETHER THE PLANET IS WARMING DEPENDS ON QUESTION WORDINGIn an analysis of 26 partisan think tank web sites, a majority of conservative sites (9 of 12) returned more 'global warming' files than 'climate change' files, whereas a majority of liberal sites (10 of 14) returned more 'climate change' files than 'global warming' files (chi-square(1, N=26)=5.57, p=.02; Fisher's exact p<.05).
“An analysis of web sites of conservative and liberal think tanks suggests that conservatives prefer to use the term ''global warming'' whereas liberals prefer ''climate change.''”
- Also stated in: § Word choice on partisan web sites · plain
“Results revealed that a majority of conservative web sites (i.e., 9 of 12) returned more ' 'global warming'' files than ' 'climate change'' files, whereas a majority of liberal web sites (i.e., 10 of 14) returned more ''climate change'' files than ' 'global warming'' files ( v 2 (1, N ¼ 26) ¼ 5.57, p ¼ .02; Fisher's exact test: p < .05).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The number of web pages returned for a term on a think tank's web site reflects that think tank's preference for using that term.
- Also stated in: § Word choice on partisan web sites · plain
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ ConclusionsThe choice of term strongly affects the obtained answers and does so differentially, giving rise to pronounced differences in the apparent partisan divide on this policy issue.
“As our findings indicate, the choice of term strongly affects the obtained answers and does so differentially, giving rise to pronounced differences in the apparent partisan divide on this policy issue.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ ' 'Global warming'' vs. ''climate change''Conservatives have long expressed skepticism about the phenomenon itself and its human origins in particular.
“conservatives have long expressed skepticism about the phenomenon itself and its human origins in particular (McCright and Dunlap 2000)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites McCright and Dunlap 2000
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ ' 'GLOBAL WARMING'' OR ''CLIMATE CHANGE''? WHETHER THE PLANET IS WARMING DEPENDS ON QUESTION WORDINGThere is scientific consensus that the planet is warming.
“Despite scientific consensus that the planet is warming (Oreskes 2004)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Oreskes 2004 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown data§ MethodALP sampling procedures result in a diverse pool of participants that is adequate for randomized experiments, although the sample is not representative of the American public.
“ALP sampling procedures result in a diverse pool of participants that is adequate for randomized experiments (see Table 1 for a summary of demographic information), although the sample is not representative of the American public.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Interpretationnone given§ ConclusionsThe ALP sample is not representative of the American public.
“although the ALP sample is highly heterogeneous, it is not representative of the American public.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown data§ MethodFour respondents terminated the questionnaire prior to the experimental question, and two respondents assigned to the 'climate change' condition were excluded due to missing data, leaving N=2261 for the main analysis.
“Four respondents terminated the questionnaire prior to the experimental question. In addition, two respondents assigned to the ' 'climate change'' condition were excluded: one because of missing data on the experimental question and one because of missing data on the political self-identification question. This leaves N ¼ 2261 for the main analysis.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ ' 'Global warming'' vs. ''climate change''The term 'global warming' evokes stronger connotations of human causation than 'climate change', which evokes stronger connotations of natural causation.
“In addition, Whitmarsh (2009) observed that ''global warming'' evokes stronger connotations of human causation, whereas ' 'climate change'' evokes stronger connotations of natural causation.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · boosted
“Moreover, ''global warming'' carries a stronger connotation of human causation, which has long been questioned by conservatives (McCright & Dunlap 2000; Whitmarsh 2009).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Whitmarsh 2009
Not checked in the free run.
- cites McCright & Dunlap 2000
Not checked in the free run.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · boosted
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ ConclusionsThe term 'global warming' entails a directional prediction of rising temperatures that is easily discredited by any cold spell, whereas 'climate change' lacks a directional commitment and easily accommodates unusual weather of any kind.
“Most importantly, ''global warming'' entails a directional prediction of rising temperatures that is easily discredited by any cold spell, whereas ''climate change'' lacks a directional commitment and easily accommodates unusual weather of any kind.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ ConclusionsThe observed percentage differences are not reliable estimates of population differences, although the pattern of the observed experimental effects is likely to be robust.
“Accordingly, the observed percentage differences are not reliable estimates of population differences, although the pattern of the observed experimental effects is likely to be robust.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ ' 'GLOBAL WARMING'' OR ''CLIMATE CHANGE''? WHETHER THE PLANET IS WARMING DEPENDS ON QUESTION WORDINGExistence beliefs are considered to be the 'gatekeeper' in climate policy engagement.
“Given that existence beliefs are considered to be the ''gatekeeper'' in climate policy engagement, it is important to understand the factors that influence whether citizens believe that global climate change is real (Krosnick et al. 2006).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Krosnick et al. 2006
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ MethodRespondents were randomly assigned to one of the two wording conditions when they reached the experimental question.
“Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the two wording conditions when they reached the experimental question.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ ConclusionsThe experimental finding that Republicans were more skeptical under 'global warming' and the think tank observation that conservative think tanks use 'global warming' more often and liberal think tanks use 'climate change' more often both reflect associative differences between these terms.
“This finding is compatible with the observation that conservative think tanks use the term ''global warming'' more often than ''climate change,'' whereas liberal think tanks use ' 'climate change'' more often than ''global warming.'' We surmise that both observations reflect associative differences between these terms.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoning§ Word choice on partisan web sitesOnly think tanks for which expert judgments matched the Wikipedia categorization were included in the analysis; both sources of categorization have limitations attenuated by inter-source agreement.
“Both sources of categorization have limitations, which are attenuated by inter-source agreement.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductcitation§ MethodThe key belief question was modeled after a survey by ABC News, Stanford University, and Time Magazine (2006).
“The key belief question was embedded in the American Life Panel (ALP) and modeled after a survey by ABC News, Stanford University, and Time Magazine (2006).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites ABC News, Stanford University, and Time 2006
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ ConclusionsDemocrats tended to endorse high belief (Ms=5.94 on a 7-point scale), raising the possibility of a ceiling effect.
“First, Democrats tended to endorse high belief ( M s ¼ 5.94 on a 7-point scale), raising the possibility of a ceiling effect.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown data§ Word choice on partisan web sitesThe observed pattern of think tank term usage may reflect the selective use of these terms for political advantage.
“this pattern may reflect the selective use of these terms for political advantage”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationcitation§ ConclusionsDemocrats' beliefs about global climate change might be more crystallized and thus less influenced by subtle manipulations, consistent with research showing that stronger attitudes are more resistant to change.
“Second, Democrats Õ beliefs about global climate change might be more crystallized and thus less influenced by subtle manipulations, consistent with research showing that stronger attitudes are more resistant to change (Krosnick and Smith 1994).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Krosnick and Smith 1994
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ ' 'Global warming'' vs. ''climate change''Terms may influence beliefs by drawing attention to certain aspects of the issue at the expense of others and by inviting differential associations.
“These terms may influence beliefs by drawing attention to certain aspects of the issue at the expense of others and by inviting differential associations (see Druckman 2001 for discussion of emphasis framing).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Druckman 2001
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationreasoning§ ConclusionsAwareness of the technical distinction between global warming and climate change might contribute to differential responses among highly sophisticated respondents.
“Awareness of this distinction might contribute to differential responses among highly sophisticated respondents.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ ' 'Global warming'' vs. ''climate change''In American politics, partisans routinely use the power of terms to frame political issues in ways that promote ideologically consistent attitudes and beliefs.
“In American politics, partisans routinely use the power of terms to frame political issues in ways that promote ideologically consistent attitudes and beliefs (Lakoff 2005; Sniderman and Theriault 2004).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Lakoff 2005
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Sniderman and Theriault 2004
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown data§ Word choice on partisan web sitesThe term 'global warming' is easier to discredit than 'climate change'.
“consistent with ''global warming'' being easier to discredit than ' 'climate change.''”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductcitation§ MethodEnvironmental concern was measured with a brief, one-item measure borrowed from the same earlier survey.
“environmental concern, the latter of which was borrowed from the same earlier survey and used here as a brief, one-item measure”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites ABC News, Stanford University, and Time 2006
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ ConclusionsPolitical engagement with regard to global climate change requires one to assume that it is real.
“Given that political engagement with regard to global climate change requires one to assume that it is real, citizens Õ existence beliefs play a crucial role in the public policy process (Krosnick et al. 2006).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Krosnick et al. 2006
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ ConclusionsGlobal warming and climate change are technically distinct phenomena, the former referring to increases in average surface-level temperatures and the latter referring to any number of deviations from long-term climate trends.
“global warming and climate change are technically distinct phenomena, the former referring to increases in average surface-level temperatures and the latter referring to any number of deviations from long-term climate trends (Environmental Protection Agency 2010).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Environmental Protection Agency 2010
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown data§ Word choice on partisan web sitesSearches in October 2009 and September 2010 yielded substantively equivalent findings for the think tank term usage analysis.
“Searches in October 2009 and September 2010 yielded substantively equivalent findings; we report on the latter search.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationreasoning§ ' 'Global warming'' vs. ''climate change''The term 'climate change' may recruit more general associations of temperature changes, which can easily accommodate unseasonably cold temperatures and record snowfalls.
“The term ''climate change,'' in contrast, may recruit more general associations of temperature changes , which can easily accommodate unseasonably cold temperatures and record snowfalls.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ ConclusionsCitizens' existence beliefs play a crucial role in the public policy process.
“Given that political engagement with regard to global climate change requires one to assume that it is real, citizens Õ existence beliefs play a crucial role in the public policy process (Krosnick et al. 2006).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Krosnick et al. 2006
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ ' 'GLOBAL WARMING'' OR ''CLIMATE CHANGE''? WHETHER THE PLANET IS WARMING DEPENDS ON QUESTION WORDINGFactors influencing whether citizens believe global climate change is real include political orientation, perceived and actual temperature increases, years of education, and exposure to and trust in science and the media.
“These factors include political orientation (e.g., Krosnick, Holbrook, and Visser 2000), perceived and actual temperature increases (e.g., Joireman, Truelove, and Duell 2010; Krosnick et al. 2006; Weber 1997, 2006), years of education, and exposure to and trust in science and the media (Corbett and Durfee 2004).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Krosnick, Holbrook, and Visser 2000
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Joireman, Truelove, and Duell 2010
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Corbett and Durfee 2004
Not checked in the free run.
The paper relies on this without support.
The number of web pages returned for a term on a think tank's web site reflects that think tank's preference for using that term.
“To assess whether the use of ' 'global warming'' and ''climate change'' varies by political orientation, we searched for these terms on the official web sites of partisan think tanks and recorded the number of web pages (i.e., html files) returned for each term.”
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · cited 1× · see citing works
“But as survey researchers have long been aware (e.g., Cantril 1944; Payne 1951), minor changes in question wording can elicit major shifts in the obtained responses, a message reiterated in the literature on framing effects in judgment and decision research (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman 1981).”
BackgroundEncyclopedia of human behavior
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-0638 · Cited by 3,250 · see citing works
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Oreskes, N. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1103618 · Cited by 1,814 · see citing works
The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence
Druckman, J. (2001) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1015006907312 · Cited by 1,342 · see citing works
Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think
Lakoff, G. P. (1996) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,276 · see citing works
Weber, E. U. (2006) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3 · Cited by 1,255 · see citing works
McCright, A., & Dunlap, R. (2000) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/3097132 · Cited by 717 · see citing works
Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Lowe, L., & Visser, P. S. (2006) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9068-8 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
Katona, G. M., & Payne, S. L. (1951) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1907475 · Cited by 462 · see citing works
Whitmarsh, L. (2009) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662506073088 · Cited by 448 · cited 5× · see citing works
“‘‘Global warming’’ vs. ‘‘climate change’’ Although global climate change entails more than rising temperatures, the terms ‘‘global warming’’ and ‘‘climate change’’ are used interchangeably in public discourse and opinion polls on this issue (e.g., PIPA/Knowledge Networks 2005; see Whitmarsh 2009 for a discussion).”
BackgroundInfluentialTesting Public (Un)Certainty of Science: Media Representations of Global Warming
Corbett, J. B., & Durfee, J. L. (2004) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547004270234 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
Payne, S. L. (1980) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400858064 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global warming
Joireman, J., Truelove, H. B., & Duell, B. (2010) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.004 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion
Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., & Visser, P. S. (2000) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/303 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Cantril, H. (1944) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400877546 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Nettler, G., & Cantril, H. (1944) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2086322 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Weber, E. U. (1997) · Cited by 144 · see citing works
A Review: The People and the Press
Sudman, S. (1987) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/269044 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 2004, Science Communication, 2, 129
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 · Cited by 733 · see citing works
Reconceptualizing nature‐of‐science education in the age of social media
Höttecke, D., & Allchin, D. (2020) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21575 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
Boomerangs versus javelins: how polarization constrains communication on climate change
Zhou, J. (2016) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2016.1166602 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Toward human-centered algorithm design
Baumer, E. P. (2017) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951717718854 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Public understanding of climate change terminology
Bruine de Bruin, W., Rabinovich, L., Weber, K., Babboni, M., Dean, M., & Ignon, L. (2021) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03183-0 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Climate Change: Psychological Solutions and Strategies for Change
Koger, S. M., Leslie, K. E., & Hayes, E. D. (2011) · Ecopsychology · doi:10.1089/eco.2011.0041 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Single-case experimental research designs.
Kazdin, A. E. (2015) · Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (4th ed.). · doi:10.1037/14805-029 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Levy, N. (2021) · Bad Beliefs · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192895325.003.0005 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Schuldt, J. P., Konrath, S. H., & Schwarz, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Schuldt, J. P.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-02-21
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 115-124
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W2096589647
- Semantic Scholar
- ab14125c37f94c1a69cdab57654f5fccf6dcab76
- Cited by
- 409
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 71.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- global warming, climate change, question wording, framing effects, partisan attitudes, conservative think tanks, public opinion on climate change
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
