Skip to main content

Public understanding of climate change terminology

Abstract

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other institutions communicate about climate change to diverse audiences without a background in climate science, including the general public. The effectiveness of these communications depends in part on how well the presented terminology is understood. In qualitative interviews, we examined how US residents interpreted key terms drawn from IPCC reports, including tipping point, unprecedented transition, carbon neutral, carbon dioxide removal, adaptation, mitigation, sustainable development, and abrupt change. We recruited twenty participants with diverse views on climate change from a nationally representative sample. We identified common themes and misunderstandings. Overall, 88% of the themes arose by the tenth interview, and no new themes arose after the seventeenth interview. Mitigation, carbon neutral, and unprecedented transition were perceived as the most difficult to understand. Adaptation and abrupt change were perceived as the easiest to understand. However, even if a term appeared to be understood, participants were not always clear about how it applied to climate change. Participants tended to draw on their mental models of non-climate contexts where terms had different meanings. Reading the terms in the context of sentences taken from communication materials was not always helpful due to the use of complex language. Based on participants’ interpretations and the science communication literature, we provide suggestions for communicating about each term. Generally, recommendations are to simplify wording, make links to climate change explicit, and describe underlying processes. Our findings are relevant to climate change communications by the IPCC and other institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. To check the readability of a document in Microsoft Word, go to File > Options > Proofing and turn on “Select readability statistics.”

  2. Six participants (30%) referred to “emissions” though one participant deemed that term confusing due to its association with “exhaust emissions” (interview 15).

  3. The sentence also used a “c” that participants guessed was Celsius (interview 12), though they noted that it would have been easier for an American audience to understand if it was changed to Fahrenheit (interview 5).

References

  • Aldridge (2004) Writing and designing readable patient education materials. Nephrol Nurs J 31:373–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Badullovich N, Grant W, Colvin R (2020) Framing climate change for effective communication: a systematic map. Environ Res Lett 15:123002

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkemeyer R, Dessai SD, Monge-Sanz B, Renzi BG, Napolitano G (2015) Linguistic analysis of IPCC summaries for policy makers and associated coverage. Nat Clim Change 6:311–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruine de Bruin W, Bostrom A (2013) Assessing what to address in science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:14062–14068

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruine de Bruin W, Dugan A (2021) On the differential predictors of climate change concerns and severe weather concerns: evidence from the World Risk Poll. Manuscript under review

  • Bruine de Bruin W, Morgan MG (2019) Reflections on an interdisciplinary collaboration to inform public understanding of climate change, mitigation, and impacts. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116:7676–7683

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruine de Bruin W, Van der Klaauw W, Topa G, Downs JS, Fischhoff B, Armantier O (2012) The effect of question wording on consumers’ reported inflation expectations. J Econ Psychol 4:749–757

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Read D (1994) What do people know about global climate change?: 1. Mental models. Risk Anal 14:959–970 Busselle R. Schema theory and mental models. The international encyclopedia of media effects (2017): 1-8.

  • Chryst B, Marlon J, van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C (2018) Global warming six Americas Short Survey: audience segmentation of climate change views using a four-question instrument. Env Comm 8:1109–1122

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutts M (2013) Oxford guide to plain English. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Daraz L, Macdermid JC, Wilkins S, Gibson J, Shaw L (2011) The quality of websites addressing fibromyalgia: an assessment of quality and readability using standardized tools. BMJ-Open:1–10

  • Davis TC, Wolf M, Bass PF III, Middlebrooks M, Kennen E, Baker DW, Bennett CL, Durazo-Arvizu R, Bocchini A, Savory S, Parker RM (2006) Low literacy impairs comprehension of prescription drug warning labels. J Gen Intern Med 21:847–851

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryden R, Morgan MG, Bostrom A, Bruine de Bruin W. (2018) Public perceptions of how long air pollution and carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere. Risk Anal 38:525-534 Gentner D (2002) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, eds Smelser NJ, Bates PB (Elsevier, Amsterdam), pp 9683–9687.

  • Fleishman-Mayer LA, Bruine de Bruin W (2014) The ‘mental models’ methodology for developing communications: adaptations for informing public risk management decisions about emerging technologies. In: Arvai J, Rivers L III (eds) Effective risk communication. Routledge, New York, pp 165–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Applied Psychol 32:221–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt R, Bruine de Bruin W, Dessai S, Taylor A (2019) Investing in a good pair of wellies: how do non-experts interpret the expert terminology of climate change impacts and adaptation? Clim Change 155:257–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt A (2010) Using the telephone for narrative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res 10:113–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefford M, Moore R (2008) Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol 9:485–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadayat B, Eika E (2020) Impact of sentence length on the readability of web for screen reader users. In: Antona M., Stephanidis C. (eds) Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design Approaches and Supporting Technologies. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12188. Springer, Cham

  • Kempton W (1986) Two theories of home heat control. Cogn Sci 10(1):75–90

  • Kincaid JP, Fishburne Jr RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel (No. RBR-8-75). Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch.

  • Kvale S, Brinkmann S (2009) Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyndhurst B (2007) Public understanding of sustainable energy consumption in the home. Final Report to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Defra, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall S (1995) Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy D, Fünfgeld H, Bosomworth K (2013) Resilience and climate change adaptation: the importance of framing. Planning Practice & Research 28:280–293

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG reading—a new readability formula. J Reading 12:639–646

    Google Scholar 

  • Michie S, Lester K (2008) Words matter: increasing the implementation of clinical guidelines. Qual Saf Health Care 14:367–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Midanik LT, Greenfield TK (2003) Telephone vs in-person interviews for alcohol use: results of the 2000 National Alcohol Survey. Drug Alcohol Depend 72:209–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ (2002) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton TA, Rabinovich A, Marshall D, Bretschneider P (2011) The future that may (or may not) come: how framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Glob Environ Change 21:103–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Moum T (1998) Mode of administration and interviewer effects in self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression. Soc Indic Res 45:279–318

    Google Scholar 

  • NAS (2016) Communicating science effectively: a research agenda. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B (2010) Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1:97–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian NJ (1992) Cognitive Models of Science, ed Giere RN (Univ of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis), pp 3–45.

  • Neuhauser L, Paul K (2011) Readability, comprehension, and usability. In: Fischhoff B, Brewer NT, Downs JS (eds) Communicating risks and benefits: an evidence-based user guide. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick G (2008) Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Res Nurs Health 31:391–398

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill S, Williams HT, Kurz T, Wiersma B, Boykoff M (2015) Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nat Clim Change 5:380–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakland T, Lane HB (2009) Language, reading, and readability formulas. Int J Testing 4:239–252

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2013) Country note – survey of adult skills. https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Country%20note%20-%20United%20States.pdf

  • Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL (2003) Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med 348:721–726

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce W, Holmberg K, Hellsten I, Nerlich B (2014) Climate change on Twitter: topics, communities, and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group I report. PLoS One 9:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds TW, Bostrom A, Read D, Morgan M.G (2010) Now what do people know about global climate change? Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Anal 30:1520-1538

  • Russill C, Nyssa Z (2009) The tipping point trend in climate change communication. Glob Environ Change 19:336–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuldt JP, Konrath SH, Schwarz N (2011) "Global warming" or "climate change"? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opin Q 75:115-124

  • Smith SK, Trevena L, Nutbeam D, Barratt A, McCaffery KJ (2008) Information needs and preferences of low and high-literacy consumers for decisions about colorectal cancer screening: utilizing a linguistic model. Health Expect 11:123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Spradley JP (1979) The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehard and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ (2004) Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res 4:107–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor AL, Bruine de Bruin W, Dessai S (2014). Climate change beliefs and perceptions of weather-related changes in the United Kingdom. Risk Anal 34:1995-2004

  • Tvinnereim E, Fløttum K (2015) Explaining topic prevalence in answers to open-ended survey questions about climate change. Nat Clim Change 5:744–747

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Kasteren Y (2014) How are householders talking about climate change adaptation? J Environ Psychol 40:339–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Villar A, Krosnick JA (2011) Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: does word choice matter? Clim change 105:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber EU, Stern PC (2011) Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am Psychol 66:315-328 Whitmarsh L (2009) What's in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of "climate change" and "global warming" Pub Underst Sci 18: 401-420

  • Whitmarsh L, Seyfang G, O’Neill S (2011) Public engagement with carbon and climate change: to what extent is the public ‘carbon capable’? Glob Environ Change 21:56–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong-Parodi G, Bruine de Bruin W (2017) Informing public perceptions about climate change: A 'mental models' approach. Sci Eng Ethics 23: 1369-1386

  • Wong-Parodi G, Strauss BH (2014) Team science for science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:13658–13663

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong-Parodi G, Bruine de Bruin W, Canfield C (2013) Effects of simplifying outreach materials for energy conservation programs that target low-income consumers. Energy Policy 62:1157–1164

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project is a collaboration between the University of Southern California and the United Nations Foundation. This research was supported by the University of Southern California Dornsife College Public Exchange. Wändi Bruine de Bruin was additionally supported by the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making (CEDM) through a cooperative agreement between the National Science Foundation and Carnegie Mellon University (SES-0949710).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wändi Bruine de Bruin.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

This article is part of the topical collection "Climate Change Communication and the IPCC", edited by Saffron O'Neill and Roz Pidcock

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bruine de Bruin, W., Rabinovich, L., Weber, K. et al. Public understanding of climate change terminology. Climatic Change 167, 37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03183-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03183-0

Keywords

  • Science communication
  • Climate change
  • Expert terminology
  • Public understanding