Climatic Change

, Volume 77, Issue 1–2, pp 45–72 | Cite as

Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values

  • Anthony LeiserowitzEmail author


A national, representative survey of the U.S. public found that Americans have moderate climate change risk perceptions, strongly support a variety of national and international policies to mitigate climate change, and strongly oppose several carbon tax proposals. Drawing on the theoretical distinction between analytic and experiential decision-making, this study found that American risk perceptions and policy support are strongly influenced by experiential factors, including affect, imagery, and values, and demonstrates that public responses to climate change are influenced by both psychological and socio-cultural factors.


Global Warming Risk Perception Climate Policy Kyoto Protocol Mitigate Climate Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alhakami, A. S. and Slovic, P.: 1994, “A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit”, Risk Anal. 14, 1085–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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”, J. Adoles. Health. 17, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., and Read, D.: 1994, ‘What do people know about global climate change?’ Risk Anal. 14, 959–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dake, K.: 1991, “Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases”, J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 22, 61–82.Google Scholar
  5. Dake, K.: 1992, “Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk”, J. Soc. Iss. 48, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dake, K. and Wildavsky, A.: 1990, ‘Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why?’ Daedalus. 119, 41–60.Google Scholar
  7. Dake, K. and Wildavsky, A.: 1991, “Individual Differences in Risk Perception and Risk-Taking Preferences”, in Garrick, B. J. and Geckler, W. C. (eds.), The Analysis, Communication, and Perception of Risk, Plenum, New York, pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
  8. Damasio, A. R.: 1994, Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, Grosset/Putnam, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Damasio, A.: 1999, The Feeling of What Happens. Harcourt, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  10. Dillman, D. A.: 2000, Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. J. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Douglas, M.: 1966, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas, M.: 1970, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. Barrie and Rockliff, London.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, M., Gasper, D., Ney, S., and Thompson M.: 1998, “Human Needs and Wants”, in Rayner, S. and Malone, E. L. (eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change, Battelle Press, Columbus, pp. 195–264.Google Scholar
  14. Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A.: 1982, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  15. Dunlap, R. E. and Saad, L.: cited 2001, “Only One in Four Americans Are Anxious About the Environment”, [Available online from]
  16. Eagley, A. H. and Chaiken, S.: 1998, “Attitude Structure and Function”, in Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., and Lindzey, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 269–322.Google Scholar
  17. Epstein, S.: 1994, “Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious”, Am. Psychol. 49, 709–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A. Slovic, P. and Johnson, S. M.: 2000, “The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits”, J. Beh. Dec. Mak. 13, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A., and Webler, T.: 1998, “Decision Analysis and Rational Action”, in Rayner, S. and Malone, E. L. (eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change, Battelle Press, Columbus, pp. 141–216.Google Scholar
  20. Jenkins-Smith, H.: 2001, “Modeling Stigma: An Empirical Analysis of Nuclear Images of Nevada”, in Flynn, J., Slovic, P., and Kunreuther, H. (eds.), Risk, Media and Stigma, Earthscan, London, pp. 107–131.Google Scholar
  21. Kempton, W., Boster, J. S., and Hartley, J. A.: 1995, Environmental Values in American Culture. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  22. Leiserowitz, A.: 2005, “American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous?”, Risk Anal. 25, 1433–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leiserowitz, A.: 2003, Global Warming in the American Mind: The Roles of Affect, Imagery, and Worldviews in Risk Perception, Policy Preferences and Behavior, Environmental Science, Studies and Policy, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  24. Loewenstein, G.: 1996, “Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior”, Org. Beh. Hum. Dec. Process. 65, 272–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., and Welch, E.: 2001, “Risk as feelings”, Psychol. Bull. 127, 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., Bernard, M. M., and Luke, M. A.: 2003, “Ideologies, Values, Attitudes, and Behavior”, in Delamater, J. (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 283–308.Google Scholar
  27. Marland, G., Boden, T., and Andres, B.: cited 2003, “Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change”, [Available online from]
  28. Milton, K.: 1996, Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role of Anthropology in Environmental Discourse. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  29. National Assessment Synthesis Team (U.S.): 2001, Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change: Foundation. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Nisbett, R. E. and Ross, L.: 1980, Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  31. O'Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., and Fisher, A.: 1999, “Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change”, Risk Anal. 19, 461–471.Google Scholar
  32. O'Riordan, T. and Jordan, A.: 1999, “Institutions, climate change and cultural theory: Towards a common analytical framework”, Glob. Env. Change. 9, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Osgood, C., Suci, G. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H.: 1957, The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  34. Pendergraft, C. A.: 1998, “Human dimensions of climate change: Cultural theory and collective action”, Clim. Change. 39, 643–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peters, E. and Slovic, P.: 1996, “The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power”, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26, 1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petty, R. E., Wedener, D. T., and Fabrigar, L. R.: 1997, “Attitudes and attitude change”, Ann. Rev. Psychol. 48, 609–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pianin, E. and Goldstein, A.: 14 March 2001, “Bush Drops a Call for Emission Cuts”, The Washington Post, p. A01.Google Scholar
  38. PIPA: cited 2005, “Data: Global Warming – Readiness to Accept Increases in Energy Costs”, [Available online from]
  39. 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 Anal. 14, 971–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Revkin, A.: 17 March 2001, “Bush's Shift Could Doom Air Pact, Some Say”, The New York Times, p. 7.Google Scholar
  41. Rippl, S.: 2002, “Cultural theory and risk perception: A proposal for a better measurement”, J. Risk Res. 5, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Satterfield, T.: 2001, “Risk Lived, Stigma Experienced: Reflections on the Limits of Adaptations”, in Flynn, J., Slovic, P., and Kunreuther, H. (eds.), Risk, Media and Stigma, Earthscan, London, pp. 69–86.Google Scholar
  43. Schiermeier, Q.: 2003, “Climate panel to seize political hot potatoes”, Nature 421, 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schiermeier, Q.: 1997, Senate Resolution 98. 105 ed.Google Scholar
  45. Slovic, P.: 1997, “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield”, in Bazerman, M., Tenbrunsel, A., and Wade-Benzoni, K. (eds.), Environment, Ethics and Behavior, New Lexington Press, San Francisco, pp. 277–313.Google Scholar
  46. Slovic, P.: 2000, The Perception of Risk. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
  47. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D. G.: 2002, “The Affect Heuristic”, in Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., and Kahneman, D. (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 397–420.Google Scholar
  48. Slovic, P., Layman, M., and Flynn, J. H.: 1991, “Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste”, Science, 254, 1603–1608.Google Scholar
  49. Slovic, P., MacGregor, D. G., and Peters, E.: 1998, “Imagery, Affect, and Decision-Making”, Decision Research, Eugene, OR.Google Scholar
  50. Slovic, P. and Peters, E.: 1998, “The importance of worldviews in risk perception”, Risk Decision and Policy 3, 165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Steg, L. and Sievers, I.: 2000, “Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks”, Env. Beh. 32, 250–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Szalay, L. B. and Deese, J.: 1978, Subjective Meaning and Culture: An Assessment Through Word Associations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  53. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division: cited 2005, “U.S. and World Population Clocks”, [Available online from]
  54. United States National Energy Policy Development Group and United States President (2001– : Bush): 2001, Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America's Future: Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  55. Yale University: cited 2005, “Survey on American Attitudes on the Environment – Key Findings”, [Available online from]
  56. Yankelovich, D.: 1991, “Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World. 1st ed. The Frank W. Abrams Lectures, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York.Google Scholar
  57. Yankelovich, D.: cited 2002, “The Seven Stages of Public Opinion”, [Available online from]
  58. Zajonc, R. B.: 1980, “Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences”, Am. Psychol. 35, 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision ResearchEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations