Climatic Change

, 93:15 | Cite as

Misperceptions of global climate change: information policies

  • Erling Moxnes
  • Ali Kerem Saysel


Previous experimental studies have found that people generally misperceive the basic dynamics of renewable resources, and in particular the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. The purpose of the present laboratory experiment is to find out why people misperceive the dynamics of CO2 accumulation and how misperceptions could be avoided. Using a simulator, 242 subjects were each asked to control total global emissions of CO2 to reach a given target for the stock of CO2 in the atmosphere. Consistent with previous investigations we find a strong tendency for people to overshoot the stated goal. Furthermore, our results point out that people need help to develop proper mental models of CO2 accumulation and they need motivation to reconsider inappropriate decision heuristics. Based on these results and the literature on conceptual change a new information strategy is designed. To motivate, it imposes cognitive conflict; and to facilitate new understanding, it provides simple analogies. A new test shows promising learning effects. The results have important implications for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), governments, and media covering the climatic change issue as well as for general education.


Mental Model Emission Rate Absorption Rate Conceptual Change Information Strategy 
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.


  1. Bakken BE (1993) Learning and transfer of understanding in dynamic decision environments. PhD dissertation. Cambridge, MIT Sloan School of ManagementGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell A (1994) Climate of opinion: public and media discourse on the global environment. Discourse Soc 5(1):33–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bord RJ, Fisher A et al (1998) Public perceptions of global warming: United States and international perspectives. Clim Res 11(1):75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bostrom A, Morgan MG et al (1994) What do people know about global climate change. 1. Mental models. Risk Anal 14(6):959–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brehmer B (1992) Dynamic decision making: human control of complex systems. Acta Psychol 81:211–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brigham FR, Laios C (1975) Operator performance in the control of a simulated process plant. Ergonomics 18:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broadbent D, FitzGerald P et al (1986) Implicit and explicit knowledge in the control of complex systems. Br J Psychol 77:33–50Google Scholar
  8. Camerer CF, Hogarth RM (1999) The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital–labor–production framework. J Risk Uncertain 19(1–3):7–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark WC (ed) (1982) Carbon dioxide review. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Doyle JK, Ford DN (1998) Mental models concepts for system dynamics research. Syst Dyn Rev 14(1):3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duit R (2003) Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. Int J Sci Educ 25(6):671–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunlap RE (1998) Lay perceptions of global risk: public views of global warming in cross-national context. Int Sociol 13(4):473–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Funke J (1991) Solving complex problems: exploration and control of complex systems. In: Sternberg R, Frensch P (eds) Complex problem solving: principles and mechanisms. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  15. Groves F, Pugh A (1999) Elementary pre-service teacher perceptions of the greenhouse effect. J Sci Educ Technol 11(4):381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (2001a) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2001b) IPCC third assessment report: climate change mitigation. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. Jensen E (2005) Learning and transfer from a simple dynamic system. Scand J Psychol 46(2):119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keeling CD, Whorf TP (2002) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppmv) derived from in situ air samples collected at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. Carbon Dioxide Research Group, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), University of California, La Jolla, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Kempton W (1991) Public understanding of global warming. Soc Nat Resour 4(4):331–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirschner PA, Sweller J et al (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol 41(2):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Limon M (2001) On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learn Instr 11(4–5):357–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meadows G, Wiesenmayer R (1999) Identifying and addressing students’ alternative conceptions of the causes of global warming: the need for cognitive conflict. J Sci Educ Technol 8:235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moxnes E (1998a) Not only the tragedy of the commons, misperceptions of bioeconomics. Manage Sci 44(9):1234–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moxnes E (1998b) Overexploitation of renewable resources: the role of misperceptions. J Econ Behav Organ 37(1):107–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moxnes E (2004) Misperceptions of basic dynamics, the case of renewable resource management. Syst Dyn Rev 20(2):139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moxnes E, Saysel AK (2004) Misperceptions of basic climate change dynamics: information policies. WP 1/04. System Dynamics Group, University of Bergen, Bergen. Available at:
  28. Palutikof JP, Agnew MD et al (2004) Public perceptions of unusually warm weather in the UK: impacts, responses and adaptations. Clim Res 26(1):43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Plous S (1993) The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Posner GJ, Strike KA et al (1982) Accommodation of scientific conception: towards a theory of conceptual change. Sci Educ 66:211–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Read D, Bostrom A et al (1994) What do people know about global climate change. 2. Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Anal 14(6):971–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rebetez M (1996) Public expectation as an element of human perception of climate change. Clim Change 32(4):495–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Rouwette EAJA, Grossler A et al (2004) Exploring influencing factors on rationality: a literature review of dynamic decision-making studies in system dynamics. Syst Res Behav Sci 21(4):351–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seacrest S, Kuzelka R et al (2000) Global climate change and public perception: the challenge of translation. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36(2):253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shanahan J, Good J (2000) Heat and hot air: influence of local temperature on journalists’ coverage of global warming. Public Underst Sci 9(3):285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith VL (1982) Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. Am Econ Rev 72(5):923–955Google Scholar
  38. Stamm KR, Clark F et al (2000) Mass communication and public understanding of problems: the case of global warming. Public Underst Sci 9(13):219–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sterman JD (1989) Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Org Behav Human Decis Process 43(3):301–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sterman JD, Booth Sweeney L (2002) Cloudy skies: assessing public understanding of global warming. Syst Dyn Rev 18(2):207–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sterman JD, Sweeney LB (2007) Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Clim Change 80(3–4):213–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stern N, Peters S et al (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. HM Treasury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Venville GJ, Treagust DF (1996) The role of analogies in promoting conceptual change in biology. Instr Sci 24:295–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.System Dynamics Group, Department of GeographyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental SciencesBoǧaziçi UniversityBebekTurkey

Personalised recommendations