Climatic Change

, 108:811 | Cite as

Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world

  • John D. StermanEmail author


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been extraordinarily successful in the task of knowledge synthesis and risk assessment. However, the strong scientific consensus on the detection, attribution, and risks of climate change stands in stark contrast to widespread confusion, complacency and denial among policymakers and the public. Risk communication is now a major bottleneck preventing science from playing an appropriate role in climate policy. Here I argue that the ability of the IPCC to fulfill its mission can be enhanced through better understanding of the mental models of the audiences it seeks to reach, then altering the presentation and communication of results accordingly. Few policymakers are trained in science, and public understanding of basic facts about climate change is poor. But the problem is deeper. Our mental models lead to persistent errors and biases in complex dynamic systems like the climate and economy. Where the consequences of our actions spill out across space and time, our mental models have narrow boundaries and focus on the short term. Where the dynamics of complex systems are conditioned by multiple feedbacks, time delays, accumulations and nonlinearities, we have difficulty recognizing and understanding feedback processes, underestimate time delays, and do not understand basic principles of accumulation or how nonlinearities can create regime shifts. These problems arise not only among laypeople but also among highly educated elites with significant training in science. They arise not only in complex systems like the climate but also in familiar contexts such as filling a bathtub. Therefore they cannot be remedied merely by providing more information about the climate, but require different modes of communication, including experiential learning environments such as interactive simulations.


Mental Model Risk Communication Complex Dynamic System Climate Change Risk Effective Risk Communication 
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. Axelrod R (1976) The structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Booth Sweeney L, Sterman J (2000) Bathtub dynamics: initial results of a systems thinking inventory. Syst Dynam Rev 16(4):249–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booth Sweeney L, Sterman J (2007) Thinking about systems: students’ and their teachers’ conceptions of natural and social systems. Syst Dynam Rev 23(2–3):285–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Read D (1994) What do people know about global climate change? Part 1: mental models. Risk Anal 14(6):959–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buehler R, Griffin D, Ross M (2002) Inside the planning fallacy: the causes and consequences of optimistic time predictions. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp 250–270Google Scholar
  6. Cialdini R (2009) Influence: science and practice, 5th edn. Pearson, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Connolly T, Arkes H, Hammond K (2000) Judgment and decision making, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronin M, Gonzalez C, Sterman J (2009) Why don’t well-educated adults understand accumulation? a challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 108(1):116–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dean C (2009) Am I making myself clear? A scientist’s guide to talking to the public. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Dörner D (1980) On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simulation & Games 11(1):87–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dörner D (1996) The logic of failure. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Ediwards P (2010) A vast machine. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Egan P, Mullin M (2011) Turning personal experience into political attitudes: the effect of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming. Working paper, New York University, March; available at
  14. Einhorn H, Hogarth R (1986) Judging probable cause. Psychol Bull 99(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischhoff B (2007) Non-persuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: climate change. Environ Sci Technol 41:7204–7208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischhoff B (2009) Risk perception and communication. In: Detels R, Beaglehole R, Lansang M, Gulliford M (eds) Oxford textbook of public health, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 940–952Google Scholar
  17. Forrester JW (1969) Urban dynamics. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J Econ Lit 40(2):351–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallup (2010) Americans’ global warming concerns continue to drop. Available at
  20. Gilovic T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Gonzales P, Williams T, Jocelyn L, Roey S, Kastberg D, Brenwald S (2009) Highlights from TIMSS 2007: mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001 Revised). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC; available at
  22. Hartley L, Wilke B, Schramm J et al (2011) College students’ understanding of the carbon cycle: contrasting principle-based and informal reasoning. Bioscience 61:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IPCC (2006) Principles governing IPCC work. Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1–3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the 21st Session (Vienna, 3 and 6–7 November 2003) and at the 25th Session (Mauritius, 26–28 April 2006); available at
  24. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK; available at
  25. Kahneman D, Tversky A (2000) Choices, values and frames. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Boyle B, Hsu Y, Dunleavy E (2007) Literacy in everyday life: results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy (NCES 2007–480). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC; available at
  28. Leiserowitz A (2007) Public perception, opinion and understanding of climate change—current patterns, trends and limitations (UNDP, New York); available at
  29. Leiserowitz A, Smith N (2010) Knowledge of climate change across global warming’s six Americas. Yale University, New Haven CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Available at
  30. Leiserowitz A, Smith N, Marlon J (2010) Americans’ knowledge of climate change. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication; available at
  31. Li Y, Johnson E, Zaval L (2011) Local warming: daily temperature change influences belief in global warming. Psychol Sci 22(4):454–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B, Phillips L (1982) Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. McClure S, Laibson D, Loewenstein G, Cohen J (2004) Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science 306:503–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morgan G, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman C (2001) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Moser S, Dilling L (2004) Making climate hot. Environment 46(10):32–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moxnes E (1998) Not only the tragedy of the commons: misperceptions of bioeconomics. Manag Sci 44(9):1234–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moxnes E (2004) Misperceptions of basic dynamics: the case of renewable resource management. Syst Dynam Rev 20(2):139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moxnes E, Saysel AK (2009) Misperceptions of global climate change: information policies. Clim Change 93(1–2):15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Olson R (2009) Don’t be such a scientist. Island PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Oreskes N, Conway E (2010) Merchants of doubt. Bloomsbury PressGoogle Scholar
  41. Paich M, Sterman J (1993) Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets. Manag Sci 39(12):1439–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plous S (1993) The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Read D, Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Smuts D (1994) What do people know about global climate change? Part 2: survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Anal 14(6):971–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Repenning N, Sterman J (2001) Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems that never happened: creating and sustaining process improvement. Calif Manage Rev 43(4):64–88Google Scholar
  45. Risen J, Critcher C (2011) Visceral fit: while in a visceral state, associated states of the world seem more likely. J Pers Soc Psychol 100(5):777–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slovic P (ed) (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Sterman J (1989) Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Manag Sci 35(3):321–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sterman J (1994) Learning in and about complex systems. Syst Dynam Rev 10(2–3):291–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sterman J (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  50. Sterman J (2002) All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. Syst Dynam Rev 18(4):501–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sterman J (2008) Risk communication on climate: mental models and mass balance. Science 322:532–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sterman J (2010) Does formal system dynamics training improve people’s understanding of accumulation? Syst Dynam Rev 26(4):316–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sterman J, Booth Sweeney L (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
  54. Tetlock P (2005) Expert political judgment. Princeton Univ. Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  55. Wagenaar W (1978) Intuitive prediction of growth. In: Burkhardt D, Ittelson W (eds) Environmental assessment of socioeconomic systems. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Wagenaar W, Sagaria S (1975) Misperception of exponential growth. Percept Psychophys 18:416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weber E, Stern P (2011) Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am Psychol 66(4):315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MIT Sloan School of ManagementCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations