Climatic Change

, Volume 118, Issue 2, pp 397–416 | Cite as

How do people update? The effects of local weather fluctuations on beliefs about global warming

Article

Abstract

Global warming has become a controversial public policy issue in spite of broad scientific consensus that it is real and that human activity is a contributing factor. It is likely that public consensus is also needed to support policies that might counteract it. It is therefore important to understand how people form and update their beliefs about climate change. Using unique survey data on beliefs about the occurrence of the effects of global warming, I estimate how local temperature fluctuations influence what individuals believe about these effects. I find that some features of the updating process are consistent with rational updating. I also test explicitly for the presence of several heuristics known to affect belief formation and find strong evidence for representativeness, some evidence for availability, and no evidence for spreading activation. I find that very short-run temperature fluctuations (1 day–2 weeks) have no effect on beliefs about the occurrence of global warming, but that longer-run fluctuations (1 month–1 year) are significant predictors of beliefs. Only respondents with a conservative political ideology are affected by temperature abnormalities.

Supplementary material

10584_2012_615_MOESM1_ESM.docx (76 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 76 kb)

References

  1. Alevy J, Haigh M, List J (2007) Information cascades: evidence from a field experiment with financial market professionals. J Finance LXII(1):151–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anwar S, Loughran T (2011) Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology 49(3):667–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargh JA, Chen M, Burrows L (1996) Automaticity of social behavior: direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. J Personal Soc Psychol 71(2):230–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2001) Do people mean what they say? Implications for subjective survey data. Am Econ Rev 91(2):67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron T (2005) Updating subjective risks in the presence of conflicting information: an application to climate change. J Risk Uncertain 30(1):63–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charness G, Levin D (2005) When optimal choices feel wrong: a laboratory study of and affect Bayesian updating, complexity, and affect. Am Econ Rev 95(4):1300–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charness G, Karni E, Levin D (2007) Individual and group decision making under risk: an experimental study of Bayesian updating and violations of first-order stochastic dominance. J Risk Uncertain 35:129–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiang Y, Hirshleifer D, Qian Y, Sherman A (2011) Do investors learn from experience? Evidence from frequent IPO investors. Rev Financ Stud 24(5):1560–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Personal Soc Psychol 58(6):1015–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clotfelter C, Cook P (1993) The ‘gambler’s fallacy’ in lottery play. Manag Sci 39(12):1521–1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins AM, Loftus EF (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol Rev 82(6):407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeBondt W, Thaler R (1984) Does the stock market overreact? J Finance 40(3):793–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deschênes O, Greenstone M (2007a) The economic impacts of climate change: evidence from agricultural output and random fluctuations in weather. Am Econ Rev 97(1):354–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deschênes O, Greenstone M (2007b) Climate change, mortality, and adaptation: evidence from annual fluctuations in weather in the US. NBER Working Paper No. 13178Google Scholar
  15. Dhar R, Zhu N (2006) Up close and personal: investor sophistication and the disposition effect. Manag Sci 52(5):726–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dijksterhuis A, van Knippenberg A (1998) The relation between perception and behavior or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. J Personal Soc Psychol 74(4):865–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Durfee JL (2006) “Social change” and “status quo” framing effects on risk perception. Sci Commun 27(4):459–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Egan P, Mullin M (2012) Turning personal experience into political attitudes: the effect of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming. J Polit, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  19. Feng L, Seasholes M (2005) Do investor sophistication and trading experience eliminate behavioral biases in financial markets? Rev Finance 9(3):305–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grether D (1980) Bayes rule as a descriptive model: the representativeness heuristic. Q J Econ 95(3):537–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grieco D, Hogarth R (2009) Overconfidence in absolute and relative performance: the regression hypothesis and Bayesian updating. J Econ Psychol 30:756–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton LC (2008) Who cares about Polar Regions? Arct Antarct Alp Res 40:671–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamilton LC (2011) Education, politics, and opinions about climate change: evidence for interaction effects. Clim Chang 104(2):231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holt C, Smith A (2009) An update on Bayesian updating. J Econ Behav Organ 69:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joireman J, Truelove H, Duell B (2010) (2010) Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global warming. J Environ Psychol 30:358–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1972) Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cogn Psychol 4(3):430–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5(2):207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York, reprinted in 2001Google Scholar
  29. Kellstedt PM, Zahran S, Vedlitz A (2008) Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the USA. Risk Anal 28(1):113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Le Mens G, Denrell J (2011) Rational learning and information sampling: on the “naivety” assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases. Psychol Rev 118(2):379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. List J (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Q J Econ 118(1):41–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malka A, Krosnick JA, Langer G (2009) The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Anal 29(5):633–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mullainathan S (2002) A memory-based model of bounded rationality. Q J Econ 117(3):735–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nicolosi G, Peng L, Zhu N (2009) Do individual investors learn from their trading experience? J Financ Mark 12(2):317–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Fisher A (1999) Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal 19(3):461–471Google Scholar
  38. Peterson T, Connolley W, Fleck J (2008) The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 89:1325–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Risen JL, Critcher CR (2011) Visceral fit: while in a visceral state, associated states of the world seem more likely. J Personal Soc Psychol 100(5):777–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenberg S, Vedlitz A, Cowman D, Zahran S (2010) Climate change: a profile of U.S. climate scientists’ perspectives. Clim Chang 101(3–4):663–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schuldt J, Schwarz N, West B (2009) Do people believe in global warming? Depends on what’s the weather’s like when you ask. Unpublished manuscript, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  42. Schwarz N (1999) Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol 54(2):93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Terrell D (1994) A test of the gambler’s fallacy — evidence from Pari-Mutuel games. J Risk Uncertain 8(3):309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tulving E, Schacter D (1990) Priming and human memory systems. Science 247:302–306Google Scholar
  47. Ungar S (1992) The rise and (relative) decline of global warming as a social problem. Sociol Q 33(4):483–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2010) Report of the conference of the parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the conference of the parties at its fifteenth session. United Nations Office at Geneva, Geneva (Switzerland)Google Scholar
  49. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2011) Report of the conference of the parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the conference of the parties at its sixteenth session. United Nations Office at Geneva, Geneva (Switzerland)Google Scholar
  50. Valone T (2006) Are animals capable of Bayesian updating? An empirical review. Oikos 112:252–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Viscusi WK, Zeckhauser RJ (2006) The perception and valuation of the risks of climate change: a rational and behavioral blend. Clim Chang 77(1–2):151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wiswall M, Zafar B (2011) Belief updating among college students: Evidence from experimental variation in information, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report 516Google Scholar
  53. Wood BD, Vedlitz A (2007) Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. Am J Polit Sci 51(3):552–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wooldridge J (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations