This article was downloaded by: [University Of Melbourne]

On: 18 September 2009

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907695171]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Risk Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713685794

Cross-National Comparisons of Image Associations with Global Warming and

Climate Change Among Laypeople in the United States of America and Great
Britain
Irene Lorenzoni a; Anthony Leiserowitz b; Miguel De Franca Doria a; Wouter Poortinga c; Nick F. Pidgeon d
a
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research,
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK b Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon
97401, USA c Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University, Wales, UK d School of Psychology, Cardiff
University, Wales, UK
Online Publication Date: 01 April 2006

To cite this Article Lorenzoni, Irene, Leiserowitz, Anthony, Doria, Miguel De Franca, Poortinga, Wouter and Pidgeon, Nick

F.(2006)'Cross-National Comparisons of Image Associations with Global Warming and Climate Change Among Laypeople in the
United States of America and Great Britain',Journal of Risk Research,9:3,265 281
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13669870600613658
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669870600613658

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Risk Research

Vol. 9, No. 3, 265281, April 2006

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

ARTICLE

Cross-National Comparisons of
Image Associations with Global
Warming and Climate Change
Among Laypeople in the United
States of America and Great Britain1
IRENE LORENZONI*, ANTHONY LEISEROWITZ**,
MIGUEL DE FRANCA DORIA*, WOUTER POORTINGA{ &
NICK F. PIDGEON{{
*Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Zuckerman Institute for Connective
Environmental Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK,
**Decision Research, 1201 Oak Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401, USA, {Welsh School of
Architecture, Cardiff University, Wales, UK, {{School of Psychology, Cardiff University,
Wales, UK

ABSTRACT Climate change poses significant risks to societies worldwide, yet

governmental responses differ greatly on either side of the North Atlantic. Risk
perception studies have shown that citizens in the United States and Great Britain have
similar risk perceptions of climate change: it is considered a distant threat, of limited
personal importance. Engaging the public on this issue is thus challenging. Affect, the
positive or negative evaluation of an object, idea, or mental image, has been shown to
powerfully influence individual processing of information and decision-making. This
paper explores the affective images underlying public risk perceptions of climate change
through comparative findings from national surveys in the USA and in Great Britain.
American and British respondents predominantly referred to generic manifestations

The majority of the work for this paper was carried out when all the authors, except
A. Leiserowitz, were affiliated to the Centre for Environmental Risk, Zuckerman Institute for
Connective Environmental Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East
Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Correspondence Address: Irene Lorenzoni, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,
Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research, School of Environmental
Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK. Fax: +44 (0)1603 591327; Tel.: +44 (0)1603 593173;
Email: i.lorenzoni@uea.ac.uk
1366-9877 Print/1466-4461 Online/06/03026517 # 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13669870600613658

266 Irene Lorenzoni et al.

and impacts of climate change or to a different environmental problem (ozone
depletion). The terms global warming and climate change, and their associated
images, evoked negative affective responses from most respondents. Personally relevant
impacts, causes, and solutions to climate change, were rarely mentioned, indicating
that climate change is psychologically distant for most individuals in both nations. The
role of affective images in risk judgements and individual decision-making deserves
greater study.

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

KEY WORDS: Affect, Great Britain, climate change, global warming, images, laypeople,
perceptions, USA

Introduction and Context

A great proportion of the scientific community accepts that anthropogenically-induced climate change poses significant risks to societies worldwide
and therefore should be adequately addressed in the short to medium term
by enacting mitigation and adaptation responses through individual and
institutional behavioural changes (Houghton et al., 2001). However,
governmental responses to climate change differ greatly on both sides of
the North Atlantic. Successive US administrations have been at odds with
much of the world community regarding the reality of climate change, the
seriousness of its impacts and the actions that would need to be undertaken
to prevent future damage from occurring. In 2001, the Bush administration,
citing concerns about economic competitiveness, withdrew from the Kyoto
Protocol, and subsequently proposed national energy legislation to strongly
promote continued use of fossil fuels. The United States, with only 5% of the
worlds population, is currently the worlds largest emitter of carbon
dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, accounting for nearly 25% of global
emissions. Americans emit 5.40 metric tons of carbon per capita per year
(Marland et al., 2003). By contrast, Britons emitted 2.5 metric tons of
carbon per capita in 2000 (EIA, 2003), while the United Kingdom, as part of
the European Union, ratified the Kyoto Protocol, committing to reducing
domestic emissions of six main greenhouse gases by 12.5% below 1990
levels by 20082012. Although on a global scale the UK influence on the
climate is relatively limited (in 2000, the UK was responsible for 2.3% of
total world carbon emissions; EIA, 2003), the UK government is setting the
lead on climate change action. It has the aspiration to go far beyond the first
phase requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, curtailing domestic carbon
dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050 from 1990 levels (DTI et al., 2003). The
British and American publics will clearly play an important role in this
evolving process, both in terms of their direct consumption of fossil fuels and
through their support for political leaders or government policies to mitigate
or adapt to global climate change.
It cannot be assumed that British or American citizens will support
strong policy measures or take individual action until they consider climate

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

Public Associations with Global Warming and Climate Change

267

change as a serious risk. Research on lay perceptions of climate change is

important because future risk communications will need to be appropriately
designed and targeted, taking account of existing knowledge and beliefs (e.g.
Morgan et al., 2002), as well as the extent to which multiple and complex
dangers associated with climate change influence public views (Lorenzoni et
al., 2005). Despite the trans-Atlantic political differences, research has found
some similar risk perceptions of climate change/global warming2 among
American and British publics. Opinion polls generally show high levels of
awareness and public concern regarding climate change in both countries
(Dunlap, 1998; DEFRA, 2002; Brechin, 2003; Norton and Leaman, 2004);
however, the priority of climate change is often secondary to most other
personal, social and environmental issues (see e.g., Leiserowitz, 2004, p. 30;
Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2003). Mental models research in both countries has
found that laypeople often inappropriately relate climate change to other
environmental issues, particularly stratospheric ozone depletion (in the USA,
Bostrom et al., 1994; Read et al., 1994; Kempton et al., 1995; in the UK,
Lorenzoni, 2003). When prompted, many individuals identify the main
contributors to climate change correctly, although some misunderstandings
persist (Bord et al., 1998; DEFRA, 2002). Generally, people in both
countries perceive climate change as a greater threat to distant communities
or geographical locations (for an overview, see also Leiserowitz, 2005;
Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, in press). Surveys have also shown that most people
express a willingness to adopt mitigation measures, yet there are indications
that this is limited and contingent upon convenience, personal benefits and
trust in government (Bord et al., 1998; OConnor et al., 1999; Bickerstaff et
al., 2004; Kirby, 2004).
To date, risk perception research has predominantly focused on the
cognitive aspects of climate change among laypeople. Such research has
highlighted that whilst knowledge is an important component of risk
perceptions, it does not sufficiently explain them (e.g. Epstein, 1994;
Finucane et al., 2000; Slovic, 2000). Furthermore, various studies on hazards
and risks have demonstrated that although important, more detailed and
accurate information alone is often not sufficient to increase or decrease
public concern about specific issues. It is increasingly recognised that human
information processing and decision-making are also influenced by affect
and emotions, which form the basis of the experiential system (Epstein,
1994). Although affect is sometimes measured in different ways (e.g., bipolar
vs. unipolar scales) (Crites et al., 1994; Peters and Slovic, under review),
affect is generally conceptualised as an overall positive or negative
2

The two terms imply a conceptual difference. Whereas global warming suggests a gradual
warming of the Earths atmosphere as a direct result of increased greenhouse gas
concentrations, the term climate change refers to the wider changes in temperature globally
(warming as well as cooling) and variations in the climatic system (e.g. precipitation, extreme
events). The use of global warming is more widespread in common parlance in the USA
and the UK; climate scientists prefer the term climate change.

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

268 Irene Lorenzoni et al.

evaluation of a concrete object, abstract idea or image association (e.g.,
Leiserowitz, in press; Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2005). For example, Slovic et
al. (2002) define affect as a specific quality of goodness or badness
experienced as a feeling state and demarcating a positive or negative quality
of a stimulus. Note that affect is distinct from emotion, which refers to
specific states (such as anger or fear), and mood, which denotes low
intensity, transient feelings (Isen and Diamond, 1988; Benthin et al., 1995).
Images are defined as mental representations referring to both the perceptual
(pictures, sounds, smells) and the symbolic (words, numbers, and symbols)
(Damasio, 1999, pp. 317321). Affective images are thus broadly
construed to include sights, sounds, smells, ideas, and words, to which
positive and negative affect or feelings have become attached through
learning and experience (Slovic et al., 1998, p. 3).
Research has demonstrated the important role of affect in risk perception
and behaviour (e.g. Finucane et al., 2000; Slovic et al., 2000), and the utility
of imagery analysis as a means to study the relationship between affect,
imagery and perceived risk (e.g. Slovic et al., 1993; Benthin, 1995; JenkinsSmith, 2001; Leiserowitz, 2003; Satterfield, 2001). Affective reactions occur
instantly and automatically and help individuals navigate quickly and
efficiently through a complex, uncertain and sometimes dangerous world
(Zajonc, 1980, in Slovic et al., 2004, p. 313). Relying solely on affect as an
orienting mechanism, however, does not always result in expected
outcomes, as particular situations may be counter-intuitive or may
necessitate additional deliberation and analysis. Thus, individuals tend to
use both the experiential and analytic modes of thinking interactively
(Epstein, 1994; Slovic et al., 2004).
To date, research on how peoples perceptions and decision-making
about climate change are influenced by affect and experience has been very
limited, although it has received more attention recently (e.g., OST/MORI,
2004; Leiserowitz, in press). This article focuses on the affective images
associated with global warming/climate change in the USA and Great Britain
(GB), through comparative findings from two national surveys. Given the
general correspondences identified in previous work on cognitive perceptions of climate change among lay publics in the USA and GB, this paper
investigates whether affective associations are also broadly similar across
the two countries. The following sections outline the methods used in data
collection and present the findings of public surveys. We then discuss
these findings in relation to the methodologies used and other perception
studies.
Methods: the Two Studies
This paper is based on the findings of two national surveys. A study of US
global climate change risk perceptions, worldviews, policy preferences and
behaviours, was conducted by co-author Anthony Leiserowitz in collaboration with the University of Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, from

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

Public Associations with Global Warming and Climate Change

269

November 2002 to February 2003, through a mail survey of a representative

sample of the American public, using the Dillman (2000) tailored design
method. A total of 673 completed surveys were returned for an overall
CASRO response rate of 55.4% and a refusal rate of 11.2%. Compared to
population distributions from the 2000 US Census, the sample slightly overrepresented males (65%) and persons aged 55 years and over (47%). The
data were weighted by sex and age to match Census parameters.
In Great Britain (i.e. England, Scotland and Wales) a survey on five risk
cases was conducted in July 2002 by MORI on behalf of the Centre for
Environmental Risk, University of East Anglia. Quota sampling was held at
125 points, resulting in 1547 responses. These were subdivided into five subsamples (of approximately 300 individuals each), which were asked
specifically about one of five risk cases, including climate change. As quotas
controlled all five sub-samples, the final demographic profile of the sample
reported in this paper resembles that of the British population. Respondents
were asked in face-to-face interviews about their cultural and environmental
values, perceptions of risk and benefit, risk regulation, acceptability, trust
and evaluation of government policy (for more details, see Poortinga and
Pidgeon, 2003). The 318 individual responses on climate change are
reported in this paper.
In the American survey, three affective images were gathered from each
respondent using the method of continued word associations (Szalay and
Deese, 1978; Peters and Slovic, 1996). These associations minimise the
researcher bias typically imposed by closed questionnaires; they are
unfiltered, relatively context-free, and spontaneous, thus providing a unique
means to access and assess subjective meanings. The national survey asked
What is the first (second, third) thought or image that comes to your mind
when you think of global warming? Each self-reported image was then
rated by the respondent on a Likert affect scale ranging from 25 (very
negative) to +5 (very positive). A dataset of over 2000 respondent images
was generated by this technique. Images often took the form of either single
word responses (e.g. disaster) or short narrative statements (e.g. sea level
rise will be a disaster, especially for small islands). An inductive content
analysis was then performed by two independent coders to reduce the data
into thematic categories.
Similarly, respondents to the British survey were asked Which three
things, if any, come to your mind when you hear the phrase climate
change? Respondents then evaluated the associations they mentioned, by
indicating if they were a good thing (+1), a bad thing (21), or neither
a good thing nor a bad thing (0). For comparative purposes, the image
associations in the GB survey were categorised following the coding
previously developed by Leiserowitz (2003) for the American survey. Two
additional coding categories (rain, global warming) were added to
accommodate the GB findings.
The two surveys used different stimulus terms (global warming in the
USA, climate change in GB), which may influence their interpretation and

270 Irene Lorenzoni et al.

the direct comparability of the two resulting datasets.3 The US survey
employed a 10-point bipolar Likert scale from 25 (very negative feelings) to
+5 (very positive feelings), while the British survey asked people to indicate
whether the first/second/third image mentioned was good, bad,
neither good nor bad, or dont know. To make them comparable, the
US data were conservatively recoded to a corresponding scale of 21, 0, and
+1. Hence, this paper focuses on the general survey findings in relation to the
images and affective ratings provided by respondents in both countries,
without detailed point-by-point comparisons. The influence of the methodological differences is considered in the discussion.

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

GB and US Imagery
First Image Associations
A total of 29 distinct categories of affective images associated with global
warming/climate change were identified (the codebook is available from the
authors upon request). The most frequently mentioned first associations by
British respondents relate to weather (e.g. weather is haywire); global
warming and re-wordings of the term climate change (i.e. any references
to changing climate, for instance, seasonal winter/summer changes); and
ozone (e.g. deterioration of the ozone layer). Other common word
associations referred to increasing temperatures (e.g. winters getting
milder; long hot summers); pollution (e.g. too many chemicals in the
air; changes in pollution levels escaping in the atmosphere); rainfall (a
lot of rain nowadays; wet summers all too often these days) and disaster
(future for kids caused by damage to Earth; dangerous to Earth). The
affect associated with all these image categories was on average negative,
although some standard deviations from the mean indicate a range of
negative to positive affect for some images (e.g. heat, changing climate,
rain; see Figure 1).
Among Americans, the top 10 categories of first images represented just
over 95% of all responses. Associations to melting ice were the single largest
category of responses, suggesting that this current and projected impact of
climate change is currently the most salient image among the American
public (e.g. melting polar ice caps, Antarctica melting). This was
followed by generic associations to heat and rising temperatures (e.g.
temperatures increasing), impacts on non-human systems (e.g. upset
ecological balance), ozone depletion (e.g. a hole in the ozone layer),
images of disaster (e.g. world devastation, the end of the world as we
know it), sea level rise and the flooding of rivers and coastal areas (e.g.
3

A survey in the UK showed that in 2001, 78% of respondents had heard of climate
change. If they had not, they were asked if they recognised the terms global warming or
the greenhouse effect: 21% of respondents identified these two latter terms (DEFRA,
2002).

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

Public Associations with Global Warming and Climate Change

271

Figure 1. First images associated with global warming and climate change in the United
States and Great Britain. Mean affect for each category is indicated next to each histogram
bar using a scale from 21 negative, to +1 positive (followed by the standard deviation)
NB: The No image provided category identifies those respondents who did not provide any
image, by combining actual dont know responses with those where no image coded (i.e.
refusal to reply and missing). The composite other category also includes images
categorised as forests, industry, food, future generations, autos, religion,
fossil fuels, positive, changes in temperature, need action, happening (US) and
human health.

rising ocean levels, flooding of Manhattan), references to climate

change (e.g. a change in climate) and finally associations indicating
scepticism about the reality of climate change. The affect associated with all
of these image categories was on average negative.
Comparison of the two datasets indicates that in their first replies,
respondents in both countries mostly mentioned images related to potential

272 Irene Lorenzoni et al.

impacts of a changing climate. Causes of, and solutions to, climate change
were rarely mentioned. American and British respondents both referred
to generic manifestations of climate change (such as increases in
temperature, changing climate) and to a different environmental problem
(ozone). In smaller proportions, they also associated climate change with
adverse outcomes (e.g. disasters), and flooding and sea level rise (see
Figure 1).

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

Comparison of Images Overall

Responses were also analysed to investigate how prevalent certain images
were among the sampled populations. We calculated the percentage of
respondents who mentioned a certain image at least once in their
associations (see Figure 2) and a general comparison of responses shows
that:
- Around a third of the American public (roughly equivalent to three and a
half times more than British respondents) mentioned images associated
with melting ice, rising temperatures and impacts on nature at least once
in their responses. These images are also the top three first mentioned by
Americans (see Figure 1) which suggests that, as they are consistently and
frequently mentioned by Americans, they are strongly associated with
global warming in that national context;
- A quarter of Americans referred to disasters associated with global
warming at least once in their responses (twice the proportion of British
mentions);
- Notably six times more Americans than British expressed scepticism
about global warming at least once in their responses;
- Associations with ozone, pollution and weather are more
prevalent among the British population than among Americans
(weather was mentioned by more than twice the proportion of
Americans);
- Very similar proportions of the US and GB respondents mentioned images
relating to flood/sea level at least once in their three replies (British
respondents referred to images of rising waters more frequently in their
second and third responses);
- The mean affect for all images mentioned at least once is negative in both
datasets. This suggests that climate change tends invariably to evoke
negative feelings, both amongst believers and sceptical members of the
public.
Comparison of the affective ratings of the images provided in the three
sets of replies by respondents in both countries shows that the average affect
assigned by American respondents across all three images is relatively
consistent, ranging from 20.71 to 20.68 (see Table 1). On the other hand,

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

Public Associations with Global Warming and Climate Change

273

Figure 2. All images associated with global warming and climate change in the United
States and Great Britain. Mean affect for each category is indicated next to each histogram
bar using a scale from 21 negative, to +1 positive NB: Percentage of American and
British respondents who mentioned a specific image at least once in their three associations
with global warming/climate change, and as note per Figure 1 above.

the mean affect becomes progressively more negative in the second and third
British responses, from 20.58 in the first image to 20.80 in the third. These
data may suggest that the longer the British respondents think about climate
change, the more negative they become about the phenomenon. However,
the negative affect increase in the GB respondent population may also be due
to the reduction in the number of second and third replies, as people who
were more concerned about climate change may have replied with more
negative images.

274 Irene Lorenzoni et al.

Table 1. Mean affect for all first, second and third image associations to global warming
and climate change among American and British respondents

Country
USA

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

GB

Number (and percentage) of

respondents who provided at least
Elicitation of image
one image per each image
Standard
association
association elicitation
Mean affect deviation
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd

505
472
395
251
195
119

(75%)
(70%)
(59%)
(79%)
(61%)
(37%)

20.71
20.68
20.68
20.58
20.74
20.80

0.71
0.74
0.73
0.70
0.61
0.53

Discussion: Interpretation of the Affective Imagery Datasets

Despite some methodological differences, our main finding is that both
American and British respondents primarily referred to generic manifestations of climate change, increases in temperature, and to a different
environmental problem (ozone). Both, although in smaller proportions,
also associated climate change with adverse outcomes (disasters).
Importantly, the average affect of all the images mentioned by the
respondents was negative, indicating that, overall, global warming/climate
change evoked predominantly negative connotations in both countries. We
also found that American and British images of climate change were easily
coded using the same categories, thus indicating a strong qualitative
correspondence in connotative meanings between the two countries. Only
one cultural difference was evident: climate change was associated with
rain by a significant proportion in Britain, while in the US, global
warming was not associated with rain by any of the respondents. This
suggests a cross-national difference in the experience and interpretation of
precipitation events and their possible link to climate change, although this
difference could derive from the different stimulus terms used in the two
countries. Interestingly, some of the British associations found in this study
mirror the main effects linked with climate change by UK respondents to a
2001 survey: as a result of climate change, 50% of respondents felt changes
in weather would occur; 44% mentioned flooding from rainfall; 34% higher
temperatures; 34% sea level rise and coastal flooding (DEFRA, 2002).
The stronger association of climate change with weather among
British respondents also reflects previous research findings. It is known that
the experiential system is sensitive to changes in the immediate environment
(Slovic et al., 2004, p. 319): on individual timescales, climate change is often
identified with weather patterns, which are perceptible through the senses
and by direct experience. In other words, weather is the everyday manner

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

Public Associations with Global Warming and Climate Change

275

by which many individuals perceive and possibly make sense of the

climate (Read et al., 1994; Gowda et al., 1997; Murlis and Davies, 2001).
Interestingly, however, Americans were less likely to associate global
warming with weather, yet Americans arguably experience weather just
like the British do. Again, this could be due to the methodological differences
in the two surveys (e.g. different stimulus terms). Alternatively, it could be
related to differences in mass media reporting of the issue in the two
countries: climate change in the British media is often framed within the
context of weather related stories (Hargreaves et al., 2003, p. 19). On the
other hand, the associations with global warming and changing
climate, especially among the British population, suggest that many
respondents simply paraphrased the terms climate change to the previous
designation of global warming or vice versa.
These surveys also found convergent evidence that climate change
continues to be confused and conflated with ozone depletion, as documented
in the mental models literature (e.g. Bostrom et al., 1994; Kempton et al.,
1995). Research has shown that some individuals believe there is a direct
causal link between the two phenomena. Although a few physical interrelationships are recognised scientifically, psychology researchers have
argued that most of the individuals who make this link do not know about
or fully appreciate the subtle molecular interactions that take place in the
atmosphere and that connect the two phenomena. Rather, more simply,
many people confuse the two, partly because the hole in the ozone layer is
scientifically well-established, easy to imagine and remember, and has been
linked with climate change even by popular information sources (Ungar,
2000). Notably, associations with ozone evoked strong negative affect
among American and British respondents (see the affect ratings for all three
images, Figure 2). Our images alone do not allow us to explain the reasons
underlying these associations, although it is an interesting finding that
warrants more cross-national research.
Both populations also referred to flooding and sea level changes. It is
possible that British respondents views could have been influenced by
reporting of recent events, such as the extensive flooding and human plight
in Mozambique, March 2001, and in the north of England, autumn 2000
and 2001 (however, neither event received much press coverage in the US).
For instance, 68% of respondents to a 2001 survey in the UK believed that
the recent floods in their country were due to climate change (DEFRA,
2002). An analysis of UK media coverage of climate change from 28 January
to 15 September 2002 also found that most of the coverage about the effects
of climate change focused on the British climate, whereas the impacts on
developing nations received less attention (Hargreaves et al., 2003, p. 21). It
is not possible for us to explore this effect further within our datasets,
although media influence on perceptions are well documented (Mazur,
1981; Stamm et al., 2000).
Also notable was the greater proportion (10%) of American respondents
expressing scepticism about global warming, which both supports and

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

276 Irene Lorenzoni et al.

reflects the Bush administrations stance on climate change. Our analysis
also demonstrates that while American respondents rated all three of their
associations with global warming as consistently negative, British respondents rated their second and third associations with climate change as
increasingly negative.
One important finding was that none of the American respondents
associated global warming with human health impacts in their first replies,
whereas only a few were provided by British respondents. Potential health
impacts of global warming include changes in temperature-related morbidity
and mortality, spread of water and food-borne diseases, vector and rodentborne disease (e.g. malaria, West Nile Virus) (e.g. Patz et al., 2000; Epstein,
2000). A recent study by the World Health Organization estimated that
154,000 people died worldwide in the year 2000 due to climate change,
while an additional 5.5 million disability-adjusted years were lost (WHO,
2002). Scientists project that the health impacts are likely to be among the
greatest dangers of climate change for human societies, especially for the
poor and children in developing countries.
In sum, the images provided by respondents in both nations carried
negative affect, but generally lacked personal relevancethey were either
very generic or referred to events that bore little immediate or tangible
pertinence to inhabitants in the US or in Britain. Similar associations are
documented in recent European research (Hohle, 2002, in Germany;
Bickerstaff et al., 2004, in the UK). The image associations offered by
American and British respondents in this paper, however, are in line with
scientific warnings published in the literature, i.e. effects on vulnerable
locations and populations (i.e. Small Island States, the Arctic, several plant
and animal species; McCarthy et al., 2001). Likewise, most of the images
provided by the US public reflect media reporting of the phenomenon. Many
stories about global warming in the US press describe melting of polar
icecaps or glaciers, warming of the Earth and the impacts on vulnerable
animal/plant species or ecosystems, most of which are distant from the
average Americans experience. The most frequently mentioned British
associations reflect general manifestations of climate change, some perhaps
more pertinent to the British Isles (e.g. rain and weather, as mentioned
above). Individuals in both nations, therefore, appear to draw upon various
publicly available interpretations of the phenomenon. Almost no links were
made with health impacts. Furthermore, they rarely associated climate
change with local events or occurrences. Thus, the affective images from the
two surveys presented in this paper support previous findings and also
indicate that although climate change generally evokes negative affect,
people dont relate it to themselves personally and very few people associate
climate change with either its causes or solutions.
These findings suggest that an understanding of individuals affective
evaluations of climate change is a useful complement to mental models
research and may help design communications intended to increase
individuals engagement with the issue. It has been argued that knowledge

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

Public Associations with Global Warming and Climate Change

277

of the causes of climate change is a key component of intended individual

behaviour, alongside pro-environmental beliefs and concern about climate
change as a serious threat (Bord et al., 2000). Our study suggests that
currently the causes of climate change are not salient in peoples minds, and
although the threat of climate change is acknowledged, it is seen as relatively
distant in space and time. Findings of a recent study in Norwich, UK
investigating the saliency of climate change and individuals sense of efficacy
in addressing the issue through images of potential impacts of climate change
and mitigation measures (Nicholson-Cole, 2004) indicate that only images
that personalise/localise the issue coupled with practical ways for an
individual to make a difference are likely to induce behavioural change.
Combining images that promote saliency and agency, by communicating the
notion that if you do x, then you can prevent y from happening, appear
to be much more effective than solely using images of potential negative
impacts of climate change around the world. Images such as famines in
Africa and forest fires had become too familiar, yet distant, so that
individuals participating to the study felt powerless to remedy those
situations through their own actions. As specific risk judgements are known
to be driven by more general evaluative judgements (e.g. Poortinga and
Pidgeon, 2005), the analysis presented in this paper and the study by
Nicholson-Cole seem to suggest that if climate change communicators were
to associate negative affect with specific localised impacts and with enabling
personal solutions linked to those effects, these together could exert a
significant positive influence on behavioural intentions.
In our analyses, we have focused on the general findings of both surveys,
avoiding point-by-point comparisons. We demonstrate that affective images
and connotative meanings of risk can be productively compared across
countries. Nevertheless, several methodological issues limit this analysis.
First, in the USA, the results were obtained from a mail-out, mail-back
survey, in which the respondents had as much time as they desired to answer
the questions, and therefore to provide images. In GB, the survey was
conducted through face-to-face interviews, through which respondents may
have felt more time constrained in providing their answers. This
methodological difference may explain why American respondents were
more likely to provide three images than GB respondents. Second, there were
some differences in the questionnaire wording and format. The American
survey used the stimulus term global warming while the British survey
used the term climate change. The two surveys also differed slightly in
their method of image elicitation (see methods section above), and in their
affective ratings of elicited images, which were recoded to make them
comparable.
Conclusions
The comparison of affective images among nationally-representative publics
in the United States and Great Britain points towards three major findings:

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

278 Irene Lorenzoni et al.

(a) the British and American publics used many of the same categories of
images and their average affect regarding climate change was negative; (b)
these image categories, however, were assigned different priority (salience)
and levels of negative affect in the two countries, complicated by the use of
different stimulus terms and elicitation methods; (c) neither public viewed
climate change/global warming as personally relevant: the impacts of climate
change, and most importantly its causes and solutions, were psychologically
distant for most individuals in both nations. Overall, despite methodological
differences, the similarities between the national responses are significant.
These findings also raise a question posed by Slovic and colleagues
(2004, p. 321): how can our understanding of affect be put to use in
conjunction with risk analysis to improve assessments and management of
risks associated with global warming/climate change? These findings
describe the images and feelings evoked by climate change among the
public in these two countries, which should be further investigated to
identify more effective ways of communicating the risks of climate change
and to promote mitigation behaviours by individuals. We suggest that one
avenue of research could explore how individuals come to make climate
change personally relevant and how individuals effectively assess the risks
and benefits of climate change in relation to possible solutions. While the
results reported in this paper are strongly suggestive, the scientific study of
the role of affect and imagery in risk assessment and behaviour is still in its
infancy.
Acknowledgements
The British survey by the Centre for Environmental Risk (University of East
Anglia, Norwich, UK) was undertaken as part of the Programme on
Understanding Risk funded by a grant of the Leverhulme Trust
(RSK990021), with additional funding from the Economic and Social
Research Council (ESRC) Science in Society Programme (L144250037). The
American study was supported by the US National Science Foundation (SES0221896) and by the Donald R. Barker Foundation. Two anonymous
reviewers are thanked for their constructive comments.
References
Benthin, A., Slovic, P., Moran, P., Severson, H., Mertz, C. K. and Gerrard, M. (1995) Adolescent health
threatening and health-enhancing behaviors: a study of word association and imagery, Journal of
Adolescent Health, 17(3), pp. 143152.
Bickerstaff, K., Simmons, P. and Pidgeon, N. (2004) Public perceptions of risk, science and governance:
main findings ofo ao qualitative study of five risk cases (unpublished working paper), Norwich:
Centre for Environmental Risk.
Bord, R. J., Fisher, A. and OConnor, R. E. (1998) Public perceptions of global warming: United States
and international perspectives, Climate Research, 11, pp. 7584.

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

Public Associations with Global Warming and Climate Change

279

Bord, R. J., OConnor, R. E. and Fisher, A. (2000) In what sense does the public need to understand
global climate change? Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), pp. 205218.
Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B. and Read, D. (1994) What do people know about global
climate change? 1. Mental models, Risk Analysis, 14(6), pp. 959970.
Brechin, S. R. (2003) Comparative public opinion and knowledge on global climate change and the Kyoto
Protocol: the US versus the rest of the world? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,
23(10), pp. 106134.
Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R. and Petty, R. E. (1994) Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of
attitudes: conceptual and methodological issues, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6),
pp. 619634.
Damasio, A. (1999) The feeling of what happens (New York: Harcourt Inc.).
Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2002) Survey of public attitudes to
quality of life and to the environment2001 (London: DEFRA).
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department for Transport (DfT) and Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2003) Energy White Paper; Our energy future
creating a low carbon economy (Norwich, UK: TSO).
Dillman, D. A. (2000) The Tailored Design Method, 2nd edn (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Dunlap, R. E. (1998) Lay perceptions of global risk, International Sociology, 13(4), pp. 473498.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2003) United Kingdom: Environmental Issues, available at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/ukenv.html (accessed on 26 July 2005).
Epstein, S. (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious, American
Psychologist, 49, pp. 709724.
Epstein, P. (2000) Health and climate change, in: L. Gobez-Echeverri (Ed) Climate Change and
Development, pp. 115130 (New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies).
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. and Johnson, S. M. (2000) The affect heuristic in judgements of
risks and benefits, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, pp. 117.
Gowda, M. V. R., Fox, J. C. and Magelky, R. D. (1997) Students understanding of climate change:
insights for scientists and educators, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78(10), pp.
22322240.
Hargreaves, I., Lewis, J. and Speers, T. (2003) Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media
(Swindon, UK: ESRC).
Hohle, E. (2002) Global climate change as perceived by the public, in: M. M. Zwick & O. Renn
(Eds) Perception and Evaluation of Risks, pp. 115130, Findings of the Baden-Wurttemberg
Risk Survey 2001, Joint working report by the Centre of Technology Assessment in BadenWurttemberg and the University of Stuttgart, Germany: Sociology of Technologies and
Environment.
Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X. and Johnson, C. A.
(Eds) (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the
Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Isen, A. and Diamond, G. (1988) Affect and automaticity, in: J. Vleman & J. Bargh (Eds) Unintended
Through, pp. 124152 (New York: Guilford).
Jenkins-Smith, H. (2001) Modeling stigma: An empirical analysis of nuclear images of Nevada, in: J.
Flynn, P. Slovic & H. Kunreuther (Eds) Risk, Media and Stigma, pp. 107131 (London: Earthscan).
Kempton, W., Boster, J. S. and Hartley, J. A. (1995) Environmental Values in American Culture
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Kirby, A. (2004) Britons unsure of climate costs, BBC News Online, at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/
tech/3934363.stm (accessed 3 August 2005) Poll results also available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/
shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_07_04_climatepoll.pdf

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

280 Irene Lorenzoni et al.

Leiserowitz, A. (2003) Global warming in the American mind: The roles of affect, imagery, and
worldviews in risk perception, policy preferences and behaviour, Unpublished Dissertation (Eugene,
OR: University of Oregon).
Leiserowitz, A. (2004) Before and after the day after tomorrow: a U.S. study of climate change risk
perception, Environment, 46(9), pp. 2237.
Leiserowitz, A. (2005) American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 25(6),
pp. 14331442.
Leiserowitz, A. (in press) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect,
imagery, and values, Climatic Change.
Lorenzoni, I. (2003) Present Choices, Future Climates: A cross-cultural study of perceptions in Italy and
in the UK, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis (Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia).
Lorenzoni, I. and Pidgeon, N. F. (in press) Public views on climate change: European and USA
perspectives, Climatic Change.
Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N. F. and OConnor, R. E. (2005) Dangerous climate change: the role for risk
research, Risk Analysis, 25(6), pp. 13871398.
Marland, G., Boden, T. and Andres, B. (2003) Trends: a compendium of data on global change, Carbon
Dioxide Information Analysis Center, USA, available at: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/
top2000.tot (last accessed 10 December 2005).
Mazur, A. (1981) The Dynamics of Technological Controversy (Washington, DC: Communication
Press).
McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Leary, N. A. and White, K. S. (Eds) (2001) Climate Change 2001:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group 2 to the Third Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and Atman, C. J. (2002) Risk Communication: a Mental
Models Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Murlis, J. and Davies, G. (2001) Public perception of the health impacts of climate change, in: Health
Effects of Climate Change in the UK, pp. 5054 (London: Department of Health).
Nicholson-Cole, S. (2004) Imag(in)ing climate change: exploring peoples visual imagery, issue salience
and personal efficacy, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis (Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia).
Norton, A. and Leaman, J. (2004) The Day After Tomorrow: Public Opinion on Climate Change
(London: MORI Social Science Research Institute).
OConnor, R., Bord, R. J., Fisher, A., Staneva, M., Kozhouharova-Zhivkova, V. and Dobreva, S. (1999)
Determinants of support for climate change policies in Bulgaria and the USA, Risk Decision and
Policy, 4(3), pp. 255269.
OST/MORI (2004) Science in SocietyFindings from Qualitative and Quantitative Research, conducted
for the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry (London: MORI Social
Science Research Institute).
Patz, J. A., Engelberg, D. and Last, J. (2000) The effects of changing weather on public health, Annual
Review of Public Health, 21, pp. 271307.
Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the
perception and acceptance of nuclear power, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, pp.
14271453.
Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (under review) Affective asynchrony and the measurement of the affective attitude
component, Cognition and Emotion.
Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F. (2003) Public perceptions of risk, science and governance, Main
findings of a British survey on five risk cases, Technical Report (Norwich, UK: Centre for
Environmental Risk).
Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F. (2005) Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the
acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 25(1), pp. 199209.

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 04:01 18 September 2009

Public Associations with Global Warming and Climate Change

281

Read, D., Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B. and Smuts, T. (1994) What do people know about
global climate change? Survey results of educated laypeople, Risk Analysis, 14(6), pp. 971982.
Satterfield, T. (2001) Risk lived, stigma experienced: Reflections on the limits of adaptations, in: J. Flynn,
P. Slovic & H. Kunreuther (Eds) Risk, Media and Stigma, pp. 6986 (London: Earthscan).
Slovic, P. (2000) The Perception of Risk (London: Earthscan).
Slovic, P., Layman, M. and Flynn, J. (1993) Perceived risk, trust and nuclear waste: lessons from Yucca
Mountain, in: R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft & E. A. Rosa (Eds) Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste:
Citizens Views of Repository Siting, pp. 5486 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D. G. (2002) The affect heuristic, in: T. Gilovich, D.
Griffin & D. Kahnman (Eds) Heuristics and Biases: the Psychology of Intuitive Psychology, pp.
397420 (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D. G. (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings:
some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality, Risk Analysis, 24(2), pp. 311322.
Slovic, P., Flynn, J., Mertz, C. K., Poumade`re, M. and Mays, C. (2000) Nuclear power and the
public, a comparative study of risk perception in France and the United States, in: O. Renn & B.
Rohrmann (Eds) Cross-Cultural Risk Perception. A Survey of Empirical Studies, pp. 55102 (The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers).
Slovic, P., MacGregor, D. G. and Peters, E. (1998) Imagery, Affect, and Decision-making (Eugene, OR:
Decision Research).
Stamm, K. R., Clark, F. and Eblacas, P. R. (2000) Mass communication and public understanding of
environmental problems: the case of global warming, Public Understanding Of Science, 9(3), pp.
219237.
Szalay, L. B. and Deese, J. (1978) Subjective Meaning and Culture: An Assessment Through Word
Associations (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Ungar, S. (2000) Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole,
Public Understanding of Science, 9, pp. 297312.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2002) The World Health Report 2002, Reducing Risks, Promoting
Healthy Life (Geneva: World Health Organization).
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences, American Psychologist, 35, pp.
151175.