Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Climate change beliefs shape the interpretation of forest fire events


Using a naturalistic quasi-experimental design and growth curve modeling techniques, a recently proposed climate change risk perception model was replicated and extended to investigate changes in climate change risk perception and climate policy support in relation to exposure to forest fires. At the start of the study, above-average indirect exposure to forest fires (e.g., through media and conversations) was associated with stronger climate change risk perception, but direct exposure to forest fires (e.g., seeing smoke) and other types of extreme weather events was not. Over time, changes in climate change risk perception were positively associated with changes in climate policy support. However, individual differences in growth trajectories occurred. For example, in this naturalistic setting without any intervention, the climate change risk perceptions of individuals with weaker perceptions of scientific agreement on climate change were less likely to be positively influenced by fire exposure than those of individuals with stronger perceptions of scientific agreement. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring climate change communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 1
Fig. 4


  1. Abatzoglou JT, Williams AP (2016) Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across Western US forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(42):11770–11775. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607171113

  2. Akerlof K, Maibach EW, Fitzgerald D, Cedeno AY, Neuman A (2013) Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob Environ Chang 23(1):81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.006

  3. Bollen KA, Curran PJ (2006) Latent curve models: a structural equation perspective. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken

  4. Broomell SB, Winkles J-F, Kane PB (2017) The perception of daily temperatures as evidence of global warming. Weather Climate Soc 9:563–574. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0003.1

  5. Cheadle B (2016). Wildfire in heart of oilsands country serves as latest climate change flashpoint. Retrieved September 20, 2019, from National Observer website: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/05/04/news/wildfire-heart-oilsands-country-serves-latest-climate-change-flashpoint

  6. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112:155–159

  7. Curran PJ, Obeidat K, Losardo D (2010) Twelve frequently asked questions about growth curve modeling. J Cogn Dev 11(2):121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248371003699969

  8. Dietz T, Dan A, Shwom R (2007) Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociol 72(2):185–214. https://doi.org/10.1526/003601107781170026

  9. Ding D, Maibach EW, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2011) Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat Clim Chang 1:462–466. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1295

  10. Drummond A, Hall LC, Sauer JD, Palmer MA (2018) Is public awareness and perceived threat of climate change associated with governmental mitigation targets? Clim Chang 149(2):159–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2230-2

  11. Fischer EM, Knutti R (2015) Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nat Clim Chang 5(6):560. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2617

  12. Fischer EH, Dornelas EA, Goethe JW (2001) Characteristics of people lost to attrition in psychiatric follow-up studies. J Nerv Ment Dis 189(1):49–55

  13. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9(2):127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739

  14. Flannigan M, Cantin AS, de Groot WJ, Wotton M, Newbery A, Gowman LM (2013) Global wildland fire season severity in the 21st century. For Ecol Manag 294:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.10.022

  15. Gifford R (2011) The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 66:290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566

  16. Gillett NP, Weaver AJ, Zwiers FW, Flannigan MD (2004) Detecting the effect of climate change on Canadian forest fires. Geophys Res Lett 31(18):L18211. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020876

  17. Goodman JS, Blum TC (1996) Assessing the non-random sampling effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. J Manag 22(4):627–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639602200405

  18. Government of Canada (2019). Market snapshot: Impacts of the Fort McMurray wildfires on Canadian crude oil production. Retrieved September 20, 2019, from https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/snpsht/2016/05-02frtmcmrr-eng.html

  19. Hall MP, Lewis NA, Ellsworth PC (2018) Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: evidence from a one-year longitudinal study. J Environ Psychol 56:55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.03.001

  20. Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG, Fielding KS (2016) Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6(6):622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943

  21. Howe PD (2018) Perceptions of seasonal weather are linked to beliefs about global climate change: evidence from Norway. Clim Chang 148(4):467–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2210-6

  22. Hox JJ (2002) Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

  23. Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. Retrieved from http://www.UVIC.eblib.com/EBLWeb/patron/?target=patron&extendedid=P_922196_0

  24. Jones C, Hine DW, Marks ADG (2017) The future is now: reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Anal 37(2):331–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12601

  25. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14(2):147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246

  26. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

  27. Kline, R. B. (2012). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (Third edition). Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/detail.action?docID=570362

  28. Klöckner CA (2015) The Psychology of Pro-Environmental Communication—Beyond Standard Information Strategies. Palgrave Macmillan: UK.

  29. Konisky DM, Hughes L, Kaylor CH (2016) Extreme weather events and climate change concern. Clim Chang 134(4):533–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1555-3

  30. Krugel, L. (2016). Fort McMurray wildfire named Canada’s news story of 2016. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from Global news website: https://globalnews.ca/news/3138183/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-named-canadas-news-story-of-2016/

  31. Lacroix K, Gifford R (2018) Psychological barriers to energy conservation behavior: the role of worldviews and climate change risk perception. Environ Behav 50:749–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517715296

  32. Landry N, Gifford R, Milfont TL, Weeks A, Arnocky S (2018) Learned helplessness moderates the relationship between environmental concern and behavior. J Environ Psychol 55:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.003

  33. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Vaughan S (2013) The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat Clim Chang 3:399–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1720

  34. Lindell, M. (2013). North American cities at rrsk: household responses to environmental hazards. In Advances in natural and technological hazards research. Cities at Risk (pp. 109–130). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6184-1_7

  35. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF, O’Connor RE (2005) Dangerous climate change: the role for risk research. Risk Anal 25(6):1387–1398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00686.x

  36. Maibach E, Myers T, Leiserowitz A (2014) Climate scientists need to set the record straight: there is a scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening. Earth’s Future 2(5):2013EF000226. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013EF000226

  37. Maio GR, Verplanken B, Manstead ASR, Stroebe W, Abraham C, Sheeran P, Conner M (2007) Social psychological factors in lifestyle change and their relevance to policy. Soc Issues Policy Rev 1(1):99–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2007.00005.x

  38. Martin WE, Martin IM, Kent B (2009) The role of risk perceptions in the risk mitigation process: the case of wildfire in high risk communities. J Environ Manag 91(2):489–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.007

  39. Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Portner H-O, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla P R, Waterfield T (2018) IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

  40. Mazur A (2006) Risk perception and news coverage across nations. Risk Manag 8(3):149–174

  41. McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Xiao C (2013) Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Clim Chang 119(2):511–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9

  42. McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Xiao C (2014) The impacts of temperature anomalies and political orientation on perceived winter warming. Nat Clim Chang 4:1077–1081. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2443

  43. McDonald RI, Chai HY, Newell BR (2015) Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: an integrative review. J Environ Psychol 44:109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003

  44. McGee TK, McFarlane BL, Varghese J (2009) An examination of the influence of hazard experience on wildfire risk perceptions and adoption of mitigation measures. Soc Nat Resour 22(4):308–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920801910765

  45. Mckenzie-Mohr DS (2009) Fostering sustainable behavior. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island

  46. Myers TA, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Akerlof K, Leiserowitz AA (2013) The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nat Clim Chang 3(4):343–347. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1754

  47. Nicholson JS, Deboeck PR, Howard W (2015) Attrition in developmental psychology: a review of modern missing data reporting and practices. Int J Behav Dev 41(1):143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415618275

  48. Pachauri RK, & Meyer LA (Eds) (2014) IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014 synthesis report. In Climate Change 2014: Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1–169). Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf

  49. Park HS, Vedlitz A (2013) Climate hazards and risk status: explaining climate risk assessment, behavior, and policy support. Sociol Spectr 33(3):219–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2013.732900

  50. Rast P, Hofer SM (2014) Longitudinal design considerations to optimize power to detect variances and covariances among rates of change: simulation results based on actual longitudinal studies. Psychol Methods 19:133–154

  51. Reser, J. P., Bradley, G. L., Ellul, M. C., & Callaghan, R. (2012). Public risk perceptions, understandings, and responses to climate change and natural disasters in Australia and Great Britain (p. 298). Retrieved from National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, website: https://www.nccarf.edu.au/publications/public-risk-perceptions-final

  52. Reynolds L (2010) The sum of the parts: can we really reduce carbon emissions through individual behaviour change? Perspect Publ Health 130(1):41–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913909354150

  53. Rhodes E, Axsen J, Jaccard M (2014) Does effective climate policy require well-informed citizen support? Glob Environ Chang 29:92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.001

  54. Romero-Lankao P, Smith JB, Davidson DJ, Diffenbaugh DJ, Kinney KJ, Kirshen MD et al (2014) North America. In: Barros VR, Field CB, Dokken DJ, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Bilir TE et al (eds) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1439–1498

  55. Romps DM, Seeley JT, Vollaro D, Molinari J (2014) Projected increase in lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming. Science 346(6211):851–854. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259100

  56. Rudman LA, McLean MC, & Bunzl M (2013) When truth Is personally inconvenient, attitudes change: The impact of extreme weather on implicit support for green politicians and explicit climate-change beliefs. Psychol Sci 24:2290–2296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613492775

  57. Safi AS, Smith WJ, Liu Z (2012) Rural Nevada and climate change: vulnerability, beliefs, and risk perception. Risk Anal 32(6):1041–1059. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01836.x

  58. Schultz PW (2014) Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: lots of tools but few instructions. Eur Psychol 19(2):107–117. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000163

  59. Sisco, M. R., Bosetti, V., & Weber, E. U. (2017). When do extreme weather events generate attention to climate change? Climatic Change, 143:227–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1984-2

  60. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

  61. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtensein S (1982) Facts versus fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 463–489

  62. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177(3):1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006

  63. Spence A, Poortinga W, Butler C, Pidgeon NF (2011) Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nat Clim Chang 1(1):46–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1059

  64. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano G, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6:81–97

  65. Stevens J (2002) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 4th edn. Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Mahwah

  66. Swim, J., Howard, G., Clayton, S., Reser, J. P., Doherty, T. J., Stern, P. C., … Weber, E. U. (2009). Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges (pp. 1–108). Retrieved from American Psychological Association website: http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx

  67. Swim JK, Markowitz EM, Bloodhart B (2012) Psychology and climate change: beliefs, impacts, and human contributions. In: Clayton SD (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199733026-e-33

  68. van der Linden S (2015) The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: towards a comprehensive model. J Environ Psychol 41:112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012

  69. van der Linden SL, Leiserowitz A, Feinberg GD, Maibach EW (2014) How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors? | SpringerLink. Clim Chang 126:255–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1190-4

  70. van der Linden SL, Leiserowitz AA, Feinberg GD, Maibach EW (2015a) The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence. PLoS One 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489

  71. van der Linden SL, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A (2015b) Improving public engagement with climate change: five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspect Psychol Sci 10(6):758–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598516

  72. van der Linden SL, Leiserowitz A, Rosenthal S, Maibach E (2017) Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Chall. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008

  73. Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Taking Care: Understanding and Encouraging Self-Protective Behavior. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.ca/Taking-Care-Understanding-Encouraging-Self-Protective/dp/0521154448

  74. Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S, Lorenzoni I (2013) Public engagement with climate change: what do we know and where do we go from here? Int J Media Cult Politics 9(1):7–25. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.9.1.7_1

  75. Witte K, Allen M (2000) A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav 27(5):591–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506

  76. Xue W, Hine DW, Marks ADG, Phillips WJ, Nunn P, Zhao S (2016) Combining threat and efficacy messaging to increase public engagement with climate change in Beijing, China. Clim Chang 137(1):43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1678-1

  77. Zanocco C, Boudet H, Nilson R, Satein H, Whitley H, Flora J (2018) Place, proximity, and perceived harm: extreme weather events and views about climate change. Clim Chang 149(3):349–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2251-x

Download references


The authors would like to thank Natalie Ban, Jiaying Zhao, and Myles Maillet.


This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

K. L. conceptualized the research and led the analysis. R. G. assisted with the research design and the acquisition of data. J. R. contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data. K.L. prepared the manuscript with input from all authors.

Correspondence to Karine Lacroix.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material


(DOCX 373 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lacroix, K., Gifford, R. & Rush, J. Climate change beliefs shape the interpretation of forest fire events. Climatic Change (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02584-6

Download citation


  • Forest fire
  • Climate change risk perception
  • Climate policy support
  • Growth curve model
  • Latent growth model
  • Quasi-experimental