Environmental Views from the Coast: Public Concern about Local to Global Marine Issues

Hamilton, Lawrence C.; Safford, Thomas G.

doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.933926

Cited by 48 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies have also found similar interactions regarding a number of non-climate environmental questions (Hamilton, Colocousis, & Duncan, 2010;Hamilton et al, 2014;Hamilton & Safford, 2015). For example, Hamilton and Saito (2015) report education × party interactions affecting not only climate measures but also belief in human evolution and whether people say they trust scientists for information about environmental issues.…”

Section: Interaction Effectsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On climate change and other topics, conservatives have taken positions at odds with a strong scientific consensus. Claims that this indicates a broad conservative distrust of science have been countered by assertions that while conservatives might oppose the scientific consensus on climate change or evolution, liberals oppose scientists on some other domains such as vaccines. Evidence for disproportionately liberal bias against science on vaccines has been largely anecdotal, however. Here, we test this proposition of opposite biases using 2014 survey data from Oregon and New Hampshire. Across vaccine as well as climate change questions on each of these two surveys, we find that Democrats are most likely to say they trust scientists for information, and Tea Party supporters are least likely, contradicting the proposition of opposite bias. Moreover, partisan divisions tend to widen with education. Theoretical explanations that have been offered for liberal trust or conservative distrust of science in other specific domains such as climate change or environmental protection fit less well with these results on vaccines. Given the much different content of climate change and vaccine issues, the common political pattern appears more consistent with hypotheses of broader ideological divisions on acceptance of science.

show abstract

Section: Interaction Effectsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies have now confirmed interactions of this general type (Hamilton 2008, Hamilton and Keim 2009, Hamilton et al 2012, 2015b, Kahan et al 2011, McCright and Dunlap 2011, Shao et al 2014, Kahan 2015, Drummond and Fischhoff 2017. Such interactions also affect other environment or science-related issues besides the climate, including evolution, vaccines, scientists, or environmental protection (Hamilton et al 2010, 2015a, Hamilton and Safford 2015, Hamilton and Saito 2015. In most of these studies, interpretations of the interaction results have mentioned (but not analyzed) the selective acquisition of information.…”

Section: Political Polarity Of Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

The News You Choose: news media preferences amplify views on climate change

Bolin

Hamilton

2018

Environmental Politics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do choices among information sources reinforce political differences on topics such as climate change? Environmental sociologists have observed large-scale and long-term impacts from news media and think-tank reports, while experimental science-communication studies detect more immediate effects from variations in supplied information. Applying generalized structural equation modeling (GSEM) to recent survey data, previous work is extended to show that political ideology, education, and their interaction predict news media information choices in much the same way they predict opinions about climate change itself. Consequently, media information sources serve as intervening variables that can reinforce and, through their own independent effects, amplify existing beliefs about climate change. Results provide empirical support for selective exposure and biased assimilation as mechanisms widening political divisions on climate change in the United States. The findings fit with the reinforcing spirals framework suggesting partisan media strengthens climate change beliefs which then influences subsequent use of media.

show abstract

“…The proposition that ideology or political views can alter or reverse the sign of education or information effects on climate beliefs was first tested in an analysis of 2006 GSS polar questions (Hamilton 2008), and independently confirmed across many other questions and datasets (Hamilton and Keim 2009;Hamilton 2011a;McCright and Dunlap 2011;Kahan 2011;Shao et al 2014) including some non-climate environmental or science topics (Hamilton et al 2010;Hamilton and Safford 2015). Variations in these studies include alternative indicators for information (self-reported understanding, education, objectively-tested science literacy or numeracy) and ideology (political party, liberal/conservative scales and worldview).…”

Section: Climate Change Polar Facts and Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polar facts in the age of polarization

Hamilton

2015

Polar Geography

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many drivers of polar-region change originate in mid-latitude industrial societies, so public perceptions there matter. Building on earlier surveys of U.S. public knowledge and concern, a series of New Hampshire state surveys over 2011 to 2015 tracked public knowledge of some basic polar facts. Analysis indicates that these facts subjectively fall into two categories: those that are or are not directly connected to beliefs about climate change. Responses to climatelinked factual questions, such as whether Arctic sea ice area has declined compared with 30 years ago, are politicized as if we were asking for climate-change opinions. Political divisions are less apparent with factual questions that do not suggest climate change, such as whether the North Pole is on land or sea ice. Only 38 percent of respondents could answer that question correctly, and even fewer (30 percent) knew or guessed correctly that melting of Greenland and Antarctic land ice, rather than Arctic sea ice, could potentially do the most to raise sea levels. At odds with the low levels of factual knowledge, most respondents say they have a moderate amount or a great deal of understanding about climate change. A combination of low knowledge with high self-assessed understanding characterizes almost half our sample, and correlates with political views. The low knowledge/high understanding combination is most prevalent among Tea Party supporters, where it reaches 61 percent. It also occurs often (60 percent) among people who do not believe climate is changing. These results emphasize that diverse approaches are needed to communicate about science with people having different configurations of certainty and knowledge.

show abstract

Environmental Views from the Coast: Public Concern about Local to Global Marine Issues

Cited by 48 publications

References 65 publications

Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines

Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines

The News You Choose: news media preferences amplify views on climate change

Polar facts in the age of polarization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About