The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States
Abstract
Despite the growing scientific consensus about the risks of global warming and climate change, the mass media frequently portray the subject as one of great scientific controversy and debate. And yet previous studies of the mass public's subjective assessments of the risks of global warming and climate change have not sufficiently examined public informedness, public confidence in climate scientists, and the role of personal efficacy in affecting global warming outcomes. By examining the results of a survey on an original and representative sample of Americans, we find that these three forces—informedness, confidence in scientists, and personal efficacy—are related in interesting and unexpected ways, and exert significant influence on risk assessments of global warming and climate change. In particular, more informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. We also find that confidence in scientists has unexpected effects: respondents with high confidence in scientists feel less responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. These results have substantial implications for the interaction between scientists and the public in general, and for the public discussion of global warming and climate change in particular.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176 · Cited by 5,678
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Oreskes, N. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1103618 · Cited by 1,814
Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change
O'Connor, R. E., Bard, R. J., & Fisher, A. (1999) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x · Cited by 957
Cited by
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011) · The Sociological Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x · Cited by 2,340
Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2943 · Cited by 1,616
Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y · Cited by 1,123
Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings
Attari, S. Z., DeKay, M. L., Davidson, C. I., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1001509107 · Cited by 690
Anxiety, worry, and grief in a time of environmental and climate crisis: a narrative review
Ojala, M., Cunsolo, A., Ogunbode, C. A., & Middleton, J. (2021) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-022716 · Cited by 670
Metadata
- Authors
- Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 113-126
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2023555710
- Cited by
- 901
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 91.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x
- The paper
- Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.