Facts May Care About Your Feelings: The Effects of Empirical and Anecdotal Evidence in the Perception of Climate Change
Dublin Core
Title
Facts May Care About Your Feelings: The Effects of Empirical and Anecdotal Evidence in the Perception of Climate Change
Creator
Constance Jordan-Turner
Date
21/09/2022
Description
Although the effects of humanmade climate change become ever more potent, the consensus gap between climate scientists and the public is as wide as ever. It is critical that climate change communication is improved to try and close this gap. There are several strategies that can be implemented, including using anecdotes alongside or instead of empirical evidence to elicit emotions. In this study, 74 members of the public completed a survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions which dictated the type of evidence they received: no evidence, empirical evidence, anecdotal evidence, or both empirical and anecdotal evidence. Results suggest that, in general, there was no effect of evidence on participants’ perceptions of climate change. This result held even after controlling for worldview and ideology. These findings have implications for the theory of inserting emotion into climate change communication.
Subject
Climate change, communication, perception, emotion, evidence
Source
This study gained ethical approval from the Faculty of Science and Technology Research Ethics Committee.
Participants and design
There were 74 participants (26 male; 46 female; one non-binary; one preferred not to say). The mean age of the participants was 37.99 (SD = 16.93). Participants were recruited via advertising the study on the researcher’s social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram) using a standardised advertisement (see Appendix A) and through word of mouth. Participants were all members of the general public. The study manipulated two independent variables in a between-participants design: anecdotal evidence (without-anecdotal vs. with-anecdotal) and empirical evidence (without-empirical vs. with empirical), resulting in four conditions. Participants were randomly allocated to one of the four conditions, subject to the constraint of equal cell numbers.
Evidence Passages
Empirical Evidence
The empirical evidence vignette included a statement explaining that human-induced carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature have synchronously increased since pre-industrial times, accompanied with graphs demonstrating these upward trends. The vignette also highlighted the scientific consensus that humanmade climate change is occurring and will have adverse consequences. Finally, the vignette explained that these adverse consequences had already begun to materialise. The increase of extreme weather events was highlighted in a graph that showed the tripling of weather-related disasters between 1980 and 2010. Finally, the vignette finished with references for the information it contained (see Appendix B).
Anecdotal Evidence
The anecdotal evidence vignette contained information about Storms Dudley, Eunice and Franklin which all made landfall in Britain in quick succession in 2022. The storms were a weather-related event that some scientists have linked to climate change (Barrett, 2022); Specifically, the vignette included information about the storms’ destructiveness, such as the cost of the damage they caused, and the number of people killed. The destructiveness of the storms was highlighted with images of damage and flooding in Wells, Otley, and Brentwood, as well as an image from Blackpool demonstrating the height and power of the waves caused by the storms. The vignette included a stock image of a man standing in a flooded living room and a short passage outlining the experience of a fictitious character named Matt Johnson whose family home had been severely flooded as a result of the storms. The vignette concluded with a statement from climate scientist Robert Klein who argued that the impact of the storm was exacerbated by climate change, which generated “super storm” conditions. Finally, there was a reference to an article about the storms and their link to climate change (see Appendix C).
Measures
Table 1 contains an overview of the measures embedded in the questionnaire. For the full questionnaire, please refer to Appendix D.
Disaster Belief
The disaster belief measure measured predicted estimates of the frequency of weather-related disasters that will occur in the listed years. Participants were given an approximate frequency for 2019 from the International Disaster Database. The measure consisted of six items: 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070 and 2080. Participants responded by typing in their estimated number next to the relevant year.
Harm Extent
The harm extent measure consisted of questions concerning how much harm that participants think climate change will cause themselves, their family, their community, Britain, other countries, and future generations. There were six items, such as ‘How much do you think climate change will harm you?’, and ‘How much do you think climate change will harm people in Britain?’ Responses were rated from (1) ‘not at all’ to (4) ‘a great deal’.
Harm Timing
The harm timing measure consisted of questions concerning when participants thought climate change will cause harm to themselves, their family, their community, Britain, other countries, and future generations. There were only two items, ‘When do you think climate change will begin to harm Britain?’ and ‘When do you think climate change will begin to harm other countries?’. Responses were rated as (1) ‘Never’, (2) ‘100 years’; (3) ‘50 years’; (4) ‘25 years’; (5) ‘10 years’ and (6) ‘Right now’.
CO2 Attributions
The CO2 attributions measure measured how much participants think human carbon dioxide emissions contribute to events such as heatwaves, rising sea levels, flooding, and Storms Dudley, Eunice, and Franklin. There were six items, such as ‘CO2 contribution to the observed increase in atmospheric temperature during the last 130 years’, ‘CO2 contribution to the European heat wave in 2022 that killed over 5,000 people’, and ‘CO2 contribution to storms Dudley, Eunice, and Franklin in the UK (2022)’. These responses were gathered using a sliding scale from 0 to 100%.
Intention
The intention measure consisted of questions asking about participants’ pro-environmental intentions. There were seven items. Examples of items include ‘I will take part in an environmental event (e.g., Earth hour)’, ‘I will give money to a group that aims to protect the environment’, and ‘I will switch to products that are more environmentally friendly’. The response options were simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
Mitigation
The mitigation measure consisted of questions asking about participants’ support for mitigating policies. There were five items. Example items include, ‘Signing an international treaty that requires Britain to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 90% by 2050’, ‘Adding a surcharge to electrical bills to establish a fund to help make buildings more energy efficient and to teach British citizens how to reduce energy use’, and ‘Providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels’. Responses were rated from (1) ‘Strongly Oppose’ to (4) ‘Strongly Support’.
CO2 Adjustment
The CO2 adjustment measure measures how much participants think Britain should adjust its CO2 emissions over the next 10 years. There was only one item: ‘How much should Britain adjust CO2 emissions during the next 10 years?’. Responses were rated from (1) ‘Not at all’ to (6) ‘Reduce by 50%’.
Free-Market Support
The free-market support measure consisted of questions asking about participants’ support for the free market. There were five items. Examples items include, ‘An economic system based on free-markets, unrestrained by government interference, automatically works best to meet human needs’ and ‘The preservation of the free-market system is more important than localized environmental concerns’. Two items, ‘Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development’ and ‘The free-market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption’, required reverse coding upon analysis.
Table 1
Measures embedded within the questionnaire. The first column contains the name of the measures; the second column contains the instructions on how to respond to items in that measure; and the third column describes how answers to the items were coded.
Measure Name Questions Coded Response
Disaster belief Please provide an estimate of the frequency of weather-related disasters that will occur in each year (6 items). Participants used the keyboard to type in a number for each year.
Harm extent The following items examine your thoughts about the extent of harm that will be caused by climate change (6 items). 4-point scale: (1) ‘Not at all’; (2) ‘A little’; (3) ‘A moderate amount’; (4) ‘A great deal’.
Harm timing The following items examine your thoughts about when climate change will begin to cause harm (2 items). 6-point scale: (1) ‘Never’; (2) ‘100 years’; (3) ‘50 years’; (4) ‘25 years’; (5) ‘10 years’; (6) ‘Right now’.
CO2 attribution For each of the following questions, please estimate the contribution from human CO2 emissions to cause each event. For example, 0% would mean humans are not at all responsible, whereas 100% would mean that human CO2 emissions are fully responsible
Participants used the mouse to place their response on a sliding scale. The sliding scale contained the numbers, ‘0’, ‘10’, ‘20’, ‘30’, ‘40’, ‘50’, ‘60’, ‘70’, ‘80’, ‘90’, and ‘100’.
Pro-environmental intentions Please indicate whether or not you will engage in the following actions (7 items). 0 = No
1 = Yes
Mitigation How much do you support or oppose the following policies (five items). 4-point scale; (1) ‘Strongly Oppose’; (2) ‘Oppose’; (3) ‘Support’; (4) ‘Strongly Support’.
CO2 adjustment How much should Britain adjust CO2 emissions during the next 10 years? 6-point scale; (1) ‘Not at all’; (2) ‘Reduce by 10%’; (3) ‘Reduce by 20%’; (4) ‘Reduce by 30%’; (5) ‘Reduce by 40%’; (6) ‘Reduce by 50%’.
Free-market belief Please indicate how much you agree with each statement (5 items). 5-point scale: (1) ‘Strongly Disagree’; (2) ‘Disagree’; (3) ‘Neutral’; (4) ‘Agree’; (5) ‘Strongly Agree’.
Demographic questions What is your age? Participants used the keyboard to type in a number.
What is your gender? 1 = Male; 2 = Female; 3 = Non-binary; 4 = Other; 5 = Prefer Not to Say
Procedure
All participants completed a questionnaire assessing their belief in and concern about humanmade climate change and their mitigation beliefs. The questionnaire was administered online using Qualtrics survey software. Participants responded to the questionnaire by using either the mouse to select answers or the keyboard to type in numbers.
At the beginning of the questionnaire, all participants received an information sheet about the aim of the study, the lack of risks associated with participating, and how participant information is stored. Participants were asked to indicate their informed consent. For the full participant information sheet and consent form, please refer to Appendix E. After participants gave their consent and continued onto the survey, they were asked their age and gender. They were then presented with evidence according to the condition they were assigned to. There were four conditions: no evidence, empirical evidence, anecdotal evidence, and both empirical and anecdotal evidence.
After they had read one or both evidence passages, participants answered the disaster belief measure. Next, they answered the CO2 attribution measure. Then they answered the harm extent measure and the harm timing measure. After that was the intention measure, and then they answered the mitigation measure. In the final part of the questionnaire, they were asked how much Britain should cut its CO2 emissions over ten years, and then questions on their support for the free market. Participants were then asked demographic questions about their age and gender. Finally, the participants were given a debrief sheet (Appendix F).
Participants and design
There were 74 participants (26 male; 46 female; one non-binary; one preferred not to say). The mean age of the participants was 37.99 (SD = 16.93). Participants were recruited via advertising the study on the researcher’s social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram) using a standardised advertisement (see Appendix A) and through word of mouth. Participants were all members of the general public. The study manipulated two independent variables in a between-participants design: anecdotal evidence (without-anecdotal vs. with-anecdotal) and empirical evidence (without-empirical vs. with empirical), resulting in four conditions. Participants were randomly allocated to one of the four conditions, subject to the constraint of equal cell numbers.
Evidence Passages
Empirical Evidence
The empirical evidence vignette included a statement explaining that human-induced carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature have synchronously increased since pre-industrial times, accompanied with graphs demonstrating these upward trends. The vignette also highlighted the scientific consensus that humanmade climate change is occurring and will have adverse consequences. Finally, the vignette explained that these adverse consequences had already begun to materialise. The increase of extreme weather events was highlighted in a graph that showed the tripling of weather-related disasters between 1980 and 2010. Finally, the vignette finished with references for the information it contained (see Appendix B).
Anecdotal Evidence
The anecdotal evidence vignette contained information about Storms Dudley, Eunice and Franklin which all made landfall in Britain in quick succession in 2022. The storms were a weather-related event that some scientists have linked to climate change (Barrett, 2022); Specifically, the vignette included information about the storms’ destructiveness, such as the cost of the damage they caused, and the number of people killed. The destructiveness of the storms was highlighted with images of damage and flooding in Wells, Otley, and Brentwood, as well as an image from Blackpool demonstrating the height and power of the waves caused by the storms. The vignette included a stock image of a man standing in a flooded living room and a short passage outlining the experience of a fictitious character named Matt Johnson whose family home had been severely flooded as a result of the storms. The vignette concluded with a statement from climate scientist Robert Klein who argued that the impact of the storm was exacerbated by climate change, which generated “super storm” conditions. Finally, there was a reference to an article about the storms and their link to climate change (see Appendix C).
Measures
Table 1 contains an overview of the measures embedded in the questionnaire. For the full questionnaire, please refer to Appendix D.
Disaster Belief
The disaster belief measure measured predicted estimates of the frequency of weather-related disasters that will occur in the listed years. Participants were given an approximate frequency for 2019 from the International Disaster Database. The measure consisted of six items: 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070 and 2080. Participants responded by typing in their estimated number next to the relevant year.
Harm Extent
The harm extent measure consisted of questions concerning how much harm that participants think climate change will cause themselves, their family, their community, Britain, other countries, and future generations. There were six items, such as ‘How much do you think climate change will harm you?’, and ‘How much do you think climate change will harm people in Britain?’ Responses were rated from (1) ‘not at all’ to (4) ‘a great deal’.
Harm Timing
The harm timing measure consisted of questions concerning when participants thought climate change will cause harm to themselves, their family, their community, Britain, other countries, and future generations. There were only two items, ‘When do you think climate change will begin to harm Britain?’ and ‘When do you think climate change will begin to harm other countries?’. Responses were rated as (1) ‘Never’, (2) ‘100 years’; (3) ‘50 years’; (4) ‘25 years’; (5) ‘10 years’ and (6) ‘Right now’.
CO2 Attributions
The CO2 attributions measure measured how much participants think human carbon dioxide emissions contribute to events such as heatwaves, rising sea levels, flooding, and Storms Dudley, Eunice, and Franklin. There were six items, such as ‘CO2 contribution to the observed increase in atmospheric temperature during the last 130 years’, ‘CO2 contribution to the European heat wave in 2022 that killed over 5,000 people’, and ‘CO2 contribution to storms Dudley, Eunice, and Franklin in the UK (2022)’. These responses were gathered using a sliding scale from 0 to 100%.
Intention
The intention measure consisted of questions asking about participants’ pro-environmental intentions. There were seven items. Examples of items include ‘I will take part in an environmental event (e.g., Earth hour)’, ‘I will give money to a group that aims to protect the environment’, and ‘I will switch to products that are more environmentally friendly’. The response options were simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
Mitigation
The mitigation measure consisted of questions asking about participants’ support for mitigating policies. There were five items. Example items include, ‘Signing an international treaty that requires Britain to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 90% by 2050’, ‘Adding a surcharge to electrical bills to establish a fund to help make buildings more energy efficient and to teach British citizens how to reduce energy use’, and ‘Providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels’. Responses were rated from (1) ‘Strongly Oppose’ to (4) ‘Strongly Support’.
CO2 Adjustment
The CO2 adjustment measure measures how much participants think Britain should adjust its CO2 emissions over the next 10 years. There was only one item: ‘How much should Britain adjust CO2 emissions during the next 10 years?’. Responses were rated from (1) ‘Not at all’ to (6) ‘Reduce by 50%’.
Free-Market Support
The free-market support measure consisted of questions asking about participants’ support for the free market. There were five items. Examples items include, ‘An economic system based on free-markets, unrestrained by government interference, automatically works best to meet human needs’ and ‘The preservation of the free-market system is more important than localized environmental concerns’. Two items, ‘Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development’ and ‘The free-market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption’, required reverse coding upon analysis.
Table 1
Measures embedded within the questionnaire. The first column contains the name of the measures; the second column contains the instructions on how to respond to items in that measure; and the third column describes how answers to the items were coded.
Measure Name Questions Coded Response
Disaster belief Please provide an estimate of the frequency of weather-related disasters that will occur in each year (6 items). Participants used the keyboard to type in a number for each year.
Harm extent The following items examine your thoughts about the extent of harm that will be caused by climate change (6 items). 4-point scale: (1) ‘Not at all’; (2) ‘A little’; (3) ‘A moderate amount’; (4) ‘A great deal’.
Harm timing The following items examine your thoughts about when climate change will begin to cause harm (2 items). 6-point scale: (1) ‘Never’; (2) ‘100 years’; (3) ‘50 years’; (4) ‘25 years’; (5) ‘10 years’; (6) ‘Right now’.
CO2 attribution For each of the following questions, please estimate the contribution from human CO2 emissions to cause each event. For example, 0% would mean humans are not at all responsible, whereas 100% would mean that human CO2 emissions are fully responsible
Participants used the mouse to place their response on a sliding scale. The sliding scale contained the numbers, ‘0’, ‘10’, ‘20’, ‘30’, ‘40’, ‘50’, ‘60’, ‘70’, ‘80’, ‘90’, and ‘100’.
Pro-environmental intentions Please indicate whether or not you will engage in the following actions (7 items). 0 = No
1 = Yes
Mitigation How much do you support or oppose the following policies (five items). 4-point scale; (1) ‘Strongly Oppose’; (2) ‘Oppose’; (3) ‘Support’; (4) ‘Strongly Support’.
CO2 adjustment How much should Britain adjust CO2 emissions during the next 10 years? 6-point scale; (1) ‘Not at all’; (2) ‘Reduce by 10%’; (3) ‘Reduce by 20%’; (4) ‘Reduce by 30%’; (5) ‘Reduce by 40%’; (6) ‘Reduce by 50%’.
Free-market belief Please indicate how much you agree with each statement (5 items). 5-point scale: (1) ‘Strongly Disagree’; (2) ‘Disagree’; (3) ‘Neutral’; (4) ‘Agree’; (5) ‘Strongly Agree’.
Demographic questions What is your age? Participants used the keyboard to type in a number.
What is your gender? 1 = Male; 2 = Female; 3 = Non-binary; 4 = Other; 5 = Prefer Not to Say
Procedure
All participants completed a questionnaire assessing their belief in and concern about humanmade climate change and their mitigation beliefs. The questionnaire was administered online using Qualtrics survey software. Participants responded to the questionnaire by using either the mouse to select answers or the keyboard to type in numbers.
At the beginning of the questionnaire, all participants received an information sheet about the aim of the study, the lack of risks associated with participating, and how participant information is stored. Participants were asked to indicate their informed consent. For the full participant information sheet and consent form, please refer to Appendix E. After participants gave their consent and continued onto the survey, they were asked their age and gender. They were then presented with evidence according to the condition they were assigned to. There were four conditions: no evidence, empirical evidence, anecdotal evidence, and both empirical and anecdotal evidence.
After they had read one or both evidence passages, participants answered the disaster belief measure. Next, they answered the CO2 attribution measure. Then they answered the harm extent measure and the harm timing measure. After that was the intention measure, and then they answered the mitigation measure. In the final part of the questionnaire, they were asked how much Britain should cut its CO2 emissions over ten years, and then questions on their support for the free market. Participants were then asked demographic questions about their age and gender. Finally, the participants were given a debrief sheet (Appendix F).
Publisher
Lancaster University
Format
Data/SPSS.sav
Identifier
Jordan-Turner2022
Contributor
Abigail Travis
Rights
Open
Relation
None
Language
English
Type
Data
Coverage
LA1 4YF
LUSTRE
Supervisor
Dr. Mark Hurlstone
Project Level
Masters
Topic
Cognitive, Perception
Sample Size
74
Statistical Analysis Type
ANCOVA
Files
Collection
Citation
Constance Jordan-Turner, “Facts May Care About Your Feelings: The Effects of Empirical and Anecdotal Evidence in the Perception of Climate Change ,” LUSTRE, accessed April 25, 2024, https://www.johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/items/show/162.