Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 (2015) 166e176

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Enhancing the Social Amplication of Risk Framework (SARF) by

exploring trust, the availability heuristic, and agricultural advisors'
belief in climate change
Amber S. Mase a, *, Hyunyi Cho b, Linda S. Prokopy a
a
b

Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 195 Marsteller St., West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University, Beering Hall, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Available online 13 January 2015

Using a survey of agricultural advisors across the Midwestern U.S., this paper explores two additions to
the Social Amplication of Risk Framework (SARF)dtrust in information sources and the availability
heuristic. Connections between demographic factors, belief in climate change, perceived risk, and advisors' attitudes toward adaptation to climate change are examined. Three-fourths of advisors believe
climate change is occurring, but disagree on the human contribution. Trust in information sources
predicted agricultural advisors' belief in climate change. Consistent with the availability heuristic,
perceiving variability in weather made advisors more likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change.
Believing climate change is at least partly human caused increased agreement that agricultural adaptation is important. Perceiving greater risk from potential climate impacts and noticing variable weather
also signicantly increased adaptation attitudes. Findings suggest that trust and availability heuristic
could be added to help explain the processes of social amplication and attenuation of risk.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Adaptation attitudes
Availability heuristic
Risk
Trust
Information

1. Introduction

research examines agricultural advisors' views on this topic (Cross,

2006).

1.1. Climate change, agriculture, and perceived risk

Climate change poses a signicant threat to agriculture in the
United Statesdparticularly through increasingly variable weather
patterns (Beddington et al., 2012; Karl, Melillo, & Peterson 2009;
Nelson et al., 2009). Farmers must increase their ability to cope
with variable and extreme weather patterns that are expected
consequences of climate change. Key players in farmer decisionmaking, both seasonally and long term, are trusted agricultural
advisors. As agricultural production becomes increasingly complex,
the role of advisors is critical for farm management (Cross, 2006;
Howden et al., 2007). While research on farmers' views on
climate change has increased recently (Arbuckle, Prokopy, et al.,
2013; Gramig, Barnard, & Prokopy, 2013; Haden, Niles, Lubell,
Perlman, & Jackson, 2012; Islam, Barnes, & Toma, 2013), little

* Corresponding author. Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of

Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706, USA.
E-mail address: mase@wisc.edu (A.S. Mase).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.12.004
0272-4944/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.2. Climate change skepticism and adaptation attitudes

Factors found to inuence belief in or skepticism towards
climate change include gender, environmental values, age, race,
level of education or socio-economic status, and political afliation
fer, & Held, 2013; Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser(Engels, Hther, Scha
Renouf, Smith, & Dawson, 2013; McCright & Dunlap, 2011;
Poortinga, Spence, Whitmarsh, Capstick, & Pidgeon, 2011; Weber &
Stern, 2011; Whitmarsh, 2011). Research has explored farmers'
climate change adaptation attitudes and the role of gender, years
farming, socioeconomics etc. in predicting adaptation behavior
(Apata, Samuel, & Adeola, 2009; Hassan & Nhemachena, 2008)
Adger et al. (2009) discuss social constraints on climate change
adaptation, including attitudes toward risk. Gifford (2011) and
Moser and Ekstrom (2010) review a variety of psychological barriers, including heuristics, biases, and ideologies, that limit mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Spence, Poortinga,
Butler, and Pidgeon (2011) discuss connections between personal

A.S. Mase et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 (2015) 166e176

experiences, perceptions of climate change and attitudes toward

mitigation.

167

2. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

2.1. Applying the SARF to climate change and agriculture

1.3. The Social Amplication/Attenuation of Risk Framework

The Social Amplication/Attenuation of Risk Framework (SARF)
is an established theoretical tool for understanding how risks are
perceived, interpreted, and amplied or attenuated as they are
communicated throughout a society (Kasperson et al. 1988;
Pidgeon, Kasperson, & Slovic, 2002). There are two main stages in
the social amplication/attenuation of risk process: the transfer of
information about the risk or risk event, and the response mechanisms of society (Kasperson et al., 1988, p. 184). Fig. 1 diagrams
the components involved in the SARF.
The SARF has been applied broadly to a variety of health and
technological risks (Frewer, Miles, & Marsh, 2002; Pidgeon et al.
2002). A smaller number of studies have applied the SARF to
environmental risks, such as wildre (Brenkert-Smith, Dickinson,
Champ, & Flores, 2012). Dessai et al. (2004) conducted one of the
few studies applying the Social Amplication of Risk Framework to
the issue of climate change (others include: Renn, 2011;
Poumadere, Mays, Le Mer, & Blong, 2005). In this paper we
extend the application of the SARF to individual processing of
climate change risks in the context of U.S. agriculture.
The core components of the SARF, as highlighted in Fig. 1,
include both mass media and interpersonal communication as
driving forces for the transfer of risk information. Kasperson et al.
(1988) and Binder, Scheufele, Brossard, and Gunther (2011) point
out a disproportionate research emphasis on the role of mass media
compared to interpersonal communication in the amplication/
attenuation of risk in society. Informal interpersonal interactions
have the potential to signicantly inuence the amplication processes. We explore the role of interpersonal communication by
examining agricultural advisors' trust in a variety of climate change
information sources.

Few studies have considered the SARF in relation to the risks

from climate change, and none that we know of have applied it to
an agricultural population. This framework includes feedbacks
between sources of information, amplication stations, heuristics
used to process information, and broader social changes resulting
from perceived risks (Pidgeon et al., 2002). Two components of the
SARF that we address in this paper are social amplication stations
and individual amplications stations (see Fig. 1). Social amplication stations act as receivers and transmitters within the ow of
information, and impart their own perspectives and biases into the
information they share. In this context, social amplication stations
could include scientists sharing their technical assessment of risk,
institutions managing risks, news media, government agencies,
personal social networks (peers etc.), and environmental groups.
Within the SARF, individual amplication stations represent how
each person receives a risk signal, amplies/attenuates the information they received, and therefore acts as an amplication
station.
While the SARF is useful for examining climate change risks, it
also has limitations. It generally frames issues of risk amplication
or attenuation at the level of a society, without specifying in much
detail the factors that will affect individual processing. One criticism of the SARF is that it unclear how to transition from the abstract concepts outlined in the framework, to specic testable
concepts. The SARF does not necessarily predict whether a risk will
be amplied or attenuated for a particular individual or groupdsuch as agricultural advisors.
To address these limitations, we propose and examine two additions to the SARFdthe availability heuristic and trust in information sources. To our knowledge, these variables have rarely been
examined within the context of SARF. The availability heuristic
draws on personal experience and individual senses, culminating in

Fig. 1. The Social Amplication of Risk Framework (from Pidgeon et al., 2002, p. 14).

168

A.S. Mase et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 (2015) 166e176

an intuitive heuristic at the individual station. Trust in information sources ts in with the professional information brokers, and
the social amplication stationsdwhere trust will play a role in
how much weight an individual gives to information received from
each source. We further explore the role of heuristics and risk
perceptions in the formation of advisors' attitudes toward climate
change adaptation, which are part of institutional and social
behavior within the SARF.
Agricultural advisors t into the framework under social
amplication stations as professional information brokers. Agricultural advisors include people employed in a variety of specializations such as University Extension agents, Certied Crop Advisors
(CCAs), and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) employees. Few studies have examined the role of this group in
inuencing farmers' decision making in general, and particularly
regarding climate change adaptation. We explore the climate
change beliefs and adaptation attitudes of this understudied group
through the lens of the SARF, with the availability heuristic and
trust in sources of climate change information acting as moderators
of their perception of climate change risk.
2.2. The availability heuristic
This paper focuses on the individual processing of risk and the
role of heuristics, or mental shortcuts, in perceptions of environmental risks, within the SARF. When confronted with a new and
complex risk issue (such as climate change) with limited time or
resources to make a judgment, people tend to process information
automatically using heuristics rather than through thoughtful
systematic analysis (Bostrom, Morgan, Fischhoff, & Read, 1994;
Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989; Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, &
Welch, 2001; Weber & Stern, 2011). Connected to personal experiences, the availability heuristic demonstrates how vivid and
salient a particular risk is and how quickly one can think of an
example that occurred recently and had negative consequences.
The public uses this heuristic to make connections between specic
events and broader social and environmental risks (Sunstein, 2006;
Tverksy & Kahneman, 2002). Sunstein (2006) summarized the effect of the availability heuristic, noting that, If people can easily
think of such examples, they are far more likely to be frightened
than if they cannot (p. 5). In the context of climate change, extreme
weather events can be memorable and disproportionately
contribute to personal experiences and availability heuristics,
which inuence lay judgments of climate change and risk perceptions (Bostrom et al. 1994; Weber & Stern, 2011).
Sunstein (2006) points out that conrmation bias (paying more
attention or giving more weight to information or events that
conrm rather than challenge our beliefs) is likely to impact individuals' availability heuristics, since individuals who already
believe that climate change is happening are probably more likely
to associate individual weather events with climate change
(correctly or incorrectly). Weber (1997) found that Illinois farmers
reported temperature trends consistent with their own views about
whether or not climate change was occurring. Haden et al. (2012)
found that California farmers' adaptation and mitigation behaviors were inuenced by their personal experiences with water
scarcity. The current paper explores the role of the personal experience in the form of noticing more variable weather locally, as a
potential availability heuristic inuencing agricultural advisors'
climate change beliefs.
2.3. Trust in climate change information sources
Information brokers and social amplication stations are
critical in the communication of risks from climate change. Social

trust and source credibility are areas of theoretical development

within the SARF discussed by Pidgeon et al. (2002). Mistrust likely
plays a role in a variety of risk communication failures, including
climate change. Social trust is clearly linked to condence in government and other institutions to effectively manage risks for society. Loss of trust can increase risk perceptions, make a risk more
unacceptable, and intensify the public response. Pidgeon et al.
(2002) stress that the effects of risk events and communication
on trust are important areas for future research.
The SARF does not explicitly address trust, thus we extend it by
exploring relationships between trust in information sources and
perceptions of climate change. Over the past fteen years, the
importance of trust in risk communicators (such as government
agencies) and source credibility, particularly regarding environmental risks, has received increased attention in the risk communication literature (Bucchi, 2009; Cvetkovich & Lofstedt, 2000;
Malka, Krosnick, & Langer, 2009; McComas & Trumbo, 2001;
Peters, Covello, & McCallum, 1997; Terwel, Harinck, Ellemers, &
Daamen, 2009; Trumbo & McComas, 2003). The organizational
culture of advisors maintained through informal interactions creates networks that may inuence advisors' trust in particular information sources (Hardin, 2002). Research (Bucchi, 2009;
Sunstein, 2006; Weber, 1997) has found that the public does not
pay equal attention to all the information they are presented with,
but instead, rely on sources that they most trust, internalizing
information from reliable sources and rejecting information from
sources they consider unreliable (Malka et al., 2009; pg. 635).
Malka et al. (2009) found that public trust in scientists moderated
the relationship between self-reported knowledge and concern
with global warming. Trust in climate scientists may play a crucial
role in public opinion of anthropogenic climate change
(Hmielowski, Feldman, Myers, Leiserowitz, & Maibach, 2014). An
alternative line of research started by Earle and Cvetkovich (1995)
has found that people are unlikely to systematically evaluate information sources, especially regarding complex and unfamiliar
issues, and will instead rely on their evaluations of similarity between the source's values and their own (Poortinga & Pidgeon,
2003; Siegrist, Cvetkovich, & Roth, 2000).
In this study, agricultural advisors' level of trust in sources of
climate change information is expected to predict belief in climate
change. Advisors who already trust sources of information supportive of the existence of climate change are more likely to believe
climate change is occurring. Alternatively, in line with the salient
value similarity research, advisors who already have strong beliefs
about climate change will judge information sources that appear to
align with their values on climate change as more trustworthy for
information about this issue. We investigate the relationship between advisors' climate change beliefs and trust/distrust in climate
change information sources including the mass media, University
Extension, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).
2.4. Hypotheses
Agricultural advisors include a broad range of individuals with
differing educational and social backgrounds, who work for organizations with distinct goals. Therefore, different types of advisors
are likely to have different views of climate change and information
sources, as well as attitudes towards agricultural adaptation. For
example, advisors working for conservation-focused organizations
are more likely to have pro-environmental values, and may be more
likely to believe in climate change. Similarly, one would expect
advisors employed by a university to be more trusting or accepting
of scientic ways of understanding the world, including anthropogenic climate change. Conversely, advisors working for prot-

A.S. Mase et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 (2015) 166e176

driven groups may be less likely to report believing in climate

change. This is a politically polarizing issue that they may prefer to
avoid taking a stance on, since doing so may hurt their relationship
with clients and/or prots.
Female advisors are expected to have higher belief in and perceptions of risk from climate change, given the substantial amount
of literature indicating that women generally perceive higher risk
than men from a given threat (Barke, Jenkins-Smith, & Slovic, 1997;
Slovic, 1999) and more recent work nding that Swedish women
worry more about climate change than men, even when they have
similar views on the causes and consequences of climate change
(Sundblad, Biel, & Garling, 2007). Work by Stedman (2004) in
Canada found that gender impacted risk perceptions indirectly
through beliefs for individuals involved in the policy process. In
terms of relationships between these variables, advisors' climate
change beliefs, availability heuristics measured through perceptions of weather variability, and perceived risk from climate change
are expected to positively inuence attitudes towards adaptation to
climate change, both for the specic farmers they advise, as well as
across U.S. agriculture.
Previous research has found that climate change risk perceptions are signicant predictors of attitudes toward performing
adaptation behaviors (Aitken, Chapman, & McClure, 2011;
Grothmann, Grecksch, Winges, & Siebenhuner, 2013; Haden et al.,
2012; O'Connor, Bord, & Fisher, 1999). Believing in the existence
of the problem as well as perceiving a threat from that problem are
necessary, but not necessarily sufcient, to motivate adaptation. All
else being equal, perceptions of weather variability and perceived
risk from weather impacts are expected to lead to more positive
adaptation attitudes. Fig. 2 diagrams expected relationships between variables for each hypothesis, but is not meant to imply oneway linear relationships.
Specically, we address the following hypotheses in this paper:
H1 Female advisors will be more likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change than male advisors. Agricultural advisors employed by conservation focused agencies/
organizations will be more likely to believe in anthropogenic
climate change than those employed by prot-driven
companies.
H2 Agricultural advisors' trust in scientic sources of information about climate change will positively predict their level of
belief in anthropogenic climate change

169

H3 Agricultural advisors' perception of more variable or unusual

weather in their area will positively predict their belief in
anthropogenic climate change.
H4 Advisors who believe in anthropogenic climate change will
be more concerned about future on-farm risks.
H5 Advisors' trust in information sources, anthropogenic
climate change beliefs, perceptions of variable weather, and
perceptions of risk will positively inuence their attitudes
toward the importance of agricultural adaptation.
3. Methods
3.1. Survey development and implementation
To address the above hypotheses, an online survey of about 7770
agricultural advisors located in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and
Nebraska was implemented in the spring of 2012. These states were
selected to represent a continuum of the Corn Belt in terms of
climate variation, use of irrigation, and proportion/intensity of corn
production. A team of social scientists from universities across the
Midwestern U.S. designed the survey instrument with input from
climate scientists. The questionnaire contained questions about the
type of advice given to farmers, when farmers make decisions,
concerns about future potential agricultural problems, climate
change beliefs, and attitudes towards adaptation, among others.
Email invitations to the survey were sent to a variety of potential
agricultural advisors, including University Extension agents, Certied Crop Advisors, NRCS staff, Farm Bureau employees, Soil and
Water Conservation District (SWCD) staff, Agricultural Bankers and
other groups with the potential to advise farmers. Most email invitations were sent directly to individuals, but some groups
declined to share their members' email addresses, and instead
forwarded a link to the survey on our behalf. Therefore, for some
groups we do not know how many individuals were sent the survey. Over 2300 survey responses were received, but only 2087
survey responses were received from groups with a known number
of potential respondents, for an approximate response rate of 27%.
78% of respondents were male, and the average age was 47 years.
About 22% of respondents worked in Indiana, 28% in Iowa, 11% in
Michigan and 39% Nebraska. Table 1 shows the distribution of
advisor types among respondents. The remaining advisor types
each accounted for 2% or less of respondents. For additional information about the survey methodology, see Prokopy et al. (2013).

Demographics Gender
and Advisor Type (H1)

Trust in Information
(H2)

Ag advisors belief in
anthropogenic climate
change

Perceived risks to
farms (H4)

Availability heuristic
(H3)

Fig. 2. Expected relationships between variables as outlined in hypotheses.

Adaptation
attitudes (H5)

170

A.S. Mase et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 (2015) 166e176

3.3. Data analysis

Table 1
Distribution of advisor types.
Advisor type

Percent of
respondents

Certied Crop Advisor (CCA)

Farm Service Agency (FSA)
Agricultural Bankers
Natural Resource Conservation Service Employees
Soil Water Conservation District/Conservation Dist. Employees
University Extension
Agricultural retailers
Agricultural cooperatives

23%
17%
14%
12%
11%
6%
5%
4%

Survey responses from the four states were merged into one SPSS
le for analysis. After calculating initial descriptive statistics on
relevant survey questions, Chi square tests were used to check for
differences in climate change beliefs between different types of advisors. The Gamma statistic was used to test for correlation between
ordinal level variables, and ordinal logistic regression (logit) was
used to test relationships between multiple independent variables
(including demographic factors) and ordinal dependent variables
(such as climate change belief, and attitudes toward adaptation).
4. Results

3.2. Variable measures

To assess beliefs about the existence and causes of climate
change, the following question, rst implemented in the Iowa farm
poll (Arbuckle, Morton, & Hobbs, 2013) was included: There is
increasing discussion about climate change and its potential impacts. Please select the statement that best reects your beliefs
about climate change. (Please circle one number.) a. Climate change
is occurring, and it is caused mostly by natural changes in the
environment, b. Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly
by human activities, c. Climate change is occurring, and it is caused
more or less equally by natural changes in the environment and
human activities, d. Climate change is not occurring, and e. There is
not sufcient evidence to know with certainty whether climate
change is occurring or not.
Level of trust in a variety of potential sources of information
about climate change was assessed on a 5-point strongly distrust to
strongly trust scale, by modifying a question from the Iowa farm
poll (Arbuckle, Morton, et al. 2013). Advisors' perceptions of variable weather, expected to contribute to an availability heuristic,
were measured through two ve-point Likert-type questions
(strongly disagree to strongly agree, 1e5). Each question asked
advisors to rate agreement or disagreement that they have noticed
more variable or unusual weather over the past ve years, rst in
their area, and second more broadly across the Corn Belt. Perceived
risk from weather and climate change was measured with a few
questions throughout the survey, including concern with weather
negatively impacting farmers. One such question addressed
concern with potential weather related problems for corn production in their area, such as drought, extreme rains, weeds, etc.
(Scale: not concerned to very concerned, 1e4). Attitudes toward
agricultural adaptation were assessed through a series of 5-point
Likert-type questions, with a scale of strongly disagree to strongly
agree (1e5).

4.1. H 1: Demographic factors inuencing advisors' beliefs about

climate change
The distribution of responses (n 1745) to the climate change
belief question is shown below in Table 2, and reveals that about
74% of advisors believe that climate change is occurring, but
disagree as to the role of human activities in changing the climate. A
chi-square test revealed signicant differences in climate change
beliefs between different advisory groups (X2 175.0, p < .001) and
pairwise comparisons of advisor groups (with the Bonferroni
method of adjusting p-values) revealed signicant differences in
the proportions of different advisor types reporting each belief,
except Climate change is not occurring. For example, the proportion of CCAs who believe that climate change is occurring and
mostly due to human activities is signicantly less than Extension,
FSA employees, NRCS and SWCD employees, agricultural lawyers,
and State Department of Environment/Natural Resources employees. Similarly, agricultural bankers were less likely than
Extension, NRCS, SWCD, and State Department of Environment/
Natural Resources employees to believe that climate change is
mostly human caused. Table 2 shows which advisor group(s) tended to disproportionately report each beliefdin other words, more
respondents of this type reported a particular belief than would be
expected based on the average. There were no signicant differences in advisors' belief in climate change between the four states.
An ordinal logistic regression (logit) was used to test the effects
of advisor type on climate change beliefs, controlling for age,
gender, state, and education level. Climate change beliefs were
ordered as follows for analysis: 1 Climate change is not occurring,
2 Not sufcient evidence to know whether climate change is
occurring or not, 3 Climate change is occurring, and mostly
natural, 4 Climate change is occurring, and is caused equally by
natural changes in the environment and human activities, and

Table 2
Climate change beliefs among types of agricultural advisors.
Belief statement

% (n 1745)

Advisor group(s) that disproportionately contributed to this belief (%)

Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities

12.6

Climate change is occurring, and it is caused equally by natural changes

in the environment and human activities

37.0

Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by natural changes

in the environment
There is not sufcient evidence to know with certainty whether climate
change is occurring or not
Climate Change is not occurring

24.9

State Dept. Environment/Natural Resources (28.0%)

Ag Lawyers (23.8%)
USDA Conservation Districts (22.6%)
Extension agents (19.2%)
NRCS (18.8%)
State Dept. of Ag (16.7%)
State Dept. Environment/Natural Resources (60.0%)
FSA (47.5%)
NRCS (44.6%)
Ag Co-ops (37.3%) Ag Lawyers (33.3%) Ag Retailers (33.3%)

23.3

Certied Crop Advisors (29.6%) State Dept. of Ag (25.0%)

2.3

Ag Retailers (7.0%) Ag Bankers (5.7%) Ag Co-ops (4.0%)

A.S. Mase et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 (2015) 166e176

Table 3
Ordinal logit regression predicting advisors' climate change beliefs.
Independent Variable

Odds Ratios

Gender (female)
Age
State (compared to Nebraska)
Indiana
Iowa
Michigan
Education level
Advisor Type (compared to Certied Crop Advisors (CCA))
Ag Retailer/Implement Retailer
Ag Banker
Grower Group
University Extension
Farm Service Agency
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Ag Cooperative
Ag Lawyer
Soil & Water Conservation Dist./Natural Resource Dist.
State Dept. of Ag
State Dept. of Environment/Natural Resources
Overall Model Statistics

2.01*
1.00

* sign. at p .001;

0.89
1.17
1.12
1.02
1.05
1.05
0.42
2.53*
1.58
2.20*
0.67
1.45
1.79
1.34
5.49*
Pseudo R2 .033*

sign. at p .01.

5 Climate change is occurring, and caused mostly by human activities. Only advisor type and gender signicantly predicted level
of belief in climate change. The overall model was signicant
(p < .001; Pseudo R2 .03) and Table 3 shows the results from this
regression.
As shown in Table 3, FSA employees, SWCD employees, NRCS
employees, University Extension agents, and State Dept. of Environment or Natural Resources employees all had signicantly
higher odds of scoring more positively on the climate change belief
scale. In other words, these groups were more likely than CCAs to
believe in anthropogenic climate change. Additionally, female advisors have signicantly higher belief in anthropogenic climate
change, being about twice as likely as male advisors to score high
on the climate change belief scale. Advisors' education level, age,
and state where employed were not signicant predictors of belief
in anthropogenic climate change.

4.2. H 2: Climate change beliefs and trust in sources of information

Overall, University Extension was the source that advisors most
trusted for climate change information, followed by Scientists. As

Table 4
Trust in Information Sources correlated with climate change belief.
Information source

Mean trust (1 Strongly

Gamma correlation
distrust; 5 strongly trust) with CC belief

University Extension
Scientists
Family and friends
Farm groups
State agencies
Conservation organizations
Television weather reporters
Agribusiness companies
The farm press
Federal agencies
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)
Environmental organizations
Radio talk show hosts
The mainstream news media
Online social media, such as
blogs, Twitter, etc.

4.03
3.74
3.45
3.36
3.29
3.18
3.12
3.11
3.10
3.06
2.69

0.22*
0.43*
n.s.
n.s.
0.30*
0.31*
0.17*
n.s.
n.s.
0.35*
0.53*

2.38
2.15
2.13
2.07

0.42*
n.s.
0.35*
0.11*

* sign. at p .001; n.s. not signicant.

171

noted above in Hypothesis 2, we wanted to explore the relationship

between which information sources were trusted or distrusted and
climate change beliefs. Ordinal correlation analysis (Gamma)
revealed signicant positive correlations between trust in most of
the information sources on our survey and level of belief in
anthropogenic climate change. Table 4 lists all the climate change
information sources, in order of most to least trusted by agricultural
advisors, and whether there was a signicant correlation with
climate change beliefs.
The strongest correlations were between belief in climate
change and trust in the IPCC and scientists, while trust in one of the
most trusted organizations overalldUniversity Extensiondwas
less strongly correlated with climate change beliefs. Fig. 3 illustrates the distribution of trust and distrust in the IPCC based on
climate change belief.
4.3. H 3: Climate change beliefs and noticing more variable weather
There was a signicant positive correlation between perceptions
of weather variability, both locally and across the Corn Belt and
belief in anthropogenic climate change (In my area: Gamma 0.36,
p < .001; Across the Corn Belt: Gamma 0.36, p < .001). Fig. 4 illustrates the signicant differences in percent agreement or strong
agreement with each perception based on climate change belief.
4.4. H 4: Climate change beliefs and concern with on-farm risks
Overall, the on-farm risks that advisors were most concerned
with were: longer dry periods and drought (Mean 2.90, n 1729)
and increased soil erosion (Mean 2.81, n 1719). They were also
concerned with: increased weed pressure (Mean 2.61, n 1722),
increased loss of nutrients into waterways (Mean 2.60, n 1722)
and increased heat stress on crops (Mean 2.59, n 1721).
Consistent with H4, there was a signicant positive correlation
between level of belief in anthropogenic climate change and
concern with each of the impacts listed in Table 5.
4.5. H 5: Relationships between climate change belief, risk
perceptions, and adaptation attitudes
We examined the relationship between agricultural advisors'
climate change beliefs and their attitudes toward adaption and
found signicant correlations between climate change beliefs and
level of agreement with each of the adaptation statements shown
in Table 6 below.
Ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to test the inuence of climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, trust in information sources, the availability heuristic, and demographic variables
on agricultural adaptation attitudes, for each of the statements in
Table 6. For this analysis, all of the risk items were combined into a
scale (Cronbach's alpha 0.87), and a majority of the trust items
(minus friends and family, radio talk show hosts, online social
media, the farm press, agribusiness companies and farm groups
which reduced the Cronbach's alpha) were combined into a scale,
with a mean trust score calculated for each respondent (Cronbach's
alpha 0.87). The trust items that dropped out tended to be groups
that are not necessarily associated with climate change or groups
whose information about climate change does not necessarily
support a belief in anthropogenic climate change. In other words,
someone's level of trust in their friends and family for climate
change information probably has more to do with their personal
relationships than with their perceptions of climate change. In
addition, groups like agribusiness and the Farm Bureau tend to
promote disbelief in climate change, and publically question the
link between human activities and climate change (American Farm

172

A.S. Mase et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 (2015) 166e176

Fig. 3. Advisors' trust/distrust in the IPCC by climate change belief.

Bureau Federation, 2012, 2013; Iowa Corn Growers Association,

2011; Winter, 2010). Factor analysis on the full list of trust items
produced three factors, and the rst factor aligned with the reduced
scale described above. Checks for multicollinearity between independent variables produced VIFs around 1, indicating no cause for
concern. Table 7 shows the ordinal logistic regression results for
adaptation attitudes.
For the adaptation attitude Changing practices to cope with
increasing climate variability is important for the long-term success
of the farmers I advise, level of belief in anthropogenic climate
change, perceptions of on-farm risks, and noticing more variable
weather in their area were signicant predictors of agreement,
controlling for age, gender, state, advisor type and education
(Overall model sign. 0.000, Pseudo R2 0.14). Respondents who
believed climate change is occurring and mostly due to human
activities were 2.8 times as likely as those who say climate change is
not happening to agree that changing practices is important. A one
unit increase in agreement that they have noticed more variable
weather, leads an advisor to be 2.4 times as likely, and a one unit
increase in an advisors' mean perception of risk would make an
advisor 2.3 times as likely, to agree with the importance of adaptation among farmers they advise.
Level of belief in anthropogenic climate change and mean
concern with risks to farms were signicant predictors of

agreement with the statement In my role as an advisor, I should

help farmers to prepare for increased weather variability (Overall
model sign. .000, Pseudo R2 0.13). Advisors who believe climate
change is mostly due to human activities are 6.3 times as likely as
those who say climate change is not happening to agree that they
should help farmers prepare for more variable weather. A one unit
increase on the risk perceptions scale means an advisor is 3.2 times
as likely to agree that they should help farmers prepare for
increasing weather variability. This was the only adaptation attitude statement where advisor type was a signicant predictor of

Table 5
Mean concern with risks correlated with climate change beliefs.
Risk/problem

Mean (n)

Gamma

Longer dry periods and drought

Increased soil erosion
Increased weed pressure
Increased loss of nutrients into waterways
Increased heat stress on crops
More frequent extreme rains
Increased insect pressure
Higher incidence of crop disease
Saturated soils and ponded water
Increased ooding

2.90
2.81
2.61
2.60
2.59
2.55
2.54
2.48
2.27
2.19

0.22*
0.24*
0.07
0.24*
0.13*
0.27*
0.10*
0.11*
0.17*
0.24*

* sign. at p .001;

sign. at p .01.

Fig. 4. Climate change beliefs and perceptions of weather variability.

(1729)
(1719)
(1722)
(1722)
(1721)
(1721)
(1721)
(1722)
(1720)
(1729)

A.S. Mase et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 (2015) 166e176

Table 6
Agricultural adaptation attitudes related to climate change beliefs.
Adaptation attitude question

Mean (n)

Gamma

Changing practices to cope with increasing

climate variability is important for the
long-term success of the farmers I advise.
In my role as advisor I should help farmers
to prepare for increased weather variability.
It is important for farmers to adapt to climate
change to ensure the long-term success
of U.S. agriculture.

3.69 (1593)

0.36*

3.57 (1530)

0.32

3.83 (1544)

0.51*

* sign. at p .001;

sign. at p .01.

agreement, with FSA employees, agricultural lawyers, and State

Dept. of Environment/Natural Resources employees less likely to
agree than CCAs.
For the attitude statement It is important for farmers to adapt
to climate change to ensure the long-term success of U.S. agriculture signicant predictors of agreement were belief in anthropogenic climate change and mean risk perceptions (p .000, Pseudo
R2 0.15). Advisors who believe climate change is mostly caused by
human activities were 24.4 times as likely to agree with the
importance of climate change adaptation across U.S. agriculture.
Similarly, a one unit increase in perceived risks to farms from
weather threats makes an advisor 2.5 times as likely to agree, and
thus have a positive attitude toward broader U.S. agricultural
adaptation to climate change.
5. Discussion and conclusions
5.1. Advisors' beliefs about climate change
This study revealed that 75% of Midwestern Corn Belt advisors
believe some form of climate change is happening, but they differ in

173

terms of the role of human activities in this change. A good proportion (about 25%) of agricultural advisors attribute climate
change to mostly natural variation, while about 50% see human
activities as an equal or greater cause of climate change than natural variation. This could be good news for communication and
outreach with this audience regarding climate change adaptation.
Most advisors are likely to be receptive to the idea that climate
change is happening and adaptation is a wise course of action.
However, this does not bode well for mitigation-only communication efforts, since only about half of advisors see human contributions as an equal or greater cause of climate change than natural
changes.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, signicant differences in climate
change beliefs between the different advisor groups surveyed
indicate that individuals working in a given sub-eld tend to have
similar views on climate change, while those in different sub-elds
(i.e. private crop advisors vs. public NRCS employees) have
diverging views on this issue. These results t with ndings by
Stedman (2004) about differences in climate change beliefs between organizations involved in policymaking, and conrmed my
expectations stated above, that employees of more conservationfocused organizations would be more likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change than those with an economic focus.
Potential explanations for State Department of Environment/
Natural Resources or NRCS employees being more accepting of
climate change than private retailers and CCAs include the goals
and culture of the organizations/entities employing each of these
advisors, which are likely related to the types of people who decide
to work in a given sub-eld. For example, the NRCS is likely to
attract individuals with more positive environmental attitudes,
who are concerned about conserving natural resources and may be
more familiar with the science of climate change than individuals
who decide to work as a CCA. Similarly, University Extension is

Table 7
Ordinal logistic regression- Predicting advisors' adaptation attitudes.
Independent Variable

Changing practices important for LT I should help farmers prepare Important farmers
success farmers I advise- Odds Ratio for variability- odds Ratio
adapt to CC, LT success
U.S. ag- Odds Ratio

Climate Change Belief (compared to CC is not occurring)

Insufcient evidence
1.26
CC occurring, mostly natural
2.10#
CC occurring, equally human & natural
2.11#
CC occurring, mostly human activities
2.82#
Perceptions of on-farm Risks Scale
2.26*
Trust in Information scale
1.36
Gender (female)
1.09
Age
1.00
In the past 5 years, noticed more variable/unusual weather in my areaa 2.36*
State (compared to Nebraska)
Indiana
0.71#
Iowa
0.71
Michigan
0.89
Education level
1.09
Advisor Type (compared to CCA)
Agricultural Retailer/Implement Retailer
0.73
Agricultural Banker
1.24
Grower Group
2.37
University Extension
0.79
Farm Service Agency
1.02
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
0.81
Agricultural Cooperative
1.02
Agricultural Lawyer
1.94
Soil & Water Conservation District/Natural Resource District
1.04
State Dept. of Agriculture
0.55
State Dept. of Environment/Natural Resources
0.47
Overall Model Statistics
Pseudo R2 0.14*
*sign. at p .001; sign. at p .01; # sign. at p .05.
a
Response Scale: Strongly Disagree 1, Strongly Agree 5.

1.90
3.48
3.33
6.30*
3.21*
1.39
0.62
0.97
1.36*

3.02
9.19*
10.0*
24.4*
2.54*
1.70*
0.94
1.00
1.35*

0.83
0.95
1.07
1.21

0.62
0.61
0.91
1.02

1.12
0.73
0.77
0.99
0.52*
1.16
1.04
0.15*
1.08
0.88
0.25
Pseudo R2 0.13*

1.12
1.10
0.96
0.82
0.90
0.85
1.10
0.69
1.11
0.90
0.47
Pseudo R2 0.15*

174

A.S. Mase et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 (2015) 166e176

likely to employ individuals who are more comfortable with science, given that a key goal of the organization is to share the results
of scientic research conducted at universities with the lay public.
These distinctions merit further investigation to explore why
advisors working for different organizations have quite different
beliefs about climate change and the threats it poses to agriculture.
In addition, the signicant differences in climate change beliefs
between agricultural advisor groups highlight the need for adaptation communication and outreach to be tailored to a specic
audiencedeven within the agricultural community.
Another distinction, the fact that female advisors were more
likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change t with our expectations based on the risk perception literature. This nding is
consistent with Hypothesis 1 as well as previous research on risk
perception and communication, which has found that for
numerous environmental and health risks women are more concerned than men, many times even with the same education level
or scientic occupation (Barke et al., 1997; Slovic, 1999; Sundblad
et al., 2007).
5.2. Climate change beliefs and trust in information sources
Within the context of the SARF, this paper investigated advisors'
trust and distrust in a variety of sources of information about
climate change and its potential impacts. This study revealed that
University Extension and Scientists are the most trusted by Midwestern advisors, so they would be valuable partners to collaborate
with when communicating about climate change with this audience. Level of belief in anthropogenic climate change was signicantly correlated with trust in almost all sources of climate change
information. This provides support to the literature on relationships between trust and climate change beliefs among the general
public, but we cannot conrm a causal relationship between
climate change beliefs and level of trust in information sources, or
vice versa. However, it does appear that trust in information
sources could play an important role within the SARF, and has the
potential to increase or decrease risk perceptions, depending on the
context.
Level of belief in climate change was most strongly correlated
with trust in the IPCC and scientists, and was less important for the
other highly trusted source, University Extension. For advisors,
having an established relationship of positive interactions (such as
they are likely to have with the Extension) on a variety of issues is
likely to increase trust on the issue of climate change (Hardin,
2002). As proposed by several scholars, perceptions of similar
values, and an organization having the public's best interest in
mind, are linked to higher levels of trust in communication from
these sources (Earle & Cvetkovich, 1995; Poortinga & Pidgeon,
2003; Siegrist et al., 2000). These are possible explanations for
the high level of trust in Extension for information about climate
change and its impacts, despite the weaker correlation with belief
in climate change.
5.3. The availability heuristic
The results of this study are consistent with an availability
heuristic playing a role in how advisors perceive the risk from
climate change. 76% of agricultural advisors noticed more variable
or unusual weather in their area over the past 5 years. Similar to the
ndings of Haden et al. (2012) with farmers in California, perception of more variable weather was signicantly positively correlated with advisors' climate change beliefs. However, from this
cross-sectional survey we cannot say whether the availability
heuristic is causing advisors to be more concerned about climate
change, or whether those who already believe in climate change

(through conrmation bias or motivated reasoning) are more likely

to notice and report unusual weather patterns that conrm their
existing belief in climate change, as Weber (1997) found with Illinois farmers. This is an addition to the SARF that would benet
from further study exploring the relative importance of learning
from extreme weather events versus incorporating them into
existing belief systems, particularly within the agricultural community that is more reliant on consistent weather patterns than the
average American.
5.4. Climate change beliefs and perceived risks to agriculture
This study revealed signicant positive correlations between
advisors' level of belief in anthropogenic climate change and
concern with risks to corn production in their area, consistent with
H4. It is worth noting that the survey questions assessing concern
with weather and climate risks were asked with no mention of
climate change, only potential problems on farms and prior to any
mention of climate change on the survey. The positive correlation
between concern with on-farm problems and climate change beliefs could indicate that advisors who believe in climate change,
especially anthropogenic climate change, are making a connection
between climate change and increasing future problems for agricultural production. Additionally, correlation with climate change
belief was stronger for potential problems that are more relevant to
certain types of advisors such as NRCS employees that tend to be
more conservation focused (i.e. more frequent extreme rains,
increased ooding, increased soil erosion, and increased loss of
nutrients into waterways). This match between area of specialization and concerns with threats ts with the results shown above
about advisor-type being a signicant predictor of climate change
beliefs, which were expected to inuence perceived risks from
weather and climate.
5.5. Predicting advisors' adaptation attitudes
Consistent with the SARF as well as previous research (Adger
et al., 2009; Gifford, 2011; Haden et al. 2012; Moser & Ekstrom,
2010), we found signicant relationships between advisors'
climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, and attitudes toward
adaptation to climate change. These results conrmed Hypothesis
5. While most advisors agreed that farmers should change practices
to cope with climate variability, attitudes toward adaptation varied
signicantly based on climate change beliefsdwith those who
believe climate change is at least partly human caused more
strongly agreeing that adaptation is important. There were also
signicant relationships between perceived risks to farms, noticing
more variable weather, trust in sources of climate change information, and attitudes toward adaptation. Aitken et al. (2011) had
similar ndings with citizens of New Zealand, in that perceived
risks of climate change and the perception that humans contribute
to climate change were the strongest predictors of mitigation
behavioral intentions.
As shown in Table 7, there were differences in which independent variables predicted agreement with each adaptation attitude
statement. Agreeing that I should help farmers prepare for
weather variability was the only adaptation attitude that was
signicantly inuenced by advisor type and education level. This is
probably due to the fact that this question asks more directly about
how the respondent views their role as an advisor to farmers. Advisors' condence in their own ability to help farmers adapt to
threats from weather variability likely factors into their attitude
towards this element of adaptation. In addition, gender was only
signicant for the adaptation attitude I should help farmers prepare, which may indicate a role of gender in how advisors view

A.S. Mase et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 (2015) 166e176

their role in farm management. The fact that gender did not
signicantly predict the other two adaptation attitudes is likely due
to an indirect (or perhaps just weaker) relationship between
gender and attitudes, which was overshadowed by more direct
relationships between climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, and
noticing variable weather.
While overall most advisors agreed that farmers should adapt to
weather/climate change, 46% agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement, There is too much uncertainty about the effects of
climate change to justify advising others to change practices.
These results, along with majority agreement with the existence of
climate change t with some ndings from a recent study of
Scottish dairy farmers by Islam et al. (2013). Similar to Islam et al.
(2013) we found higher skepticism regarding the risk posed by
climate change than about its existence. However, a larger proportion of U.S. advisors than Scottish dairy farmers remain skeptical
about the role of human activities in climate change.
On a related note, it is interesting that belief in anthropogenic
climate change was positively correlated with adaptation attitudes,
since on the surface believing climate change is happening,
regardless of the cause, might be expected to result in more positive
attitudes toward adaptation. This relationship was similar to ndings by Arbuckle, Prokopy, et al. (2013) with Midwestern farmers,
and Haden et al. (2012) with California farmers. Perhaps those who
believe that climate change is mostly due to natural changes
expect less severe impacts than those who believe humans are
affecting the climate and pushing it outside historical limits or
experiences.
5.6. Limitations and future work
This study focused on agricultural advisors, a group that has a
signicant impact on U.S. agriculture and thus far has been the
subject of little researchdparticularly on the issue of climate
change. We tested new factors inuencing individual perception of
risk and attitudes within the SARF, including trust in information
sources, and the availability heuristic and increased our understanding of the U.S. agricultural sector's response to climate change.
As with all research, there are some limitations to this study.
First, this was a cross-sectional survey, so information was collected
at one point in time and we cannot denitively say that there are
causal relationships between variables. Another limitation is that
the constructs of interest (climate change beliefs, trust in information sources, adaptation attitudes etc.) were primarily measured
using ordinal level scales, necessitating the use of ordinal correlations and regressions. While these measures are not numeric, they
sufciently represent a majority of the variation in opinions,
particularly with regard to climate change beliefs.
The results of this study highlighted several potential areas for
further research. First, we explored moderating variables within
the SARF and found support with this population. These relationships could be tested with different contexts, audiences, and risks
to further improve the SARF. Longitudinal survey data would be
helpful for testing causality between climate change beliefs and
perceptions of variable weather (including specic extreme
weather events) to assess the role of the availability heuristic in
climate change risk perceptions. Longitudinal data could also be
useful for exploring causality between climate change beliefs and
trust in information sources. Why members of the agricultural
community trust and distrust particular organizations, individuals,
and agencies for climate change information should be explored
further through qualitative methods, with particular attention to
the role of organizational norms. As noted above, why different
types of advisors employed in distinct agricultural sectors believe
in or are skeptical about climate change and adaptation could be

175

further investigated. In addition, these ndings indicate a need for

qualitative research to understand in more depth how agricultural
advisors think about climate change, potential impacts on agriculture, and adaptation. The connections advisors make (or do not
make) between weather events and agricultural impacts and
broader climate change, and how they cope with uncertain climate
and weather risks, even if they do not believe in anthropogenic
climate change, could also be the subject of further study.
Acknowledgments
This research is part of Useful to Usable (U2U): Transforming
Climate Variability and Change Information for Cereal Crop Producers, and was supported by Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative Competitive Grant 2011-68002-30220 from the USDA
National Institute of Food and Agriculture. We would also like to
thank three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful remarks.
References
Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., et al.
(2009). Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change,
93, 335e354.
Aitken, C., Chapman, R., & McClure, J. (2011). Climate change, powerlessness and the
commons dilemma: Assessing New Zealanders' preparedness to act. Global
Environmental Change, 21, 752e760.
American Farm Bureau Federation. (2012). Clean Air Act-Green House Gas Regulation.
Washington, D.C: American Farm Bureau Federation.
American Farm Bureau Federation. (2013). Climate change. Washington D.C:
American Farm Bureau Federation.
Apata, T. G., Samuel, K. D., & Adeola, A. O. (2009). Contributed paper prepared for
presentation at the international association of agricultural economists' 2009
conference, Beijing, China, August 16. Analysis of climate change perception and
adaptation among arable food crop farmers in South Western Nigeria (Vol. 22).
Arbuckle, J. G., Jr., Morton, L. W., & Hobbs, J. (2013). Farmer beliefs and concerns
about climate change and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation: Evidence from Iowa. Climatic Change, 118, 551e563.
Arbuckle, J. G., Jr., Prokopy, L. S., Haigh, T., Hobbs, J., Knoot, T., Knutson, C., et al.
(2013). Climate change beliefs, concerns, and attitudes toward adaptation and
mitigation among farmers in the Midwestern United States. Climatic Change,
117, 943e950.
Barke, R. P., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Slovic, P. (1997). Risk perceptions of men and
women scientists. Social Science Quartlerly, 78, 167e176.
Beddington, J., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark, M., Fernandez, A., Guillou, M., Jahn, M., et al.
(2012). Achieving food security in the face of climate change: Final Report from the
Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. Copenhagen: CGIAR
Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change.
Binder, A. R., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Gunther, A. C. (2011). Interpersonal
amplication of risk? Citizen discussion and their impact on perceptions of
risks and benets of a biological research facility. Risk Analysis, 31, 324e334.
Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., & Read, D. (1994). What do people know
about global climate change? 1. Mental models. Risk Analysis, 14, 959e970.
Brenkert-Smith, H., Dickinson, K. L., Champ, P. A., & Flores, N. (2012). Social
amplication of wildre risk: The role of social interactions and information
sources. Risk Analysis, 33, 800e817.
Bucchi, M. (2009). Beyond technocracy. Springer.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information
processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman, &
J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212e252). New York: Gullford Press.
Cross, M. (2006). Environmental stewardship: Farmer's attitudes and the importance
of the farmer-advisor relationship. Thesis submitted in partial fulllment of the
MSc Degree. University of Newcastle.
Cvetkovich, G., & Lofstedt, R. E. (Eds.). (2000). Social trust and the management of
risk. London: Earthscan.
Dessai, D., Adger, W. N., Hulme, M., Turnpenny, J., Kohler, J., & Warren, R. (2004).
Dening and experiencing dangerous climate change. Climatic Change, 64,
11e25.
Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (1995). Social trust: Towards a cosmopolitan society.
London: Praeger.
Engels, A., Huther, O., Schafer, M., & Held, H. (2013). Public climate-change skepticism, energy Preferences and political participation. Global Environmental
Change, 23, 1018e1027.
Frewer, L. J., Miles, S., & Marsh, R. (2002). The media and genetically modied foods:
Evidence in support of social amplication of risk. Risk Analysis, 22, 701e711.
Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate
change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290e302.
Gramig, B. M., Barnard, J. B., & Prokopy, L. S. (2013). Farmer beliefs about climate
change and carbon sequestration incentives. Climate Research, 56, 157e167.

176

A.S. Mase et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 (2015) 166e176

Grothmann, T., Grecksch, K., Winges, M., & Siebenhuner, B. (2013). Assessing
institutional capacities to adapt to climate change: Integrating psychological
dimensions in the adaptive capacity wheel. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences, 13, 3369e3384.
Haden, V. R., Niles, M. T., Lubell, M., Perlman, J., & Jackson, L. E. (2012). Global and
local concerns: What attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to mitigate and
adapt to climate change? PLoS One, 7, e52882.
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hassan, R., & Nhemachena, C. (2008). Determinants of African farmers' strategies
for adapting to climate change: Multinomial choice analysis. African Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2(1), 83e104.
Hmielowski, J. D., Feldman, L., Myers, T. A., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2014). An
attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global
warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 866e883.
Howden, S. M., Soussana, J. F., Tubiello, F. N., Chetri, N., Dunlop, M., & Meinke, H.
(2007). Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 104, 19691e19696.
Iowa Corn Growers Association. (2011). 2012 Policy of the Iowa Corn Growers Association. West Des Moines, IA: Iowa Corn Growers Association.
Islam, M. M., Barnes, A., & Toma, L. (2013). An investigation into climate change
scepticism among farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 137e150.
Karl, T. R., Melillo, J. M., & Peterson, T. C. (Eds.). (2009). Global climate change impacts
in the United States (p. 192). Cambridge University Press. Available online at
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientic-assessments/usimpacts.
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988).
The social amplication of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8,
177e187.
Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N., & Dawson, E. (2013).
Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. American Behavioral Scientist,
57, 818e837.
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, E. (2001). Risk as feelings.
Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267e286.
Malka, A., Krosnick, J. A., & Langer, G. (2009). The association of knowledge with
concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public
thinking. Risk Analysis, 29, 633e647.
McComas, K. A., & Trumbo, C. W. (2001). Source credibility in environmental healthrisk controversies: Application of Meyer's credibility index. Risk Analysis, 21,
467e480.
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change
among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental
Change, 21(4), 1163e1172.
Moser, S. C., & Ekstrom, J. A. (2010). A framework to diagnose barriers to climate
change adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(51),
22026e22031.
Nelson, G. C., Rosegrant, M. W., Koo, J., Robertson, R., Sulser, T., Zhu, T., et al. (2009).
Climate change: Impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation (Vol. 21). Intl Food
Policy Res Inst.
O'Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental
beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19, 461e471.

Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T., & McCallum, D. B. (1997). The determinants of trust and
credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk
Analysis, 17, 43e54.
Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (2002). The social amplication of risk.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk
regulation. Risk Analysis, 23, 961e972.
Poortinga, W., Spence, A., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2011). Uncertain climate: An investigation into public skepticism about anthropogenic
climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1015e1024.
Poumadere, M., Mays, C., Le Mer, S., & Blong, R. (2005). The 2003 heat wave in
France: Dangerous climate change here and now. Risk Analysis, 25, 1483e1494.
Prokopy, L. S., Haigh, T., Mase, A. S., Angel, J., Hart, C., Knutson, C., et al. (2013).
Agricultural advisors: A receptive audience for weather and climate information? Weather, Climate, and Society, 5, 162e167.
Renn, O. (2011). The social amplication/attenuation of risk framework: Application
to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2, 154e169.
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust,
and risk/benet perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 353e362.
Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the riskassessment battleeld. Risk Analysis, 19, 689e701.
Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Butler, C., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2011). Perceptions of climate
change and willingness to save energy related to ood experience. Nature
Climate Change, 1, 46e49.
Stedman, R. C. (2004). Risk and climate change: Perceptions of key policy actors in
Canada. Risk Analysis, 24, 1395e1406.
Sundblad, E. L., Biel, A., & Garling, T. (2007). Cognitive and affective risk judgements
related to climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 97e106.
Sunstein, C. R. (2006). The availability heuristic, intuitive cost-benet analysis, and
climate change. Climate Change, 77, 195e210.
Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2009). How organizational motives and communications affect public trust in organizations: The
case of carbon dioxide capture and storage. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
29, 290e299.
Trumbo, C. W., & McComas, K. A. (2003). The function of credibility in information
processing for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 23, 343e353.
Tverksy, A., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and
biases. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 3e22). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Weber, E. U. (1997). Perception and expectation of climate change. In M. Bazerman,
D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, & K. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Environment, ethics, and
behavior: The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation (pp.
314e341). San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.
Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the
United States. American Psychologist, 66, 315e328.
Whitmarsh, L. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions,
determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21, 690e700.
Winter, A. (2010). Farm Bureau res back against climate bill's 'power grab'. New York
Times. January 11 http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/11/11climatewirefarm-bureau-res-back-against-climate-bills-93758.html?pagewantedall.