Cited by 292Climate Change Communication and PerceptionRisk Perception and ManagementClimate Change Policy and Economics

The rise of global warming skepticism: Exploring affective image associations in the United States over time

Smith, Nicholas, Leiserowitz, Anthony·2012·Risk Analysis

Abstract

This article explores how affective image associations to global warming have changed over time. Four nationally representative surveys of the American public were conducted between 2002 and 2010 to assess public global warming risk perceptions, policy preferences, and behavior. Affective images (positive or negative feelings and cognitive representations) were collected and content analyzed. The results demonstrate a large increase in "naysayer" associations, indicating extreme skepticism about the issue of climate change. Multiple regression analyses found that holistic affect and "naysayer" associations were more significant predictors of global warming risk perceptions than cultural worldviews or sociodemographic variables, including political party and ideology. The results demonstrate the important role affective imagery plays in judgment and decision-making processes, how these variables change over time, and how global warming is currently perceived by the American public.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01801.x

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Popular books critical of climate science routinely refer to global warming as a conspiracy or hoax, and conspiracist themes have been identified in climate media coverage and in people's affective imagery evoked by climate change.

    “Popular books critical of climate science routinely refer to global warming as a “conspiracy” or “hoax” [25], and conspiracist themes have been identified in climate media coverage [26] and in people's affective imagery evoked by climate change [21].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Leiserowitz, Anthony
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-04-04
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
1021-1032
ISSN
  • 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-6924
OpenAlex
W2043561323
Cited by
292
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 2
FWCI
68.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Risk Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Yale University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
Keywords
global warming skepticism, climate change denial, risk perception, climate change behavior, cultural worldview, political ideology, American public opinion
MeSH terms
Attitude, Cognition, Humans, Perception, Politics, Public Opinion, Public Policy, Regression Analysis, Research Design, Risk, Time Factors, United States, Models, Statistical, Imagery, Psychotherapy, Climate Change, Global Warming

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