Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF CLIMATE CHANGE:
INFLUENCES OF COLLEGE MAJOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
MEMBERSHIP ON UNDERGRADUATE KNOWLEDGE AND
MENTAL MODELS
by
Joanna Huxster
A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Marine
Studies
Spring 2013
© 2013 Joanna Huxster All Rights Reserved
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI 3594926Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
UMI Number: 3594926
STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF CLIMATE CHANGE:
INFLUENCES OF COLLEGE MAJOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
MEMBERSHIP ON UNDERGRADUATE KNOWLEDGE AND
MENTAL MODELS
by
Joanna Huxster
Approved: __________________________________________________________ Mark A. Moline, Ph.D. Director of the School of Marine Science and Policy Approved: __________________________________________________________ Nancy M. Targett, Ph.D. Dean of the College of College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment Approved: __________________________________________________________ James G. Richards, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Signed: __________________________________________________________ Willett Kempton, Ph.D. Professor in charge of dissertation I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets
the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Signed: __________________________________________________________ John Madsen, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets
the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Signed: __________________________________________________________ Nancy Brickhouse, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets
the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Signed: __________________________________________________________ James Randy McGinnis, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Signed: __________________________________________________________ Dana E. Veron, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee
iv iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have never been the type of person who takes the most straightforward route
through life, and the road to the completion of my dissertation has been no exception.
This journey would not have been possible without the assistance and support of many
important people along the way. Thank you to the School of Marine Policy, and
especially to Dr. Willett Kempton for his invaluable advice, inspiration and guidance. My
sincerest thanks go to Dr. John Madsen for his interdisciplinary perspective, his interest
in effective communication, and his sheer enthusiasm. Thank you to Dr. Randy McGinnis
and Dr. Nancy Brickhouse for helping me to wade into the field of education in my
pursuit of a more complete and applicable dissertation. Thank you to Dr. Dana Veron for
her insight, unhesitating generosity and flexibility in a pinch. My most profound gratitude
is owed to Dr. Ximena Uribe-Zarain, who volunteered her time to a graduate student in
need and became one of the most integral and irreplaceable sources of guidance in this
adventure. For her generous statistical and emotional assistance, I not only consider her a
brilliant scholar, but also a saint. Many thanks go to my family, friends, and fellow
graduate students for their unwavering support, advice, and comic relief. To my
grandparents for inspiring me to dream big and work very, very hard. To my parents for
supporting me when I insist on taking the road less traveled and learning the hard way.
Finally, my deepest appreciation goes to the student participants in the survey and
interview process, without whom this dissertation would not have been possible. This
research was partially supported by the University of Delaware Sustainability Fund and
by a grant for Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL-0455781)
from the National Science Foundation.
v v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... viii!LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... xv!ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... xvii Chapter
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1!
Overview of Dissertation .................................................................................... 3!
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 6!
Climate Change Science and Scientific Consensus ............................................ 6!American Environmental Values and Scientific Understanding ...................... 11!Mental and Cultural Models ............................................................................. 17!
Knowledge and Mental Models of Action ................................................. 19!
Climate Change Risk Perception, Personal Action and Communication ......... 21!
Risk Perception: Affective Imagery, Values and Ideology ........................ 22!Personal Relevancy, Responsibility and Efficacy ...................................... 24!Designing Climate Change Communication .............................................. 25!
Science Education and Climate Change ........................................................... 27!
Learning Progressions in Science Education ............................................. 27!Socio-Scientific Issues ................................................................................ 28!
3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................................ 31!
Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................ 31!The Climate Science Model and the Climate Action Model ............................ 32!
Climate science model ................................................................................ 33!Climate action model .................................................................................. 34!
Interview Methods and Sampling ..................................................................... 35!Survey Methods and Sampling ......................................................................... 38!
Survey Demographics ................................................................................ 42!
vi vi
Mixed Methods Analysis .................................................................................. 44!Sources of Error ................................................................................................ 48!
4 MIXED METHOD ANALYSIS: STUDENT MENTAL MODELS ............... 49!
Environmental Values and Attitudes .......................................................... 50!Models of the Mechanisms and Causes of Climate Change ...................... 55!Models of Action and Urgency .................................................................. 63!Models of Climate Change Conflict and Source Reliability ...................... 80!Models of Scientific Certainty, Media Certainty and Public Certainty ...... 85!
5 MIXED METHOD ANALYSIS: COMPARISON OF THE FOUR STUDENT SETS ................................................................................................................. 91!
Students belonging to an environmental group and enrolled in a science major (Sci/Env Set) .................................................................................... 92!Students enrolled in a science major and not belonging to an environmental group (Sci/Non-Env Set) .................................................. 116!Students belonging to an environmental group and not enrolled in a science major (Non-Sci/Env Set) ............................................................. 137!Students not enrolled in a science major and not belonging to an environmental group (Non-Sci/Non-Env Set) .......................................... 153!Outliers and Interesting Cases .................................................................. 163!
Patrick and Carlos ............................................................................... 163!Skepticism in Geology Majors ........................................................... 166!Citing class for incorrect information ................................................. 171!
6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS ................................. 174!
Analysis of Knowledge Variables ............................................................ 174!
Analysis of Knowledge Scores ........................................................... 174!Factor Analysis of Knowledge Variables ........................................... 178!Knowledge Factor Subscores ............................................................. 182!
Analysis of Opinion Variables ................................................................. 190!
Factor Analysis of Opinion Variables ................................................ 190!Opinion Factor Subscores ................................................................... 193!
Comparison of Knowledge and Opinion Variable Factor Subscores ....... 199!Analysis of Source Variables ................................................................... 208!
Overall Climate Change Interest and Knowledge .............................. 209!Source Types ...................................................................................... 210!
University Classes ........................................................................ 211!
vii vii
News and Media ........................................................................... 212!Non-News Internet ....................................................................... 213!Source Type Distribution ............................................................. 213!
Source Reliability ............................................................................... 214!Source Conflict ................................................................................... 215!Campus as a Source ............................................................................ 216!Climate Skepticism in University Classes .......................................... 217!
7 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 219!
Student Environmental Values and Climate Change Concern ....................... 219!Student Mental Models of Climate Change ................................................... 222!
Mental Models for the Physical Process of Climate Change ................... 222!Interaction of factors and mental model elements .................................... 228!Uncertainty and Self-Identified Ignorance ............................................... 234!
Student Set Mental Models ............................................................................ 237!
Discussion of the Sci/Env Set: Students enrolled in a science major and belonging to an environmental group ................................................ 237!Discussion of the Sci/Non-Env Set: Students enrolled in a science major and not belonging to an environmental group ................................ 239!Discussion of the Non-Sci/Env Set: Students not enrolled in a science major and belonging to an environmental group ...................................... 241!Discussion of the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set: Students not enrolled in a science major and not belonging to an environmental group ................... 244!Influence of Science Major and Environmental Group Membership ....... 246!
Source Types and Source Evaluation ............................................................. 247!
Source Use ................................................................................................ 247!Reliability Evaluation ............................................................................... 248!
8 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 252!
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 257 Appendix
A SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW BASE QUESTIONS ......................... 264!B SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SAMPLING TABLE ........................ 266!C SURVEY INVITATION EMAIL .................................................................. 268!D SURVEY OF STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF
CLIMATE CHANGE ..................................................................................... 269!E SURVEY VARIABLE GROUPINGS ........................................................... 293!F SURVEY VARIABLE FACTOR GROUPINGS .......................................... 300!
viii viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1! Survey Sample compared with entire Student Body Demographics: Gender and Ethnicity in separate graphs .................................................... 42!
Table 2! Distribution of Student Respondents in the Four Student Sets .................. 44!
Table 3! 2.3 Sometimes environmental concerns are exaggerated, but I think the exaggeration is justified because the environment is very important (N=756) ...................................................................................................... 53!
Table 4! 2.4 Environmental problems are not exaggerated, if anything they are understated (N=745) ................................................................................... 54!
Table 5! 2.5 Sometimes when environmentalists are concerned about an issue, they exaggerate and stray from the facts (N=729) ..................................... 54!
Table 6! 2.18 Climate change is caused by an increased amount of gases like carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere (N=682) ........................... 56!
Table 7! 2.23 Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps heat and causes climate change (N=566) ................................ 56!
Table 8! 2.11 Climate change is happening because we are depleting the ozone layer and that lets in more heat from the sun. (N=672) .............................. 58!
Table 9! 2.16 Greenhouse gases make the hole in the ozone layer worse (N=633) ...................................................................................................... 58!
Table 10! 2.21 Climate change happens because we release chemicals from aerosol cans into the atmosphere (N=581) ................................................. 59!
Table 11! 2.22 Nuclear power plants create pollution that causes climate change (N=571) ...................................................................................................... 60!
Table 12! 2.15 Toxic pollution in the atmosphere causes climate change (N=641) ...................................................................................................... 61!
Table 13! 2.62 From my sources I’ve learned that too much emphasis is put on the human element of climate change, rather than the natural elements (N=472) ...................................................................................................... 63!
Table 14! 2.27 I’ve heard that driving less and using bicycles and public transportation are ways to reduce climate change (N=531) ....................... 64!
ix ix
Table 15! 2.14 Gas and chemical emissions from our cars deplete the ozone and cause climate change (N=648) ................................................................... 65!
Table 16! 2.42 I’ve heard that using efficient light bulbs, turning off electric appliances and insulating my house are all ways I can reduce my contribution to climate change (N=494) ..................................................... 67!
Table 17! 2.44 Recycling is essential to reducing climate change because it keeps plastic out of landfills and reduces production (N=485) .................. 68!
Table 18! 2.36 I can help prevent climate change by not buying or using aerosol cans (N=505) .................................................................................. 69!
Table 19! 2.41 I am not sure how my personal actions specifically effect climate change (N=465) ............................................................................. 70!
Table 20! 2.43 The government could put more resources into developing alternative and renewable sources of energy in order to reduce climate change (N=489) ............................................................................. 71!
Table 21! 2.40 We need to change our transportation, like creating better public transportation, in order to make a big impact on climate change (N=501) ...................................................................................................... 72!
Table 22! 2.32 The government could tax carbon emissions or introduce a system of cap and trade in an effort to reduce climate change (N=513) .... 73!
Table 23! 2.28 The government should better educate us about environmental problems (N=529) ...................................................................................... 74!
Table 24! 2.35 The government can reduce climate change by regulating toxic pollution (N=507) ....................................................................................... 75!
Table 25! 2.13 I know that changes in the atmosphere cause climate change, but I don’t know very much about the scientific processes that make it happen (N=658) ....................................................................................... 76!
Table 26! 2.51 I hear people talk about climate change, but I don’t really look for information about it (N=481) ................................................................ 77!
Table 27! 2.9 I think climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science supports (N=695) ........................................................................... 78!
Table 28! 2.73 I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face today and I think it gets too much press (N=466) ...................................................................................................... 79!
x x
Table 29! 2.53 I have seen and heard arguments both for and against the existence of climate change (N=482) ......................................................................... 81!
Table 30! 2.72 There is a lot of conflicting information in the media about climate change (N=465) ............................................................................. 81!
Table 31! 2.56 I think a source is reliable if it shows both sides of the climate change debate (N=478) ............................................................................... 82!
Table 32! 2.63 I don’t trust a source that sounds too certain about climate change because I know there is a lot of uncertainty (N=471) .................... 83!
Table 33! 2.47 I trust the information I get about climate change if I see the same information in multiple sources (N=481) .......................................... 83!
Table 34! 2.66 When I read an article about climate change, I trust it more if it quotes or references a scientist (N=471) ................................................. 84!
Table 35! 2.10 Scientists are highly certain that humans are definitely the cause of the current, rapid climate change (N=682) ................................... 86!
Table 36! 2.75 It’s hard for scientists to be certain about anything, but I think the patterns and trends they see in climate change have them pretty well convinced (N=466) ............................................................................. 86!
Table 37! 2.69 I think scientists are certain that the climate is changing, but not about who or what is responsible (N=467) .......................................... 87!
Table 38! 2.74 Even if the science is not clear to me, I think it is better to act and be safe rather than sorry (N=466) ........................................................ 90!
Table 39! Set Responses: 2.18 Climate change is caused by an increased amount of gases like carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere (N=682) ...................................................................................................... 93!
Table 40! Set Responses: 2.23 Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps heat and causes climate change (N=566) ...................................................................................................... 93!
Table 41! Set Responses: 2.25 Even though it’s sometimes debated, I feel that it’s pretty well documented that humans have released too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (N=558) ............................................. 94!
Table 42! Set Responses: 2.27 I’ve heard that driving less and using bicycles and public transportation are ways to reduce climate change (N=531) ...................................................................................................... 96!
xi xi
Table 43! Set Responses: 2.28 The government should better educate us about environmental problems (N=529) .............................................................. 98!
Table 44! Set Responses: 2.43 The government could put more resources into developing alternative and renewable sources of energy in order to reduce climate change (N=489) ................................................................ 100!
Table 45! Set Responses: 2.60 In my classes I’ve learned about climate change and the greenhouse effect (N=467) .............................................. 101!
Table 46! Set Responses: 2.58 I hear a lot about environmental issues just being on a college campus (N=476) ......................................................... 103!
Table 47! Set Responses: 2.53 I have seen and heard arguments both for and against the existence of climate change (N=482) ..................................... 106!
Table 48! Set Responses: 2.65 I have a professor who doesn’t really “believe” in climate change (N=471) ....................................................................... 108!
Table 49! Set Responses: 2.10 Scientists are highly certain that humans are definitely the cause of current, rapid climate change (N=642) ................ 110!
Table 50! Set Responses: 2.75 It’s hard for scientists to be certain about anything, but I think the patterns and trends they see in climate change have them pretty well convinced (N=466) ................................... 111!
Table 51! Set Responses: 2.74 Even if the science is not clear to me, I think it is better to act and be safe rather than sorry (N=466) ........................... 115!
Table 52! Set Responses: 2.9 I think climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science supports (N=695) .................................................. 118!
Table 53! Set Responses: 2.42 I’ve heard that using energy efficient light bulbs, turning off electric appliances, and insulating my house are all ways I can reduce my contribution to climate change (N=494) .......... 120!
Table 54! Set Responses: 2.40 We need to change our transportation, like creating better public transportation, in order to make a big impact on climate change (N=501) ...................................................................... 120!
Table 55! Set Responses: 2.32 The government could tax carbon emissions or introduce a system of cap and trade in an effort to reduce climate change (N=513) ........................................................................................ 123!
Table 56! Set Responses: 2.57 I have had to research climate change for a class before (N=478) ................................................................................ 125!
xii xii
Table 57! Set Responses: 2.50 When I look for information about climate change, I try to find the original scientific studies and data backing up what I see in the news (N=481) ........................................................... 127!
Table 58! Set Responses: 2.56 I think a source is reliable if it shows both sides of the climate change debate (N=471) ............................................. 128!
Table 59! Set Responses: 2.63 I don’t trust a source that sounds too certain about climate change because I know there is a lot of uncertainty (N=471) .................................................................................................... 129!
Table 60! Set Responses: 2.3 There is a lot of conflicting information in the media about climate change (N=465) ....................................................... 130!
Table 61! Set Responses: 2.69 I think scientists are certain that the climate is changing, but not about who or what is responsible (N=467) .................. 133!
Table 62! Set Responses: 2.70 The climate has changed a lot in the past, so I think we might be making too big a deal about how it’s changing now (N=467) ............................................................................................ 133!
Table 63! Set Responses: 2.73 I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face today and I think that it gets too much press (N=466) ................................................................ 136!
Table 64! Set Responses: 2.11 Climate change is happening because we are depleting the ozone layer and that lets in more heat from the sun. (N=672) .................................................................................................... 138!
Table 65! Set Responses: 2.13 I know that changes in the atmosphere cause climate change, but I don’t know very much about the scientific processes that make it happen (N=658) .................................................... 139!
Table 66! Set Responses: 2.14 Gas and chemical emissions from our cars deplete the ozone and cause climate change (N=648) .............................. 140!
Table 67! Set Responses: 2.44 Recycling is essential to reducing climate change because it keeps plastic out of landfills and reduces production (N=485) .................................................................................. 141!
Table 68! Set Responses: 2.41 I am not sure how my personal actions specifically effect climate change (N=465) .............................................. 142!
Table 69! Set Responses: 2.64 I get information about climate change from environmental websites (N=471) ............................................................. 144!
Table 70! Set Response: 2.66 When I read an article about climate change, I trust it more if it quotes or references a scientist (N=471) ..................... 146!
xiii xiii
Table 71! Set Responses: 2.72 There is a lot of conflicting information in the media about climate change (N=465) ................................................. 148!
Table 72! Set Responses: 2.68 I think that it’s generally pretty well accepted that climate change is occurring (N=467) ................................................ 148!
Table 73! Set Responses: 2.16 Greenhouse gases make the hole in the ozone layer worse (N=633) ................................................................................. 154!
Table 74! Set Responses: 2.15 Toxic pollution in the atmosphere causes climate change .......................................................................................... 155!
Table 75! Set Responses: 2.22 Nuclear power plants create pollution that causes climate change (N=571) ................................................................ 157!
Table 76! Set Responses: 2.35 The government can reduce climate change by regulating toxic pollution (N=507) ........................................................... 159!
Table 77! Set Responses: 2.47 I get a lot of information about the environment from news websites like CNN or MSNBC (N=482) ........... 160!
Table 78! Set Responses: 2.46 Most of my information about climate change comes from the news shows on TV .......................................................... 160!
Table 79! Set Responses: 2.47 I trust the information I get about climate change if I see the same information in multiple sources (N=481) .......... 161!
Table 80! Set Responses: 2.48 I tend to believe what I see and hear on major news networks because of their reputation (N=479) ...................... 162!
Table 81! Set Responses: 2.62 From my sources I’ve learned that too much emphasis is put on the human element of climate change, rather than the natural elements (N=472) ........................................................... 167!
Table 82! Set Responses: 2.61 My classes and information has focused more on the non-human causes of climate change (N=475) ............................. 168!
Table 83! Set Responses: 2.29 The government has too many other important issues to deal with right now to focus on climate change (N=529) .......... 171!
Table 84! Descriptive Statistics of Student Respondent Knowledge Scores ............ 175!
Table 85! Mean Knowledge Scores of Science and Science Education Majors ...... 177!
Table 86! Mean Knowledge Scores of the Four Student Sets .................................. 178!
Table 87! Factor Loadings of the Rotated Factors for Knowledge Variables .......... 181!
xiv xiv
Table 88! Mean “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” Subscores for each of the Sets ................................................................................................. 185!
Table 89! Mean “Issue Confusion” Subscores for each of the Sets ......................... 185!
Table 90! Average “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Subscores for each of the Sets ................................................................................................. 186!
Table 91! Factor Loadings of the Rotated Factors for Opinion Variables ............... 192!
Table 92! Percentages of “Acceptance” Subscores above .5 for each of the Sets .... 195!
Table 93! Percentages of “Self-Identified Ignorance” Subscores above .5 for each of the Sets ......................................................................................... 195!
Table 94! Percentages of “Skepticism” Subscores above .5 for each of the Sets ..... 196!
Table 95! Table of Figure Numbers for Knowledge and Opinion Factor Subscore Comparisons ............................................................................. 199!
Table 96! Interest and Knowledge Source Variables ............................................... 210!
Table 97! University Class Source Items .................................................................. 211!
Table 98! News and Media Source Items ................................................................. 212!
Table 99! Internet Source Items ................................................................................ 213!
Table 100! Distribution of Source Type Use in Student Respondents ....................... 214!
Table 101! Student Response Frequencies to Source Reliability Variables ............... 215!
Table 102! Student Response Frequencies to Source Conflict Variables ................... 216!
Table 103! Student Response Frequencies to Campus as a Source Variables ........... 216!
Table 104! Student Response Frequencies to Skepticism in Class Variables ............ 217!
xv xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1! !!!!Global Mean Radiative Forcings and Probability Distributions from IPCC 2007 ...................................................................................................... 7!
Figure 2! !!!!Frequencies of Student Selection of Environmental Issues for which they are Most Concerned (Students selected three choices) ......................... 51!
Figure 3! !!!Student Respondent Knowledge Score Distribution ................................... 176!
Figure 4! !!!!Relationship between “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” and “Issue Confusion” Knowledge Factor Subscores, divided into the Four Student Sets .................................................................................. 183!
Figure 5! !!!!Relationship Between “Issue Confusion” and “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Knowledge Factor Subscores, divided into the Four Student Sets ................................................................................................ 188!
Figure 6! !!!!Relationship Between “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” and “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Knowledge Factor Subscores, divided into the Four Student Sets .............................................................. 189!
Figure 7! !!!!Relationship Between “Acceptance” and “Self-Identified Ignorance” Opinion Factor Subscores, divided into the Four Student Sets .................. 194!
Figure 8! !!!!Relationships between “Self-Identified Ignorance” and “Skepticism” Opinion Factor Subcores, divided into the four Sets .................................. 197!
Figure 9! !!!!Relationships between “Acceptance” and “Skepticism” Opinion Factor Subscores, divided into the four Sets ......................................................... 198!
Figure 10! Relationship between the “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” Knowledge Factor Subscore and the “Acceptance” Opinion Factor Subscore. All Four Student Sets. ................................................................ 200!
Figure 11! Relationship between “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Self-Identified Ignorance” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four student sets. ....................................................... 201!
Figure 12! Relationship between “Predominantly Scientific Understading” Knowledge Factor and “Skepticism” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets .................................................................................. 202!
xvi xvi
Figure 13! Relationships between “Issue Confusion” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Acceptance” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets .......... 203!
Figure 14! Relationships between “Issue Confusion” Knowledge Factor Subscores and “Self-Identified Ignorance” Opinion Factor Subscores. All four Student Sets .................................................................................. 204!
Figure 15! Relationships between “Issue Confusion” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Skepticism” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets ........... 205!
Figure 16! Relationship between “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Acceptance” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets ................................................................................................ 206!
Figure 17! Relationships between “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Self-Identified Ignorance” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets .................................................................. 207!
Figure 18! Relationship between “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Skepticism” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets ................................................................................................ 208!
xvii xvii
ABSTRACT
A consensus has been reached within the scientific community concerning the
occurrence of climate change and its anthropogenic causes. Outside of this community,
however, there continues to be considerable debate and confusion surrounding the topic.
The government mitigation strategies and political leadership needed for this issue will
require the support of the public. University students represent an important sector of the
US public, as they are young, educated citizens who are highly invested in our future.
Studies examining public understanding of climate change in the 1990s through
the present find that despite high levels of concern for the environment, members of the
public frequently hold incorrect mental models of climate change. This dissertation
examines current mental models of climate change, using a sample of undergraduate
students at two Universities. Surveys were conducted at the University of Delaware and
at the University of Maryland (853 respondents, 465 completed surveys) and semi-
structured interviews were conducted at the University of Delaware (n=26). This data
was used to determine how students’ mental models compare to the scientific model of
climate change. Three primary aspects of climate change understanding are analyzed: the
causes, the effects, and possible mitigation strategies.
This research also examined the influence of scientific major and environmental
group membership on understanding of climate change. Science major and membership
in an environmental group were each found to increase student understanding of climate
change science, but these two causes had greater effects on different components of their
models.
This dissertation demonstrates that young, educated US citizens have a limited
understanding of the causes, effects, and mitigation strategies of climate change. This
xviii xviii
research also shows that students in science majors or in environmental groups are more
likely to have mental models of climate that closely match the scientific model, and that
environmental group membership is a stronger predictor of a more complete
understanding than science major. In general, the most common misconceptions seen in
students’ mental models involved incorrect transfer to climate change models of
inappropriate elements from models of other environmental issues, like ozone depletion
or criteria pollutants.
1 1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Although there is consensus within the scientific community about the occurrence
of climate change and its anthropogenic causes, there continues to be considerable
controversy and confusion surrounding the topic in the public and political spheres.
Several studies from the 1990s demonstrated that the public held mental models of
climate change that were not scientifically correct (Kempton et al 1995, Kempton 1991,
Kempton 1993, Bostrom et al 1994). The members of the public in these studies
demonstrated strong environmental values and most had heard of the issue of climate
change, or global warming as it was more commonly referred to in the 1990’s. However,
they were often misinformed and had combined multiple environmental issues into their
mental models of climate change.
Since the 1990s, climate change has been even more widely discussed. In 2010
Reynolds et al replicated the study performed by Bostrom et al in 1994, and found little
change in public mental models. Similarly, the Yale Project on Climate Change
Communication conducted a study in 2010, again surveying members of the American
public. This study found that little has changed in Americans’ knowledge of climate
change (Leiserowitz et. al.). The findings from both studies included persistent confusion
between climate change and other environmental issues such as ozone depletion.
This dissertation examines climate change mental models, beliefs, and values
using a sample of undergraduate students. As young, educated members of the United
States public, university students are an important indicator population. As voters, they
contribute to political and social change in the present, and they also represent the future
leaders and thinkers of the country. Student understanding of this urgent issue is critical
2 2
to the future of our global climate. Universities are dedicated to developing citizens with
an in-depth knowledge in their area of study, as well as a breadth of knowledge in
cultural, scientific and societal issues. Climate change is a socio-scientific issue that
involves scientific literacy, economic policy, ethics and politics. It is an issue that current
students will inherit and one for which they will become responsible for solving. Insight
into mental models will help inform environmental policy, climate change
communication, and informal education. Understanding the mental models of students in
higher education will also aid in evaluating the efficacy of the current educational system
on this socio-scientific issue, and help to identify ways in which it can be improved. In
sum, this dissertation will provide insight into student understanding of an important,
contentious, socially relevant issue, and to examine the mental models held by young,
educated citizens.
This research is comprised of mixed methods analysis, including semi-structured
interviews and surveys. The methodology and research format were updated from those
used by Kempton et al in the book Environmental Values in American Culture. The
sample population included undergraduate students from the University of Delaware and
the University of Maryland. The college students at these two Universities are
demographically comparable and they should have similar education levels when
controlled for graduation year. The students were sampled in four different categories
having to do with their college major and their membership in environmental groups.
This sampling structure was designed to capture a range in understanding, to test
hypotheses about differences among students by major or group membership, and to
identify the diverse sources of their knowledge. These sample categories are further
explained in the methods section.
Another important component of this study is the identification of students’
sources of information about climate change. In addition to classroom and environmental
group sources, media and the internet are examined for their role in students’ acquisition
3 3
of knowledge. In recent years, much of the media discussion of climate change has not
been of the scientific evidence and findings. Instead, the media attention has been
political. Coverage has focused on a falsified “controversy” about the science influenced
by the ideas of “climate skeptics,” many of whom are funded by interests in oil or coal
(Hoggan 2009). This type of political coverage and the continued emphasis on the
“controversy” seems to have further confused the public about the scientific basis of the
issue. Similarly, this coverage has caused the public to view climate change as a political
issue rather than a scientific one. Since the early 90s, the internet has become a vital
source of important information source for the public. Although the Internet makes
information easier to access in larger quantities, the quality of information from the
Internet is highly variable. This study will examine students’ sources of information but
also how they filter and select these sources.
Overview of Dissertation
Chapter 2 of this dissertation provides a review of literature relevant to this
research. This literature review includes summaries of current climate change science,
research on the existence of scientific consensus, previous studies of public
understanding of environmental issues and climate change, mental model theory, and
theories in science education research.
Chapter 3 reviews the scientific models of climate change to which the observed
mental models will be compared, then discusses the research questions this dissertation is
intended to address:
1. What environmental values do the undergraduate students at the University of
Delaware and the University of Maryland express?
4 4
2. What mental models do University of Delaware and University of Maryland
undergraduate students hold to explain climate change? How do their models
compare to the scientific model of climate change?
3. What are the students’ sources of information on climate change and how do
those sources influence their mental models?
a. How do students evaluate and sort through conflicting information they
receive from these sources?
b. What sources are the most important, as defined by the frequency of use
and identification of trust by the students?
4. How do the students’ mental models of climate change differ between student
environmentalists, climate-related science majors, and students from neither
category?
Chapter 3 outlines several hypotheses related to the above questions about the
student mental models of climate change and the role of science major and environmental
group membership on those mental models. Based on a brief set of pilot study interviews,
it was hypothesized that students hold only partially complete mental models of climate
change and they tend to confuse climate change with other environmental issues,
including ozone depletion and pollution. It was also hypothesized that students both
enrolled in science majors and belonging to environmental groups would have the most
complete understanding of climate change, and also that science major would have a
greater influence on climate change knowledge than environmental group membership.
Finally, it was hypothesized that classes and the internet are students’ primary sources of
information, but that students frequently do not check the validity of the information they
receive from their sources. Chapter 3 also reviews the research design and methodology
used in this dissertation, and explains the ways in which the data will be analyzed.
Chapter 4 covers the primary mixed methods results and analysis for this
research. In particular, Chapter 4 outlines the overall student mental models seen through
this research. Chapter 5 examines the mental models of each of the Student Sets and
5 5
compares the models of these groups through further mixed methods analysis. Chapter 6
covers the primary survey results and analysis.
Chapter 7 further discusses the findings of this study, their relationship to the
research questions. This chapter summarizes the findings on student’s values and climate
change concern, and then discusses the observed, primary mental models of climate
change, as well as the different, interconnected elements seen in these models. This
discussion also includes an evaluation and comparison of the mental models seen in the
different groups of students, as classified by major and environmental group membership,
and of the source types and valuation displayed by the respondents. Finally, Chapter 7
includes a discussion of possible sources of error and the conclusions of this research.
To preview my results, this dissertation finds that undergraduate students’ mental
models of climate change are generally incomplete and vague. It finds that students
frequently hold misconceptions about both the causes of climate change and also the
actions that can be taken to mitigate climate change. This research shows that while the
respondents frequently are able to recognize some aspects of the scientific model of
climate change, their mental models also include aspects of other environmental issues.
Although students cite a variety of resources, formal classes are given as the most
frequent source of climate change information among students. This indicates a possible
problem with the efficacy of current methods in climate change communication and
education. Finally, this research finds that although students in both science majors and
environmental groups have the most complete mental models of climate change,
environmental group membership is a greater indicator of climate change knowledge than
enrollment in a science major.
6 6
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Several areas of scientific literature are relevant to the topic of this dissertation.
The areas reviewed in this chapter are: climate change science and the scientific
consensus, studies of American environmental values and scientific understanding,
mental model theory, research in climate change risk perception and communication, and
current theory in science and climate change education.
Climate Change Science and Scientific Consensus
The current scientific understanding of climate change must be reviewed here to
provide a basis for comparing the mental models of the informants to the models held by
scientists on climate change. In this section of the literature review, the important
literature covering the mechanisms and causes of climate change as well as scientific
consensus on the topic will be examined.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published assessment
reports in 2001 and 2007. The scientific community considers these bodies of research
and the resulting reports the most authoritative works on climate change (Field and
Raupach 2004). The most recent assessment includes a summary of the natural and
human causes of climate change, an overview of the changes that have been observed in
the climate system, and projections for both the near-term and long-term future of the
earth’s climate.
According to the IPCC and the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the
mechanisms of climate change are as follows: the global mean climate is determined both
by incoming energy from the sun, as well as by properties of the earth and atmosphere,
7 7
including reflection and absorption of the sun’s energy. Increases in greenhouse gases,
such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), increase the
atmospheric absorption of outgoing radiation. The result of this increase in absorption is
called radiative forcing and produces a change in the global climate (Isaksen et al 2009).
In addition, the properties of the earth and atmosphere are influenced by climate
feedbacks, which heighten these climatic changes. Since the industrial revolution, the
largest factor in radiative forcing of the climate has been the increasing concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 and CH4 in particular have long-term
influences on the climate, as they are chemically stable over scales of centuries or more.
The following figures are from the IPCC 2007 report, showing the relative importance of
the various anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing items:
Figure 1 Global Mean Radiative Forcings and Probability Distributions from IPCC 2007
8 8
(a) Global mean radiative forcings (RF) and their 90% confidence intervals in 2005 for various agents and mechanisms. Columns on the right-hand side specify best estimates and confidence intervals (RF values); typical geographical extent of the forcing (Spatial scale); and level of scientific understanding (LOSU) indicating the scientific confidence level as explained in Section 2.9. Errors for CH4, N2O and halocarbons have been combined. The net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its range are also shown. Best estimates and uncertainty ranges can not be obtained by direct addition of individual terms due to the asymmetric uncertainty ranges for some factors; the values given here were obtained from a Monte Carlo technique as discussed in Section 2.9. Additional forcing factors not included here are considered to have a very low LOSU. Volcanic aerosols contribute an additional form of natural forcing but are not included due to their episodic nature. The range for linear contrails does not include other possible effects of aviation on cloudiness. (b) Probability distribution of the global mean combined radiative forcing from all anthropogenic agents shown in (a). The distribution is calculated by combining the best estimates and uncertainties of each component. The spread in the distribution is increased significantly by the negative forcing terms, which have larger uncertainties than the positive terms. {2.9.1, 2.9.2; Figure 2.20} Image and text credit: IPCC 2007
Of note for this particular study is the fact that the IPCC report also notes that
ozone is a greenhouse gas, although it is unstable and naturally removed in the
troposphere, and that ozone depletion by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the stratosphere
is an entirely different mechanism (IPCC 2007) than climate change.
The IPCC assessment reports that the pre-industrial era concentration of
atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm, compared with a 2005 concentration of atmospheric C02
of 379 ppm. Prior to industrialization, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 changed by
9 9
only 20 ppm in the preceding 11,000 years (Joos and Prentice 2004). In a 2009 study,
long-term records show that the anthropogenic component of CO2 emissions (the
atmospheric value less the natural, pre-industrial value) has been increasing exponentially
since the industrial revolution, with a doubling time of 30 years (Hofman et al 2009).
This drastic increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past 250 years is responsible for radiative
forcing of +1.66 plus or minus .17 W m-2. This radiative forcing is greater than that
caused by any of the other agents, natural or anthropogenic, analyzed in the IPCC
assessment (2007). The IPCC reports with a “very high confidence that the effect of
human activities since 1750 has been net positive forcing” of the climate (2007:31).
According to the IPCC assessment, the primary source of increased atmospheric
CO2 is fossil fuel use, usually for electricity generation, heating, industrial purposes and
transportation. CH4, another long-lived greenhouse gas, is also a major contributor to
climate change. Like CO2, CH4 is a naturally occurring gas, but anthropogenic sources
of CH4 produce a greater amount of emissions than natural sources. CFCs and HCFCs,
chemicals typically associated with ozone depletion, are also greenhouse gases. The
emission levels of these chemicals, however, have decreased since the Montreal Protocol
initiated their phase-out. Other factors of note are water vapor, land use, and volcanic
eruptions. The IPCC reports that water vapor, both anthropogenically sourced and
natural, is a feedback in climate change, not a radiative forcing factor. Land use can have
local climate consequences, but it is a minor component on the global scale when
compared to greenhouse gas radiative forcing. Large volcanic eruptions can greatly
increase the sulphate concentrations in the atmosphere, which forces global cooling rather
than global warming.
The IPCC report includes data on global temperature and weather trends. These
trends show an increase in global average surface temperatures, especially since 1950,
with the greatest changes appearing at higher northern latitudes. Studies looking at the
changes in temperature currently observed, as well as projections of future changes in
10 10
climate due to greenhouse gas emissions, compare the rate of these changes to those seen
at other points in the earth’s paleoclimate. Thomas Crowley in a 2000 study states “the
21st century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000
years and is greater than the best estimate of the global temperature change for the last
interglacial.” (270) An extensive list of changes in the earth’s systems is observed by the
IPCC in the assessment report, including, but not limited to: long-term alterations of
atmospheric circulation, changes in temperature extremes, increased duration of heat
waves, substantial increases in heavy precipitation events, observed increase in tropical
cyclone intensity, more intense and longer droughts, large changes in permafrost and
seasonally frozen ground, shrinking of arctic sea ice, mass ice cap loss, sea level rise, and
changes in the temperature and chemistry of the world’s oceans (2007). Due to the
alterations and shifts of so many indicators, each independently documented, a skeptic’s
questioning of any single indicator, such as atmospheric temperature, does not seriously
challenge the overall evidence of change.
New research continues to be done highlighting the many effects increased
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change have had and will continue to have on our
planet. Climate – chemistry interactions are recently of particular interest, and the
following quote illustrates the compounding effects of climate change on our earth’s
systems:
Man-induced climate-chemistry interaction is a two-way process: Emissions of pollutants change the atmospheric composition contributing to climate change…and climate change, through changes in temperature, dynamics, the hydrological cycle, atmospheric stability, and biosphere-atmosphere interactions, affects the atmospheric composition and oxidation processes in the troposphere.
Isaksen et al. 2009: 5138
Within the scientific community, there is a high level of consensus on the issue of
climate change. Although the exact numbers and projections are different from study to
11 11
study, the overall scientific consensus that the climate is changing relatively quickly due
to anthropogenic causes, and the nature and severity of the consequences of that change,
are generally accepted by a vast majority of scientists. Within the U.S., however, there
has been a great deal of public and political debate about whether or not scientific
authorities agree on the issue, and this debate has had significant effect on national
policies, as noted in the studies below.
Studies surveying the scientists themselves, and studies reviewing and compiling
scientific papers, show that there is indeed consensus within the scientific community.
Survey respondents agree on the nature and anthropogenic causes of climate change, with
the IPCC findings, and with the need for strong environmental policy (Rosenberg et al.
2010). Similarly, a compilation and review of scientific articles for an essay published in
Science found that of the 928 peer-reviewed papers published between 1993 and 2003
citing “Climate Change”, none of the authors disagreed with the “consensus position” on
the existence and anthropogenic causes of climate change (Oreskes 2004). Within the
U.S. however, political debate has centered on whether or not scientific authorities agree
on the issue, and this debate has had significant effect on national policies (Hoggan
2009).
American Environmental Values and Scientific Understanding
Since the 1960s, much work has been done to understand the environmental
mindset of the American people. Interview and survey data in the United States show that
the average American has relatively strong environmental beliefs and values (Dunlap and
Van Liere 1978; Gallup Poll 2007). Laypeople are shown to, for several different reasons,
value the environment and believe in its protection. In some studies it can be shown that
laypeople have knowledge of abstract environmental and scientific concepts (Dunlap and
Van Liere 1978; Olsen et al 1992, Kempton et al 1995). However, in forming cultural
models of complex environmental issues and in formulating possible solutions or ideas
12 12
for management, laypeople and non-experts’ understanding may be formed from
information different from that which is commonly understood or believed by scientists.
In this section of the literature review, I will synthesize literature on the environmental
beliefs, values, and cultural models of American citizens.
The environment and the environmental movement have been prominent in
American thinking since the 1960s (Kempton et al 1995). Studies done in the late 60s and
70s begin to examine the environmental worldviews and paradigms of the American
public and of western cultures in general. Authors like Lynn White (1967) criticize the
way in which the western, Judeo-Christian world has historically thought about and
treated the environment. By the late 70’s, authors Dunlap and Van Liere (1978)
conducted a study to show that the “Dominant Social Paradigm” (DSP), one in which the
world is seen as limitlessly abundant and in which continued and unchecked growth is
considered the ultimate goal, is not the only paradigm understood by the American
public. Dunlap and Van Liere study the public’s understanding of the concepts involved
in a “New Environmental Paradigm” (NEP), including the idea that natural balance is
delicate, the concept that the earth has a limited amount of space and resources, and that a
“steady-state economy” may be necessary to prevent unchecked environmental damage.
The authors find a “remarkable degree of acceptance” of the NEP, from both
environmentalists and the general public (1978: 12). A host of studies of US public
environmental beliefs and values have followed the Dunlap and Van Liere study (Gallup
Poll 1990, Kempton 1991; 1993, Olsen et al 1992, Kempton et al 1995, Gallup Poll 2007,
Leiserowitz et al 2010).
In 2004, in the face of a perception that little has been done by the American
public to solve looming environmental problems, Shellenberger and Nordhaus published
a controversial online document called “The Death of Environmentalism” in which they
claim that the environmental movement is dead due to the failure of environmental
organizations to evolve since the 1970s and 1980s. Dunlap refutes the claims of
13 13
Shellenberger and Nordhaus in his paper “Show Us the Data” (2006) by highlighting the
lack of empirical evidence supporting their theory. Survey and interview data indeed
support Dunlap’s case. Although the environment is frequently not one of the highest
priorities of American voters, Gallup Poll data consistently show that Americans are
concerned about the environment, take current issues like climate change seriously, and
consider themselves environmentalists (1990, 2007).
Kempton, Boster and Hartley in their book Environmental Values in American
Culture identify three major sources of Americans’ environmental values. Their
interview and survey data indicate that religious values, anthropocentric values and
biocentric values drive Americans’ values and subsequent cultural models concerning the
environment (1995: 87). The religious values may be Judeo-Christian or may simply be a
feeling of spiritual connection with nature, but informants and survey subjects indicate
that these religious or spiritual feelings create an interest in environmental protection.
Anthropocentric values often include the need to protect resources for human use and to
preserve nature for future generations. Biocentric values are expressed as the belief that
all life is equal and has a right to exist as successfully as the human species does.
Whatever the roots of their opinions, a majority of the authors’ informants hold strong
environmental values and believe that it is our responsibility to protect the environment.
In Environmental Values in American Culture, the authors conduct semi-
structured interviews and surveys in order to understand American cultural models of the
environment, and of specific issues like climate change. Kempton et al define a cultural
model or mental model as “a simplified representation of the world that allows one to
interpret observations, generate novel inferences, and solve problems.” (1995: 10) In
other words, a cultural model is a set of guidelines or even an imaginary map each
individual builds for his or herself about any particular subject through which he or she
can run scenarios, analyze information, and come up with conclusions. A further
14 14
examination of the literature on mental or cultural models and their implications can be
found in the next section of this literature review.
In chapter three of Environmental Values in American Culture, the authors review
the cultural models, values and beliefs of their informants in regards to the environment
in general. Interview subjects express both their environmental concern and their
perception of how environmental problems have come about. In Kempton Boster and
Hartley’s fourth chapter, “Cultural Models of Weather and the Atmosphere,” the authors
closely examine their informants’ cultural models of climate change (or as it was more
commonly called in 1995, the greenhouse effect). Overall, they find that the responses of
their laypersons do not correspond to scientific models. One of their hypotheses for this
phenomenon was that the greenhouse effect was a relatively new concept at the time. The
authors describe four ways in which informants modeled climate change that are based
upon models for previously existing concepts, all of which deviate from scientific
understanding of climate change. These four concepts are: greenhouse gases as pollution,
ozone depletion, photosynthesis and respiration, and seasonal and geographic
temperature variation.
Two of these occurrences, the confusion of climate change with pollution models
and ozone depletion, are particularly interesting and relevant to this thesis. In the semi-
structured interviews, it was often revealed that informants viewed greenhouse gas
emissions as pollution, and that like other forms of pollution, the emitted chemicals are
artificial, toxic and can be removed from emissions with the installation of filtering
equipment. The concept of ozone depletion was similarly incorporated into informants’
models of climate change, with several individuals stating that burning fossil fuels
contributes to a hole in the ozone layer, which is in turn causing the earth’s climate to
warm. The authors note the difficulties in introducing new ideas into culture, and site
these convoluted and miss-matched cultural models as examples. They also point out that
even with a few elements of correct scientific information, without the entire picture or
15 15
with the pictures mixed up, the informants often come to drastically different conclusions
about climate change than do the scientists.
A 2010 study done by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
reveals some similar results to the Kempton et al studies (Leiserowitz et al 2010). In the
Yale study, 2,030 adult members of the American public were surveyed on their
knowledge of climate change and were given “grades” (A-F) on their performance. A
large majority of those surveyed received Bs, Cs and Ds on their knowledge, with the
largest proportion scoring Cs and only 2% earning and A. Majorities of the adults
surveyed had heard of the “greenhouse effect” and could correctly identify carbon
dioxide as a greenhouse gas, but most did not know how great the increase in carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere has been since 1850. A majority of Americans were found to
correctly understand that burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change, but the
study also finds that “majorities of Americans… incorrectly believe that the hole in the
ozone layer, toxic wastes, aerosol spray cans, volcanic eruptions, the sun, and acid rain
contribute to global warming.” (2010: 11) The results of their understanding could be
seen in the solutions the respondents listed, which for large majorities included both
correct (reducing driving, switching to renewable energy sources, etc.) and incorrect
(reducing toxic waste, banning aerosol spray cans, etc.) solutions.
The Yale study also documents the pervasiveness of climate skeptic arguments in
the American publics’ understanding of climate change. Many of those surveyed were
did not believe that scientists can predict future weather or that computer models are
reliable. A third stated that they did not believe that humans cause climate change. More
than half of the respondents said that they don’t know if climate change is happening or
that they don’t believe it to be happening at all. Over one third said that there is much
disagreement among scientists about whether or not climate change is happening. The
respondents listed television, printed media and the Internet as their main sources of
16 16
information about climate change, and a large majority stated that they needed more and
better information on the subject (Leiserowitz et al 2010).
Science and scientists have been notoriously separated from the masses
throughout history. Some of this separation is unintentional, while a large part of it is
deliberate. The practice of science can be, and has historically been, an elitist domain,
requiring high levels of intelligence, education, and specialization (Knight 2006). Public
understanding of science and scientific processes is therefore different from the level of
understanding and acceptance seen within the scientific community. As in Kempton,
Boster and Hartley’s studies, informants in a 2006 study by Lorenzoni and Pidgeon were
confused about climate change and saw it as a very complex issue. Similarly, the
informants in this study misunderstood the severity of the climate change issue and
frequently rated it as a lesser concern than other issues in their lives. The authors go on to
assert that the public is unlikely to support legislation from the government to deal with
something they do not consider to be a very serious environmental problem (2006). In
contrast, another 2006 study conducted by Anthony Leiserowitz found that Americans
“strongly support” some national and international policies to combat climate change. In
the same study, however, it is found that Americans only see climate change as a
moderate risk, and that they do not support measures with more personal consequences,
like carbon taxing. This thesis will aim to determine how serious of a risk students
perceive climate change, as well as their support and understanding of climate change
policy.
Overall, the literature shows strong environmental values in the American public,
especially since the 1970s. It also reveals a lack of scientific understanding of the
processes of more complex environmental issues like climate change, the consequences
of which tend to be misinformation on the possible effects and severity of the issue, and
the adoption of ineffective mitigation actions, as well as possibly weakened support for
governmental initiative on the issue.
17 17
Mental and Cultural Models
Mental models are an extremely important component of this study, as they are
the tools by which understanding will be described and measured. Mental models, also
called cultural models or cognitive models, come from a sub-field of anthropology
known as cognitive anthropology. According to Roy D’Andrade in his book The
Development of Cognitive Anthropology, it is “the study of the relation between human
society and human thought.” (1995: 1) This section of the literature review will
synthesize the literature on cognitive anthropology and mental models, specifically
focusing on how they are formed and how they influence behavior.
D’Andrade defines cognitive models as a “small-scale model” of external reality
and our own possible actions that we carry around in our heads. It “consists of an
interrelated set of elements which fit together to represent something” and we use this
model to reason or to calculate by mentally manipulating its parts in order to solve a
problem (1995: 151). Often one cannot simply ask an informant what their cognitive or
cultural model of a phenomenon is, they are not usually able to express their model as
such. D’Andrade also describes the process by which a cognitive model is observed in
this way: “what the ethnographer sees and hears at different times and places are little
bits of this and that, all of which must be put together into a coherent framework.” (1995:
157)
Cultural models are sometimes described slightly differently than mental or
cognitive models. Holland and Quinn define them as follows:
Cultural models are pre-supposed, taken-for-granted models of the world that are widely shared by the members of a society and that play an enormous role in their understanding of (the) world and their behavior in it. 1987:4
In this instance, the most important difference in definition between cultural and mental
models is in the idea that cultural models are “widely shared” amongst a society. They
18 18
are in essence mental models that can be found in an entire group of people. D’Andrade
describes a type of cultural model that differs greatly from the scientific model, and
labels this type as a “folk model.” (1995: 157)
The above research comes from cognitive anthropology, but mental models are
discussed and studied across the wider field of cognitive science, which draws from
psychology, linguistics, computer science, and other fields. Studies in cognitive science
often use mental models to explain human reasoning. It is theorized that “people do not
reason using abstract rules, but rather they construct and combine mental models and
generate inferences consistent with those models.” (Bly and Rumelhart 1999: 156) We
can “run” our mental models in order to come up with conclusions or solutions to a
problem. Since mental models are constructions of human thought, they often include
simplifying assumptions (Mudditt 1996). People are normally logical, but there may be
flaws or missing information in the models they have formed. Errors in conclusions,
therefore, will likely not be random, but will instead correspond with gaps or errors in
mental models. Studies show that mental models, complete with gaps or distortions, can
be passed on, taught and transferred (Bly and Rumelhard 1999).
Mental models are not only seen as agents of reasoning, but also are linked to
motivation and action. D’Andrade, in an essay from the book Human Motives and
Cultural Models, describes mental models as having a “motivational force” because they
not only describe the world, but also set forth conscious and unconscious goals, and elicit
desires (1992:23-44). Holland and Quinn specifically address how cultural models
motivate behavior, expressing that the basis of cultural models’ directive force is in the
authority and expertise with which they are invested and within the “intrinsic
persuasiveness” the models hold for us (1987:9). Indeed, the influence of cultural models
on the actions and perceptions of their holders can be seen in a variety of studies. The
examples range from people’s interactions with their thermostat settings, which is
influenced by one of two contrasting cultural models informants hold for how the
19 19
thermostat works (Kempton 1987) to the actions and beliefs of college women regarding
the innate or learned nature of sexuality and romance (Holland and Skinner 1987)
(Holland and Quinn 1987). As has been done in these previous studies, this thesis will
use interviews and surveys to construct and examine the mental and cultural models of
climate change. The finding from multiple studies that mental models influence behavior
both reinforces the need to understand why there might be differences between student
mental models and scientific models, and how this information can inform public and
educational policy.
Knowledge and Mental Models of Action
Both qualitative and quantitative studies of American public understanding of
climate change throughout the past two decades have revealed that laypersons frequently
hold flawed mental models of the processes by which climate change occur and the
actions that can be taken to address the problem. The mental models laypersons hold for
actions frequently lead them to incorrect or ineffective solutions (Kempton 1993). Two
major examples of these flawed models are the ozone depletion model and the pollution
model. Someone who believes that climate change is caused by a hole in the ozone layer
will follow that model to the conclusion that avoiding household products that produce
CFCs is an effective action to combat climate change, when scientifically it is not. The
follow through of this reasoning can be seen in survey responses as participants list
banning aerosol cans as solutions to climate change in 1991, 1994, and 2010 (Kempton,
Bostrom et al, Reynolds et al and Leiserowitz et al). Similarly, a layperson believing that
toxic chemical emissions cause climate change will list pollution scrubbing or reducing
toxic waste as actions that can be taken against climate change, and those results have
also been found to be true in the same studies.
20 20
In earlier studies, members of the public did not see the connection between
energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (Kempton 1993, Bostrom et al
1994). In more recent studies people have been more likely to respond that switching to
renewable energy and driving less are solutions to climate change. Unfortunately, these
actions are listed with around the same frequency as many less effective or ineffective
strategies (Leiserowitz 2010, Reynolds 2010). In addition, the correct actions volunteered
by respondents are often vague and lack concrete strategies for execution. One of the
most common answers given in recent studies, “drive less”, gives no information about
how this will be accomplished.
Along with looking directly at the mental models of climate change action
members of the public hold, studies have been conducted examining public
understanding of the scientific concepts involved in the urgency and severity of climate
change. One explanation of the public inaction in regards to climate change related to
these studies is that the public does not adequately understand the delays in the causal
system, the non-linearity or the feedback loops of climate change (Sterman and Sweeney
2007). The “wait and see” approach, which has been employed by the U.S. government
and members of the public, is fatally flawed in that it operates under the assumption that
once we as a nation begin to act that the dangers of climate change will immediately
subside. This is scientifically incorrect. Climate change is a highly dimensional process
involving several positive feedback loops. Studies show that the American public
incorrectly believes that if we were to stop burning fossil fuels instantaneously, the levels
of CO2 in the atmosphere would stabilize quickly (Leiserowitz 2010, Reynolds 2010).
This idea, which follows a concept called “pattern-matching”, is even seen in highly
educated MIT graduates (Sterman and Sweeney 2007). This same study also found low
basic understanding of the carbon cycle, and limited comprehension of stocks and flows,
accumulation, mass and energy balance, all key concepts to understanding the urgency
and severity of climate change.
21 21
These findings support the hypothesis that public inaction regarding climate
change has been at least partially brought on by flawed mental models regarding actions
to prevent climate change and the urgency of the issue.
Climate Change Risk Perception, Personal Action and Communication
The issue of climate change is one for which public concern and action is of
utmost importance. Large and costly preventative and adaptive policy initiatives, as well
as collective public action, will be needed in order to deal with climate change now and
in the future. Social consensus, support and action will be necessary to make these
changes in the United States. Studies have repeatedly shown that there is widespread
public awareness of, and even concern for, climate change but very little action has been
seen on the part of the American public or policymakers (Kempton 1993, Leiserowitz
2010, Reynolds 2010). In fact, studies show that despite awareness of the subject,
Americans tend to see climate change as only a moderate risk and rank it as a lower
priority concern than issues of national security or even other environmental issues
(Leiserowitz 2005).
There are many different factors that can lead to public action or inaction on
climate change. Knowledge about the science and severity of climate change, and the
mental models of action that members of the public hold regarding climate change are
some of the commonly researched factors influencing climate change action and inaction.
However, many scientists also believe that risk perception, and therefore action, is not
only influenced by knowledge and cognition, but also by values, emotion and ideology. A
third camp of scientists believe that separate from, but related to, the knowledge the
public has about climate change, the personal responsibility individuals feel and the
effectiveness they believe their actions will have has a strong influence on their action or
inaction in regards to climate change. In this section of the literature review I will explore
22 22
the literature on these factors and explain the scientific views on the causes of action and
inaction to address climate change. This section will also cover effective climate change
communication based on the literature of public understanding.
Risk Perception: Affective Imagery, Values and Ideology
Scientists studying risk perceptions argue that knowledge is not the only factor
that influences action and inaction regarding an issue. They assert that the roles of
psychological and social factors like affective imagery, values and ideology need to be
included in order to fully understand why climate change is not perceived as a large
enough risk to warrant significant action (Leiserowitz 2006). Affect and emotion often
arise prior to cognition, play an important role in rational thought, and are frequently
connected with imagery concerning climate change. Values and worldviews are also
shown to influence rationality and responses to concepts, and may be used as a lens
through which to view knowledge. Finally, political ideology is frequently studied as it
similarly colors the ways in which people perceive the subject of climate change and
therefore climate change action.
In 2005, Leiserowitz performed a study looking at American risk perceptions of
climate change. He focused on the roles of affective imagery and value groupings from
cultural theory as indicators of risk perception. Leiserowitz found that as a whole
Americans only perceive climate change as a moderate risk, and that the public sees the
impacts of climate change as affecting people and places far away from themselves. He
also found that Americans lack concrete affective images of climate change, and that the
images they hold are not personally relevant. He theorized that the feeling that climate
change is not personally relevant is a major factor in Americans risk perception. This
theory can also explain why Americans are not jumping into action regarding climate
change. Leiserowitz also found that value systems previously laid out in cultural theory
23 23
literature are significant predictors of both climate change concern and policy support
among those studied. These values systems, or worldviews, include hierarchists,
individualists and egalitarians. Those with the egalitarian worldview support national
climate policies, while those falling in the other two worldviews do not. Overall,
Leiserowitz would argue that these predictors influence risk perception and therefore
action and inaction regarding climate change.
Political ideology and its influence on climate change knowledge and action has
also been extensively studied. Leiserowitz found that political ideology was not as strong
an indicator of risk perception as affective imagery and values (2005) but in a 2010 study
Zia and Todd evaluated the effects of ideology on climate change understanding and how
ideology interacts with education. The authors argue that knowledge is critical for
translating climate change concern into action, and that ideology influences the
interpretation and understanding of climate change knowledge. Through their study,
conducted by survey, the authors were able to confirm two of their hypotheses regarding
ideology and climate change knowledge. Their data supported the hypotheses that
ideology has a significant effect on concern for global warming, and that college
education does not trump conservative ideology on climate change concern. That is, they
found that educational background has less influence than political and religious
ideologies on concern about climate change.
Risk perception is influenced by knowledge, but the above studies show that it is
also influenced by affective imagery, values and ideology. The lack of personally-
relevant images, and differences in values and ideology influence work together to lower
public concern about climate change, and to also limit the action that members of the
public are taking. Interestingly, the idea that a lack of personal relevance and the
perception of the public that the effects of climate change will be felt in distant places
also appears in, and is related to, the category of reasoning behind public inaction
presented below.
24 24
Personal Relevancy, Responsibility and Efficacy
Public action is often thought of as a direct result of public concern. Closely
related to both scientific understanding and the affective imagery tenant of risk
perception, the relevance members of the public feel climate change has to them
personally has an impact on their level of concern and their will to act. It is also argued
that those feeling more personally responsible for climate change and those who feel that
their actions will be more effective are more likely to be concerned and therefore take
action. Some social scientists believe that these factors could have a greater influence on
public concern and action than political ideology or scientific knowledge (Kellstedt et al
2008).
A lack of personal relevancy in the public’s views about climate change has been
documented in multiple studies (Leiserowitz 2005, Lorenzoni and Pidgeon 2006). In a
comparison of European and US perspectives, it was found that both Europeans and
Americans perceive climate change as a lower concern than other social issues, and at
times even ranked it below other environmental issues. In both the UK and the US the
public views the consequences of climate change as affecting people in distant places and
times, and climate change is only a salient topic to a minority of individuals living in the
US and EU. For some it seems the benefits of current lifestyles sometimes outweigh the
risks of climate change. Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, the authors of this US and EU literature
summary, assert that the widely documented public ambivalence may be a reflection of a
frustration with a lack of perceived options or solutions as well as a dissociation from a
problem they do not see affecting them personally.
This feeling of frustration and disempowerment is also related to the findings of
Kellstedt et al in their 2008 study in which they found personal efficacy to be a
significant factor in a respondent’s level of concern and will to act in regards to climate
change. In their national telephone survey the authors found that personal efficacy was a
25 25
more significant indicator of personal concern about climate change than political
affiliation. The authors also found that those who felt more responsible for climate
change were more likely to be concerned. One interesting and unexpected result of
Kellstedt et al’s study was that people who self reported as being highly knowledgeable
about climate change were less concerned about climate change than those who reported
being less knowledgeable. The authors assert that this finding supports the idea that
increased knowledge about climate change can create feelings of ineffectiveness and of
less personal responsibility, but they also acknowledge that self-reported informedness
and actual informedness are frequently uncorrelated (Kellstedt et al 2008).
Designing Climate Change Communication
Reviewing the above literature regarding mental models, risk analysis, ideology
and personal efficacy can be used to create a model for the effective communication of
climate change. In this subsection, I do not review literature on communication, but
rather use the studies reviewed above to create an outline of the key points that need to be
made in an effective communication strategy.
First, students, and likely the general public, need to be made aware of their
misconceptions in order to correct them (Gautier et al 2006). Many scientists recommend
directly addressing misconceptions in trying to correct flawed mental models. The goal of
this dissertation is to find these misconceptions so that they can be addressed in
education, both formal and informal. Once these misconceptions are addressed, the new
and correct information must be presented in a way that will create concern and most
effectively enact change, According to the literature, members of the public are more
concerned if climate change is reframed to align with their ideology (Leiserowitz 2007,
Zia and Todd 2010) and if they are made aware of the local, human consequences of
climate change (Lorenzoni and Pidgeon 2006). The final step in raising public concern
26 26
and will-to-act is by highlighting the effectiveness of personal action (Kellstedt et al
2008).
Once the students or members of the general public perceive the risk posed by
climate change, the information regarding the mechanisms, causes and effects of climate
change must be effectively relayed. Bostrom and Lashof endorse the “heat-trapping
blanket” analogy in their 2007 paper on communicating about climate change. They
assert that the term “greenhouse effect” is now too closely associated with incorrect
mental models, especially that of ozone depletion, and should likely no longer be used.
This explanation may seem too simple, but many scientists, including Sterman in 2010
assert that the current IPCC summaries are still too complex for general consumption and
my research shows that non-science majors have a level of scientific understanding
relatively equal to that of the general public. When students need a more detailed
discussion of climate change mechanisms, the discussion of feedback loops becomes
necessary. Sterman and Sweeney 2007 find that highly educated individuals do not
understand feedback loops associated with climate change and McCaffrey and Buhr 2008
suggest that these be addressed in communicating about climate change, but that the
terms “positive” and “negative” are confusing to the layperson.
When addressing the effects of climate change, Leiserowitz in 2007 recommends
that effective education and communication strategies in regard to climate change include
highlighting the current impacts of climate change as well as the extreme weather
impacts. Several studies show that the public is unaware of the effects climate change
will have on humans. They typically see it as more often affecting non-human nature
(Reynolds 2010, Leiserowitz 2007, McCaffrey and Buhr 2008).
This dissertation is designed to understand the knowledge and mental models
students hold regarding climate change. This will directly contribute to the
implementation of an effective communication strategy such as the one detailed above. In
furthering this communication strategy, especially with students both during and before
27 27
college, it is also important to review the literature regarding science and environmental
education.
Science Education and Climate Change
This section of the literature review will cover two theoretical initiatives in
education: learning progressions in science education and the teaching of socio-scientific
issues. Coverage of the current literature on these two topics is necessary to better
evaluate the level of student understanding of climate change and to better analyze the
results of this study.
Learning Progressions in Science Education
In a report for the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Corcoran,
Mosher and Rogat define learning progressions in science as:
…Empirically grounded and testable hypotheses about how students’ understanding of, and ability to use, core scientific concepts and explanations and related scientific practices grow and become more sophisticated over time with appropriate instruction.
(2009)
The study of learning progressions is a relatively new practice, stemming from the
need to improve education, particularly in public schools, in the United States. Learning
progression research identifies “learning targets”, which are successive levels of
demonstrated sophistication in understanding based on how students’ learning actually
progresses with standard teaching practices. (Corcoran et al 2009) The idea behind the
study of these progressions is to create curricula and set goals based on these levels of
understanding, with the hope to get students to prescribed levels of understanding at
certain ages or grades. Recent reports have advocated using learning progressions as a
new way to align assessments and curricula (Duncan and Hmelo-Silver 2009).
28 28
Learning progressions in science have been studied in many different concepts
including atomic molecular theory, understanding of buoyancy, and the earth’s carbon
cycle. Mohan, Chen and Anderson set out in their 2009 study to understand how schools
can prepare students to be environmentally science literate and the learning progressions
of students from elementary school through high school. The main subject of their study
was carbon cycling because they identify climate change as an important issue we now
face that is due to an imbalance in the carbon cycle. In preparing to do their study, the
authors outline the scientific knowledge they see as necessary for citizens to know about
carbon cycling. Then, through a series of written assignments and interviews with
students in elementary school through high school, assessed students’ understanding of
the carbon cycle. The results were broken down into four levels of understanding in the
learning progression, with level 1 being the lowest and level 4 being the highest and most
complete level of understanding. The majority of the total students showed a level 2
understanding, and fewer than half of the high school students studied showed a level
three or higher understanding of carbon cycling. Only 10% of the students showed a level
4 understanding. The authors explained that a level 3 understanding of carbon cycling
was not considered sophisticated enough to make the decisions necessary to prevent
climate change. The study revealed that there is a failure in the teaching of these students
such that a majority of them do not reach the highest level of the learning progression in
this subject, and the authors assert that the progress they have made is not enough to
make responsible choices concerning climate change.
Socio-Scientific Issues
Since the 1980s the educational community has focused attention on the idea of
socio-scientific issues (SSIs). These are topics in science that are inherently related to
society as a whole, and are connected strongly with other areas such as economics,
politics, and social sciences. Climate change is a perfect example of an SSI, as it has a
29 29
basis in complex scientific processes, with influences on technology, policy, media and
economy. It is a topic that calls for both social consensus and individual action.
(Feierabend and Eilks 2010) Educator interest in SSIs stems from the role students will
play in democratic society in the future. Lay people make decisions in their political
support and personal actions, and scholars like Kolsto suggest that understanding of SSIs
is important for quality decisions to be made. SSIs are issues students are likely to
encounter in their daily lives, and ones which they will likely act upon in the future.
(Kolsto 2000).
In the 80s and 90s the focus in SSI education was the significance of social
practices as they relate to scientific issues, and in the years since this idea has been a
popular framework for the design of education and curricula in the 21st century. (Sadler
2009) Early SSI work was focused on expanding the connection of science to other
subjects in education in order to promote better reasoning and decision-making. More
recently curriculum concerns and focus has shifted to also include broadening scientific
literacy as a whole. (Zeidler and Keefer 2003)
The consensus among scholars is that students need a better understanding of the
scientific background to SSIs in order to become citizens who can actively participate in
debate and make logical decisions. Feieraband and Eilks (2010) identify a gap in this
consensus and in the educational practice of many democratic countries. In particular,
they point out that students who are not pursuing a future in scientific topics like
chemistry and physics are not given comprehensive scientific information about SSIs. In
their 2010 study they design integrated teaching modules for high school students
introducing the scientific and political aspects of climate change. The students in the
study report a rise in their interest and knowledge in the subject after participating in the
integrated learning module. The study does not, however, effectively evaluate the quality
of the information and understanding the students have after participation.
30 30
Acar et al also touch on the concern over SSI teaching in science education. In
their 2010 study they show that students display poor abilities to argue in the context of
SSIs. The authors identify “misevaluation of evidence”, “naïve science
conceptualization” and “inappropriate use of value-based reasoning” as reasons for this
phenomenon. (2010: 1191) Much of the literature on SSIs suggests that student
understanding may be influenced by both their scientific knowledge and by their values.
In regards to their education, the way that they’ve been taught about issues such as
climate change may be influenced by the fact that it is a controversial SSI. (Sadler 2009,
Kolsto 2000). This does not mean, however, that the science of a topic like climate
change cannot be effectively taught. In a study by Klosterman and Sadler, students in
high school were subjected to global warming learning interventions. Students were
taught a three-week long unit regarding the science content and controversy of climate
change and showed significant increases in the accuracy, detail and sophistication of their
scientific understanding of climate change between their pre study and post study tests.
(Klosterman and Sadler 2009) This study shows that if effectively taught, the students’
understanding of the science in a controversial SSI can improve (Sadler 2009).
Educational practices in regard to socioscientific issues like climate change are
still evolving. The degree to which the science is explained, as well as the integration of
science and other relevant topics in the teaching of these topics has been shown in the
literature to have an influence on student understanding of these topics. The students
currently at the Universities in this research study will have had varying degrees and
methods of education in these areas. These are all important factors to consider when
analyzing the results of this study.
31 31
Chapter 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The methodology of this research contains elements of both ethnography and
grounded theory, and is based upon the work done by Kempton, Boster and Hartley in
their 1995 study. Interviews and surveys were conducted of University of Delaware
undergraduate students. The survey was also administered to University of Maryland
undergraduate students. The information given by the informants was used to recreate the
mental models held by these students. The results were analyzed, the information from
the surveys and the interviews were compared, and the mental models were examined in
relation to scientific understanding in order to best answer the research questions.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This dissertation was designed to address the following research questions:
1. What environmental values do the undergraduate students at UD and UMD
express?
2. What mental models do UD and UMD undergraduate students hold to explain
climate change and how do their models compare to the scientific model of
climate change?
3. What are the students’ sources of information on climate change and how do
those sources influence their mental models?
a. How do students evaluate and sort through conflicting information they
may receive from these sources?
b. What sources are the most important, as defined by the frequency of use
and identification of trust by the students?
32 32
4. How do the students’ mental models of climate change differ between student
environmentalists, climate-related science majors and students from neither
category?
This research was also designed to test the following hypothesis:
1. Students hold only partially complete mental models of climate change and
tend to confuse climate change with other environmental issues, such as ozone
depletion and pollution.
2. Students both enrolled in science majors and belonging to environmental
groups have the most complete understanding of climate change and
enrollment in a climate-related science major has a greater influence on
climate change knowledge than belonging to an environmental group.
3. Classes and the Internet are students’ primary sources of information, but
students frequently do not check the validity of the information they receive
from their sources.
The Climate Science Model and the Climate Action Model
To evaluate the interview and survey data, the scientific model of reference to
which the respondent mental models will be compared must be defined. The causes,
mechanisms and climatology of climate change will be referred to as the “climate science
model” and the ways in which humanity can deal with climate change will be referred to
as the “climate action model.” As of this writing, the climate science model is widely
agreed upon. For further information regarding the scientific mechanisms and consensus
on climate change, please refer to the Literature Review section of this dissertation.
The climate action model does not refer to one action that should be taken, but
rather refers to the mental model used to understand the diverse actions that could address
the causes of climate change or even to generate new, effective action. These actions can
be individual or collective. For policies included in the climate action model outlines
below, several widely discussed policies are listed as effective in order to provide a point
of comparison with interview data, not to propose one versus another policy approach.
33 33
Climate science model
The climate science model consists of four main parts: 1. the physical
mechanisms and effects of climate change, 2. the anthropogenic sources and causes of
climate change, 3. the scientific consensus on the occurrence and anthropogenic causes of
climate change and 4. the severity and urgency of climate change as an issue. Student
understanding and mental models will be compared to each of these four parts of the
model, and references to completeness of a student’s mental model denote the inclusion
of all four of these parts.
The climate science model of the physical mechanism of climate change to which
the interview and survey data will be compared is a simplified version of the one held by
scientists. It is simplified in that it is only as complex as the most informed layperson
would actually be able to produce; it is not at a level that would be found in a scientific
presentation or science journal article. The model is as follows: The most important
cause of climate change, or global warming, is the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse
effect is the phenomenon in which greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and
methane, trap heat within the earth’s atmosphere, heating the surface and lower
atmospheric levels. This warming will have many effects, including severe weather, the
melting of polar ice caps, and sea level rise.
The second part of the climate science model deals with the causes of climate
change. Again the version to which students’ mental models will be compared is
simplified from the scientific model. Although there is natural variation in the earth’s
climate, climate is changing today at a rate with few precedents in geological history.
This change is due to human emissions of much faster rates of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The main sources of these emissions are from the
burning of carbon-based fossil fuels for electricity, home fuel use (e.g. for heating.)
industrial uses and transportation. Humans have increased the greenhouse gas
34 34
concentrations in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution from 280 ppm to 385
ppm.
The third part of the climate science model states that there is a high level of
scientific consensus on both the occurrence of climate change and on its anthropogenic
causes. That is, the scientific community is reasonably in consensus; there is not a
“controversy.” The scientific consensus was reviewed in Chapter 2 of this dissertation.
The fourth part of the climate science model deals with the urgency of climate
change. Climatologists maintain that climate change will cause very substantial
fluctuations, similar in magnitude to those from one geological age to another. Such
changes lead to mass extinctions, change in sea level, and other shifts that would cause
serious problems for our planet and for human civilization. Furthermore, because climate
change has inertia at higher levels of GHG, we commit the planet to dramatic climate
change and its consequences. One could argue that a belief in the urgency of the issue is
in part a problem of values, e.g. whether minimizing species extinction or minimizing
disruptions to the next generation are moral imperatives. This dissertation includes them
as part of the “scientific model” because much of the urgency derives from
straightforward science comprehension of the scope, rapidity, and difficulty in shifting of
climate change. In comparing interview and survey data to this part of the climate science
model, the urgency aspect of climate change is evaluated on whether or not a
respondent’s answers or comments give weight to the need to act or the criticality of the
issue of climate change.
Climate action model
The climate action model specifies which actions, including both individual and
governmental actions, will reduce, slow down, or prevent anthropogenic climate change
forcing. That is, the final and most important assessment of an informant’s understanding
of climate change is the informant’s ability to identify actions that can be taken to deal
35 35
with the issue. There are many different approaches to how to deal with climate change,
and policy choices will be deemed “correct” simply by the fact that the intention is to
address the specific causes of climate change. Therefore the climate action model covers
a wide range of activities and policies.
Individual actions that can be taken to deal with climate change include lifestyle
changes to reduce the use of carbon-based fuel sources (ex: home energy conservation,
use of public transportation, reduced personal gasoline vehicle use, etc.) and political
support for climate change policies that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Specific
policies and governmental actions that are included in the climate action model can be
numerous, including but not limited to: carbon taxing, implementing cap and trade, the
U.S. signing of the Kyoto Protocol or other international agreement with similar goals,
furthering economic incentives for renewable resources, ending subsidies on fossil fuels,
supporting infrastructure for renewable integration, creating stricter regulations on the
automobile industry, and improving public transportation. Ineffective, misguided, or
counterproductive actions or policies are not included in the climate action model,
examples of which include encouraging recycling or banning ocean dumping, neither of
which deal directly with climate change, or banning CFCs in aerosol cans, which again
has little influence on climate change and has already been done in the United States. The
climate action model includes any individual, group, or political action supported by the
climate science model. The interview and survey data and the mental models revealed in
this data will be evaluated with both the climate science model and the climate policy
model, defined above, as a reference.
Interview Methods and Sampling
Semi-structured interviews of 26 UD undergraduate students were conducted in
four different rounds starting in March of 2010 and ending in May of 2012. Semi-
structured interviews include a pre-determined set of questions, but the interviewer is
36 36
able to ask further questions and probe for more complete answers, depending on how the
informants respond (e.g. Agar 1980). The result is more like a conversation than an
interview, and helps the researcher gain a better understanding of how the informant
thinks about a subject and what his or her mental model entails. An outline of the base
questions used in these semi-structured interviews is in Appendix A.
Both theoretical and criterion sampling were used for the semi-structured
interviews. Theoretical sampling in qualitative interviewing is the process of selecting
new interview subjects to compare to those previously sampled to develop an analytic
framework and gain a deeper understanding of the selected cases (Glaser and Straus
1967). In the case of this dissertation, the first and second rounds of interviews were
originally conducted as a pilot study. The informants for the third and fourth rounds were
chosen to create a better understanding of student mental models across selected groups
based on the hypotheses generated in this pilot study. The students in the second, third
and fourth rounds were selected using criterion sampling, in which criteria of importance,
in this case college major and environmental group membership status, are used to inform
the selection (Patton 2001).
As part of the pilot study, seven undergraduate acquaintances of the researcher
were asked to participate in the first round of interviews. Students were intentionally
chosen with a variety of majors and varying levels of environmental concern. None of the
students sampled in this way belonged to an environmental group, nor were any of these
students studying earth-related sciences. For the second round of interviews, students
were selected based on their participation in a student environmental group and based on
their major. Four students were selected from Students for the Environment (S4E), a
student environmental group on campus. Two of the students belonging to S4E were also
environmental science majors. The president of S4E was contacted via the group’s
website, and face-to-face interviews were arranged with members at an event the group
was holding on campus for Earth Day. Three more students were selected from climate-
37 37
related earth science majors, specifically geology and geography. Students with geology
and geography majors were identified through the University’s website and meetings
were arranged with these students.
The third and fourth rounds of interviews were conducted after the creation and
administration of the survey. In the third round of interviews, seven more students were
identified based on their answers to demographic questions on that survey, specifically
their major and whether or not they would be willing to be interviewed. This approach
did not, however, yield the number of students necessary to complete the interviews. The
environmental group Students for the Environment (S4E) and university professors were
asked to help in identify the remaining five informants based again on their major and
environmental group membership status.
For the purposes of this study, only specific science majors or science major
groupings were used as selection criteria for the label “science majors”. A further
explanation of the specific science majors selected can be found in the Survey Methods
and Sampling section. The term “science majors” used in the sampling and discussion for
the interviews refers to students studying biology, chemistry, geology and environmental
sciences. In order to increase the number of students eligible for the interviews, and
because of the similar course work involved in these additional majors, students
considered in the environmental science major category also included environmental
policy and environmental engineering. In the selection of environmental group members
for the interviews, some students were more environmentally active than others. Little
difference was seen in these students’ mental models based on their activeness, so these
students were not distinguished from one another.
The 26 students selected for the interviews belonged to the following categories
or Sets: seven students from environmental groups with science majors (Sci/Env Set), six
students from science majors who do not belong to an environmental group (Non-Sci/Env
Set), five students from environmental groups with non-science majors (Non-Sci/Env
38 38
Set), and eight students who are neither science majors, nor environmental group
members (Non-Sci/Non-Env Set). These four categories will be called the four “Student
Sets” for the remainder of this study. The interviews with science majors included
students from each of the four categories of science students identified above and in the
Survey Methods and Sampling section. This sampling approach allowed for a relatively
even distribution of each selected science major in each of the two Student Sets involving
science majors. A table of interview respondent distribution can be seen in Appendix B.
The semi-structured interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for later
review and accuracy checks. Per University of Delaware (UD) human subjects
guidelines, students were told that they could stop the interview at any time and that their
answers were anonymous. The informants were asked to choose a pseudonym to be used
in the report and signed interview consent forms, in compliance with the granted UD
human subjects exemption. In order for the different rounds of interviews to be fairly
comparable, the same base questions were used as guidelines for all four rounds. The
third research question, ‘How do students evaluate and sort through conflicting
information they may receive from these sources?’, was not part of the original round of
interviews but arose from those results, thus the questions aimed at addressing this were
asked in a set at the end of the interview for the second, third and fourth round of
interviews.
Survey Methods and Sampling
The Survey of Student Understanding of Climate Change was created based on
the data from semi-structured interviews conducted in the first and second rounds, and
the analysis of those interviews. It was administered to a sample of junior and senior
students at both the University of Delaware and the University of Maryland chosen with
both criterion and proportional stratified sampling. The comments and arguments made
by student informants in the semi-structured interviews were condensed into one-
39 39
sentence statements on the Survey of Student Understanding of Climate Change.
Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement to those statements on a Likert scale.
Using this methodology for survey creation results in some statement wording that would
not be seen in standard survey procedure. The statements on this survey often include
multipart ideas in an attempt to best capture the mental models and lines of reasoning
displayed in the pilot study interviews. Following an established procedure set forth by
Bernard (2002) and Kempton et al (1995), this survey methodology allows the researcher
to test the existence of the mental models seen in semi-structured interviews across a
larger population.
The survey was used to gather data from a wider range and larger number of
students than could be collected in semi-structured interviews alone. That data, along
with the use of standardized questions, allowed for statistical analysis of the results. The
Universities assisted with the selection of a representative sample, as is further explained
in the Survey Methods and Sampling section, and the students were contacted by email
and encouraged to participate. Follow up emails were sent to ensure a more
representative sample. In the emails, a transcript of which can be found in Appendix C,
the student participants were directed to an online survey, which was created using the
Qualtrics survey software.
The survey questions were based on the mental models observed in the first set of
interview informants in order to understand if the observed belief sets are widespread.
Transcripts of these semi-structured interviews were reviewed, and the mental models of
these informants were reconstructed from the lines of reasoning displayed. The comments
and arguments representative of the informant mental models observed were condensed
into one-sentence statements on the Survey of Student Understanding of Climate Change.
For example, the following statement from a pilot study interview transcript illustrates an
important and relatively widespread concept seen in student mental models: the
40 40
confusion of ozone depletion with climate change (student’s pseudonym and major are
given at the end of the quotation):
I know that the ozone layer is depleted, or like not depleted but it’s wearing away and that is what keeps out the really harmful arrays of the sun and I guess that’s what’s melting the ice. – Renee (Nursing)
Working from the transcript quotations, such as this one, the idea and model
presented were reworded into a concise statement aimed at capturing the pervasiveness of
this reasoning across the population of survey informants. The following survey
statement was created to represent this aspect of respondent mental models:
Q2.11 Climate change is happening because we are depleting the ozone layer, and that
lets in more heat from the sun.
Survey respondents were asked to indicate their agreement to the survey
statements on a Likert scale. Using this methodology for survey creation results in some
statement wording that would not be seen in standard survey procedure. As seen in
statement 2.11 above, statements on this survey can include multipart ideas in an attempt
to best capture the mental models and lines of reasoning displayed in the pilot study
interviews, again following guidelines set forth by Bernard (2002) and Kempton et al
(1995). In the demographic section of the survey, students are asked to identify their
course of study at the university as well as whether or not they belong to an
environmental group. The complete survey can be found in Appendix D.
A representative sample of upperclassmen (juniors and seniors) at both UD and
UMD were asked to complete the survey. Upperclassmen were selected because these
students have spent three or four years studying their individual majors and therefore are
better subjects to answer research questions regarding the influence a student’s major
may have on their understanding of climate change. A freshmen or sophomore may not
41 41
have taken enough classes within their major to have a level of major-specific knowledge
different from that with which they left high school.
Prior to the survey sampling, certain “majors of interest” were identified as core
environmental disciplines based on their relationship to environmental topics. These
majors included groupings similar to those used as the “science majors” criteria for the
semi-structured interviews, as well as those necessary to answer the study research
questions regarding science education students. These groups were created because of the
similarity of the course work and content of the majors, and because of the small numbers
in each of the individual majors. The following majors were grouped together for
sampling to form the groups labeled by each heading:
Earth and Life Science Education Group
-Biology Education
-Chemistry Education
-Physics Education
-Earth Science Education
Environmental Science Group
-Environmental Science
-Environmental Soil Science
-Environmental Studies
-Energy and Environmental Policy
In order to get enough student responses from smaller majors of interest, the two
groups of majors above and the geology majors were sampled 100%. These majors of
interest were used for comparisons of science majors in the statistical analysis of the
survey data. Aside from this analysis, the geology majors and the Environmental Science
Group defined above, as well as biology and chemistry majors were included in the
“Science Majors” classification used in the rest of this dissertation.
42 42
For all other majors, proportional stratified sampling was used, based on the
department in which students are studying. Within the departmental subgroups,
systematic sampling was used to select the final sample, with an interval of N=4. The
number of responses for those majors that were sampled at 100% was not high enough in
comparison with the overall response rate to warrant weighting those majors at .25 when
used in conjunction with the other majors in the statistical analysis of the survey results.
Sampling of the student body for both surveys was aided by the registrar’s office of the
respective universities and the identities of the individual students sampled was not
revealed to the researcher. To ensure higher numbers of participants in the selected
majors of interest, students from capstone courses in those respective majors were also
sampled with the help of their professors. Beyond the group invitation and reminder
emails, the researcher did not contact individual students to encourage them to complete
the survey. The responses within the online survey were identified by numbers and could
not be traced back to individual students. The Human Subjects Exemption from the
University of Delaware covered the survey at both universities.
Survey Demographics
Of the 4,618 survey invitations that were sent to students in the junior and senior
classes at the University of Delaware and the University of Maryland, 853 students began
and 465 students completed the survey. Table 1 compares the sample of respondents with
the entire student bodies of the University of Delaware, as an indicator of the
representativeness of the sample.
Table 1 Survey Sample compared with entire Student Body Demographics: Gender and Ethnicity in separate graphs
Survey Sample
UD Student Body (2011)
Female 63% 57%
43 43
Male 37% 43% White 81.7% 77.4% African American 4.8% 4.4% Hispanic 4.1% 5.9% Asian 5.9% 3.8% Native American .7% 0.1% Other 2.8% 8.3%
Considerable research has been done to determine the demographic and
personality characteristics of survey respondents, and how they differ from the population
of both the general public and of college students (Porter and Whitcomb, 2005).
Although the University of Delaware has a higher percentage of female students than
male students (57% female), he respondents to this survey were 63% female. This
difference, although small, may be explained by the previous research on the subject. In
both the general public and among college students, females have been found more likely
to respond to surveys than males (Crawford el al 2001, Curtin et al 2000, Dey 1997).
Race has also been shown to have an effect on survey response, with white students being
more likely to respond to a survey than non-white students. The student body at the
University of Delaware is relatively racially homogeneous, but a greater percentage of
respondents to this survey identified as white or Caucasian than the proportion at the
university as a whole. This finding is again in line with current research.
Besides the general demographics of survey respondents such as race and gender,
it is also important to point out other characteristics of survey respondents that have been
found to distinguish them from their peers and non-respondents. It has been found that
survey respondents are generally more affluent than non-respondents (Curtin, Pressar and
Singer 2000) and that in college students those with higher GPAs and higher self-ratings
of their academic abilities are more likely to respond to a survey (Dey 1997). Interest in a
survey topic or topic involvement has also been shown to correspond with survey
participation (Van Kenhove, Wijnen and De Wulf 2002). All of these factors must be
44 44
taken into consideration when looking at the results of this survey. The respondents are
likely to be more affluent students with higher GPAs who are more interested in
environmental topics than the general student population. The respondents are also
predominantly white and a high percentage of them are female, but these figures are only
slightly higher than those of the University of Delaware junior and senior population as a
whole and may not be as influential factors as the others mentioned.
Students were also asked about their environmental group membership in the
demographics section of the survey. 19.9% of the students surveyed indicated that they
belonged to an environmental group, and 10.5% indicated that they belonged to a student
environmental group. Only 4.8% of the students surveyed stated that their parents had
belonged to an environmental group while they were growing up. The division of
students between the four Student Sets, based on their major and their environmental
group membership, can be seen in Table 2 below. This table includes only students filling
out the entire survey.
Table 2 Distribution of Student Respondents in the Four Student Sets
Student Set N Percent Sci/Env 40 8.9% Sci/Non-Env 53 11.8% Non-Sci/Env 52 11.5% Non-Sci/Non-Env 306 67.8% Total 451 100%
Mixed Methods Analysis
The sampling structure above allows for comparisons between the four Student
Sets, and between different science majors. In the analysis of the survey results, the
45 45
students identified as “science majors” include all those who selected geology, biology,
chemistry, or the majors grouped above in the Environmental Science Group and the
Earth and Life Science Education Group as their primary area of study on the survey. The
term “science majors” will be used to describe this specific set of students throughout this
dissertation.
In the analysis of the semi-structured interview data, an understanding of the
mental models of each individual, and of the groups as a whole, is developed. If
respondent mental models are found, these models are compared to the scientific model
of climate change. The resulting similarities and differences are analyzed. The statistical
analysis of the survey data is used to observe whether the belief sets and mental models
seen in the interview process are widespread throughout the student population. In order
to communicate this, quotations of statements made by students in semi-structured
interviews are often paired with the frequencies of student answers of a similar statement
on the survey. Often, seeing the quotations in the respondents own words helps to
interpret the frequencies of response to the fixed survey items. In addition to the
comparison between the surveys and semi-structured interviews, and the examinations of
the mental models portrayed by the interview informants, the survey itself is also
statistically analyzed on its own.
The statements on the Survey of Student Understanding of Climate Change fall
into three types, or classifications of questions. The question classifications are as
follows: Opinion Variables, Knowledge Variables and Source Variables. The Opinion
Variables are statements that cover students’ overall environmental concern, opinions on
the existence and severity of climate change and their beliefs about their own knowledge
and understanding of the issue. The Knowledge Variables include both correct and
incorrect statements about the mechanisms of climate change, as well as the actions that
can be taken to prevent or mitigate climate change. The Source Variables are simple
statements that explore the sources students use to learn about climate change (i.e. class,
46 46
news networks, other media.) and the ways in which students determine the reliability of
those sources. Some of the items from the survey fall into more than one of these
classifications. A complete list of the statements belonging to each variable grouping can
be found in Appendix E.
In the analysis of the survey results, the variables were broken down and
examined by category. For the analysis of the Opinion Variables, exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis was performed in order to determine whether or not the
survey statements were indexed into discernable opinion factors. From the confirmatory
factor analysis, the factor loadings were used to create factor subscores. To create these
subscores, the Opinion Variables were recoded based on agreement and disagreement
with statements falling into each factor loading. For a statement loading positively into a
factor, agreement (both strongly agree and agree on the Likert Scale) would be coded as a
1 and all other answers would be coded as a zero. For a statement loading negatively into
a factor, disagreement (both strongly disagree and disagree) would be coded as a 1 and all
other answers would be coded as a zero. The results for these recoded variables were than
summed and divided by the number of loading statements to create a comparable scale of
0-1 for each Opinion Factor Subscore. These relationships between these subscores were
analyzed and compared between the Sets. Scatter plots were created to illustrate the
distribution of Set students’ subscores within different Opinion Factors.
For the analysis of the Knowledge Variables, a “Knowledge Score” was generated
based on students’ agreement and disagreement with both correct and incorrect
statements. A student’s Knowledge Score falls on a scale of 0-35. The frequencies and
descriptive statistics of the overall student Knowledge Scores were examined. The mean
Knowledge Scores of science and non-science students, as categorized by the selected
science majors described above, were compared using a t-test. One-Way Analysis of
Variance was used to compare the mean Knowledge Scores of the different selected
science majors. One-Way and Two-Way Analysis of Variance was used to compare
47 47
mean Knowledge Scores between the four Student Sets and to analyze the influence of
major and environmental group on the scores.
In addition to the creation of the Knowledge Score, exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses were conducted on the Knowledge Variables in order to determine the
factor groupings into which the survey statements fell. Knowledge Factor Subscores
were generated for these factors in the same manner as was done for the Opinion Factor
Subscores. The students’ scores within each factor were examined between Sets and
scatter plots were created to compare factor score distributions. Finally, the relationships
between the Knowledge Factor Subscores and the Opinion Factor Subscores were
examined between the four Student Sets.
The Source Variables were broken down and analyzed by source type (Class,
News/Media, and Internet). There were also questions within the Source Variables group
that were used to examine the ways in which students determined source reliability,
whether or not students observed conflict in their sources, whether or not students have
seen climate change information focused on non-human causes (a reasonable indicator of
a biased source), and what role the college campuses have played in the students’
acquisition of climate change information. For the most part, descriptive statistics and
frequencies were used to analyze the data from the Source Variables, but t-tests and
Analysis of Variance were also performed to compare the mean Knowledge Scores of
students identifying with the use of the different source types.
Finally, the demographics of the survey respondents were examined and analyzed
with descriptive statistics. The demographics of the survey respondents were compared to
the demographics of the universities as a whole, and to information in the literature about
the characteristics of survey takers.
48 48
Sources of Error
As in all scientific research, the possibility of error exists in this study. The
qualitative nature of much of the data used in this research means that there are multiple
possible interpretations of the findings presented here. In particular, it is important to
address the possibilities of error presented by the methodology used in this study. This
section will also cover the items not loading into factors during the confirmatory factor
analysis of the Knowledge and Opinion Variables.
As stated previously, the method of survey creation used in this study results in
statement wording that is unusual in standard survey procedure. In attempting to recreate
and represent lines of reasoning seen in the semi-structured interviews, some survey
statements contain multiple parts. These statements may prove confusing to survey
respondents and could produce some error in the survey results. The successful use of
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis tested and confirmed the validity of the
survey instrument. In addition, the examination of survey responses in the mixed method
analysis took the possibility of respondent confusion into consideration as each of these
survey items was discussed.
In the factor analysis of the Knowledge and Opinion Variables on the survey, a
total of 4 variables were eliminated that did not meet the minimum primary loading
criteria. One of these variables, item 2.38, did not load because of human error in the
typing of the survey coding, and this variable was removed from the analysis. Two of the
Opinion Variables that did not load were closely related to the Source Variables and were
included in the Source Variable analysis rather than the Opinion Variable analysis. Only
one of these variables, item 2.3, was eliminated for the confusing nature of its multi-part
wording.
49 49
Chapter 4
MIXED METHOD ANALYSIS: STUDENT MENTAL MODELS
The mixed method analysis of the semi-structured interviews and survey data is
organized by quotations from the interviews, which are frequently paired with statements
from the survey. Similar presentation, also on climate change models, was used by
Kempton et al 1995. The survey variables, created to correspond with the statements seen
in the interview transcripts, quantify the pervasiveness of a belief or model across the
respondents. The analysis of the interview statements and survey variables is used to re-
create the mental models held by these students. As was explained in the Research
Design and Methodology chapter, the methodology used to create the survey produces
some statement wording that would not be seen in standard survey procedure. The
statements on this survey often include multipart ideas in an attempt to best capture the
mental models and lines of reasoning displayed in the pilot study interviews. This is an
intentional part of the survey methodology that allows the researcher to test the existence
of the mental models seen in semi-structured interviews across the survey respondent
population.
The quotations of students’ semi-structured interview responses are taken directly
from transcripts of the interviews. In some cases, filler words such as “um” and “like” are
removed from the quotations for clarity and readability. Questions and probes from the
researcher are displayed in italics in the quotations. A complete list of the students
interviewed, split by Set, can be seen in Appendix B.
The information gathered from the interviews of this sample highlights some
interesting and important information. Many of the mental models seen in students’
responses bore distinct similarities to those that were found in the informants of previous
50 50
studies of the general public (Bostrom et al 1994, Kempton et al 1995, Reynolds et al
2010). Students’ understanding of causes of climate change and the actions that can be
taken to prevent climate change were generally limited. Although there are some
elements of the scientific model present in respondent understanding, the “ozone
depletion model” and the “pollution model” seen in above listed previous research are
also present. The students were also asked about their sources of information, and the
ways in which they selected and evaluated the reliability of these sources.
In the following sections, the different elements of student mental models are
examined, in order of the topics discussed in the semi-structured interviews and the
themes observed throughout the course of the research process. The connection and
synthesis of these elements will illuminate some key, collective mental models seen in
these respondents.
Environmental Values and Attitudes
Before delving into the topic of climate change, a brief assessment of the
informants’ general attitude towards the environment was taken. The informants were
asked to name the environmental problems that easily come to mind. The two most
commonly listed environmental issues were global warming or climate change and
pollution, with each being mentioned by 14 of the 26 informants. The next most common
answers were only mentioned by five of the informants, and included general resource
depletion and plastics production or waste. Several answers were given by fewer than 5
and frequently only one informant, including deforestation, water quality, habitat
destruction, invasive species, acid mine drainage and issues associated with agriculture.
Three interviewees stated that recycling came to mind when they thought of
environmental problems, presumably as a solution.
On the survey, respondents were asked to pick the three environmental issues
about which they are most concerned from a list. The frequencies of the respondent
51 51
selections can be seen in Figure 2. As was observed in the semi-structured interview
respondents, students are most concerned about pollution, in this case broken down into
water and air pollution, and climate change.
Figure 2 Frequencies of Selection of Environmental Issues for which they are Most Concerned (Respondents selected three choices)
When asked if they thought environmental protection was important, all 26
interview informants answered “yes.” Similarly, 96.9% of the survey respondents agreed
with statement 2.2: I believe it is important to protect the environment. All of the
interview informants sited anthropocentric reasons for environmental protection. Some
representative answers are seen below:
Why…protect the environment? Because we live in it and a lot of our, well basically everything we need comes from it in one way or another. – Elizabeth (Early Childhood Development)
Do you think it is important to protect the environment? Absolutely. It’s our home, its’ where we live and I mean, a lot of people don’t see that. They see their house as their home, but this, the environment and the world, this is where we are and where we live. – Renee (S4E, Nursing)
0! 50! 100! 150! 200! 250! 300! 350! 400! 450!
Deser-fica-on!Ocean!acidifica-on!
Overfilled!landfills!and!seepage!Endangered!species!ex-nc-on!
Ozone!deple-on!Dumping!and!li?ering!Habitat!destruc-on!
Deforesta-on!Air!pollu-on!
Climate!change!or!global!warming!Water!pollu-on!
Frequency)of)Issue)Selec0on)
52 52
Six of the informants mentioned a responsibility to future generations as a reason
for protecting the environment, and five informants felt that humans have a
responsibility, separate from our own survival, to protect the earth.
Well I think it’s important because our land gets passed on, the problems we create today get passed on to future generations, and I feel like humans are having a really big impact nowadays compared to way earlier society and we don’t even really know the impact of our actions, so why not try to prevent detrimental impacts while we can? – May (S4E, Environmental Engineering)
I just feel like we have a responsibility as humans living on the earth to protect the environment and one thing that makes me like so mad is the things that we’ve done to the earth, that we just like came here and took over and now like there’s so many problems and that just makes me really upset. - Ariel (Multiple Environmental Groups, Human Services)
To further understand the informants’ attitudes about the environment and
environmental issues or causes as they are presented to them, the students were asked if
they ever thought environmental concerns were exaggerated. The informants were split in
their answers, but most commonly agreed that some exaggeration of environmental
problems was justified or necessary for enough attention to be brought to the issues.
Do you think environmental problems are ever exaggerated? Sometimes. But I think sometimes you have to exaggerate them to get people to listen. – Patrick (Political Science)
I think maybe yes but I think with good reason. Like I don’t mind it. Why for good reason or what do you think that reason is? I mean [the environment] is extremely important. –Ana (Nursing)
The corresponding statement on the survey produced the following results:
53 53
Table 3 2.3 Sometimes environmental concerns are exaggerated, but I think the exaggeration is justified because the environment is very important (N=756)
Agree Neither Disagree % 52.8 26.5 21.1
This statement has two parts and may be confusing to some respondents, but the
intention was to capture the entire line of reasoning. A majority of the survey respondents
agreed with statement 2.3, supporting the viewpoint about exaggeration expressed by
many of the interview informants. This statement portrays a mental model in which the
importance of the environment and environmental problems makes an “ends justifies the
means” approach valid, but also one in which the truthfulness of environmental concerns
can be brought into question. In the example in 2.3 the logic is used to argue for
environmental concern, but the same view that exaggeration is warranted could also lead
its holders to take scientific information about environmental concerns, such as climate
change with more reserve than might be appropriate if they took environmental messages
as carefully fact-checked and not exaggerated.
Eight of the interview informants thought that environmental problems are not
exaggerated, with varying levels of conviction. An engineering major, who chose to be
called Carlos for this study, answered the question “Do you think environmental concerns
are ever exaggerated?” quite simply with “No. If anything they are understated.” As will
be discussed later chapter, Carlos was an exception to many of the other trends seen in
the interview informants, however he was not alone on this topic. He was the most
vehement in his denial of exaggeration, but other students agreed with him:
Do you think that environmental concerns are ever exaggerated? Um no. I don’t. Because I think the hardest thing is to raise awareness about it. People ignore it so much, so you have to make it as in their face as you can for people to actually realize it cause they, they’ll just ignore it. –Alice (S4E, Hotel and Restaurant Management)
54 54
The argument that environmental concerns are not exaggerated, was represented
in the following survey statement:
Table 4 2.4 Environmental problems are not exaggerated, if anything they are understated (N=745)
Agree Neither Disagree % 39.5 36.1 24.4
The respondents are relatively split in their responses to this statement. Nearly
40% of the respondents agreed with this statement, despite its strong wording; a quarter
disagreed. On the other end of the opinion spectrum regarding exaggeration, one of the
interviewees expressed a belief that environmental concerns are exaggerated.
Do you think that environmental concerns are ever exaggerated? Yes. (laughs) Uh like global warming, um yeah. I mean I think that there’s a tendency, in order to enact social change, to make it sound way more scary than the actual science supports. And that’s with a lot of things, but…Can you think of any other examples? Um, well I remember as a kid I thought that pollution was gonna like end the world in about 10 years or so, and I dunno I mean deforestation and I think just the gamut of environmental problems are, when they become in the public eye or anything, they become very exaggerated. – Consuela (Geology)
To quantify Consuela’s model of environmental concern exaggeration across the
respondents, the following statement was included in the survey:
Table 5 2.5 Sometimes when environmentalists are concerned about an issue, they exaggerate and stray from the facts (N=729)
Agree Neither Disagree % 43.8 32.1 24.2
Although the wording of this statement isn’t strongly negative, it is meant to
capture the line of reasoning shown by Consuela. Interestingly, a majority of the
55 55
respondents agree with this statement as well. Item 2.5 seems to be essentially the
opposite statement as 2.4, yet a plurality agrees with each of these items. One explanation
may be that 2.4 states that environmental problems are not exaggerated, but 2.5 states that
environmentalists (as opposed to scientists, for exampled) may exaggerate. As observed
earlier, the belief that environmental issues are exaggerated and that the facts are
sometimes skewed to make a point may lead respondents to disregard or undervalue
information they receive about environmental issues.
The overarching mental models displayed by informants include expressed
concern regarding environmental protection, particularly for anthropocentric reasons. In
general, students held mixed perceptions about the degree of exaggeration of
environmental concerns and the amount for which that exaggeration is justified.
Models of the Mechanisms and Causes of Climate Change
After the initial questions regarding their general attitudes towards the
environment, the interview informants were asked if they had ever heard of climate
change and what they had heard about it. If necessary, a follow up question was given
asking the informants to describe what they knew about the scientific process by which
climate change happens. Through this section of the interview, the students’ models of
the mechanisms and causes of climate change were observed.
When asked what they knew or had heard about climate change, the interview
informants often described their understanding of the mechanisms of climate change.
Students also listed a few of the effects of climate change in their initial responses to the
question. In describing the mechanisms of climate change, the interview informants fell
into three general categories: those with an understanding close to the scientific model,
those who confused the mechanisms of climate change with other environmental issues,
and those who saw current, rapid climate change as attributed more to natural causes than
to human actions.
56 56
Only a handful of the interviewees were able to spontaneously produce an
explanation of the mechanisms of climate change that resembled the scientific model.
Two interviewees’ statements outlining the causes and effects of climate change and
displaying mental models containing elements of the scientific model are shown below:
Do you remember any specifics about how climate change happens? There are gases and they are trapped up there and as a result of this, heat doesn’t escape from the atmosphere from what I understand and it accumulates and that’s about as much as I can say. What kind of gases? CO2, I did say that one. That’s what I know. …What causes these gases to collect? I mean, human consumption certainly, like burning of fossil fuels and cows produce them. We produce them. So it’s not like these gases don’t exist in outside of human contribution but um fossil fuel consumption is a big contributor. – Gaston (S4E, Biochemistry)
…Its just the effects of excess, more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, especially CO2 and methane is a big one too…Where do the greenhouse gases come from? Well especially with cars and burning fossil fuels, just the bi-product of the chemical reaction that has to happen for those fuels to give us energy, they release extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…-Lindsay (S4E, Environmental Studies)
Although these explanations are vague, they contain key elements of the scientific model.
In the quotes above, Gaston and Lindsay are both able to identify carbon dioxide as a gas
contributing to climate change, and both mention the burning of fossil fuels as a producer
of carbon dioxide. The understanding of these elements of the scientific model across the
survey respondents was tested with survey statements 2.18 and 2.23, shown below.
Table 6 2.18 Climate change is caused by an increased amount of gases like carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere (N=682)
Agree Neither Disagree % 75.1 21.5 3.4
Table 7 2.23 Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps heat and causes climate change (N=566)
Agree Neither Disagree
57 57
% 77 19.6 3.3
When presented with these elements of the scientific model, a clear majority, three-
quarters of the survey respondents, were able to identify these correct statements about
causes of current climate change.
Although large numbers of students expressed agreement with these statements,
only a few were able to spontaneously produce these statements during interviews. The
ability to produce information can be a more sensitive indicator of knowledge than the
more passive ability to agree to a statement presented, as has been found in prior
methodological studies. More frequently, interviewee responses confused elements of
other environmental issues with climate change. Ozone depletion was the issue most
commonly confused throughout the interview process.
Student’s confusion of climate change and ozone depletion generally took the
form of a model in which elements of both process were pieced together into one model.
Some examples of this phenomenon can be seen in the quotations below. The first of the
two students, Jasmine, mentioned CO2 in relation to climate change and the quote here
comes from her response to a follow up question:
So what does the CO2 do that makes the climate change? It’s a greenhouse…it’s a greenhouse gas, yeah so it holds in the…yeah that’s what it does….it holds in the heat, CO2…but now I’m thinking about UV rays and the ozone layer and the ozone breaking off…so I guess that’s my answer. So is the ozone layer related to climate change? Mhmm, yeah. Cause when the ozone layer is thinning, more of the sun’s rays get through, so that heats up the atmosphere. – Jasmine (S4E, Chemistry)
The ozone layer is, it has holes in it, and we’re making it worse cause of greenhouse gases and without that layer the sun is able to beat down on the earth more and more heat is trapped within the earth and can’t get out. And so it’s melting ice caps and causing a lot of weird weather patterns – Terri (English)
Jasmine and Terri both mention contributing elements of climate change, CO2
and greenhouse gases, but place them in the context of ozone depletion in their models of
the mechanisms of climate change. The model of the climate change process in which
58 58
ozone depletion lets in “more heat from the sun,” as is seen in both of these responses,
was included on the survey in item 2.11
Table 8 2.11 Climate change is happening because we are depleting the ozone layer and that lets in more heat from the sun. (N=672)
Agree Neither Disagree % 43 26.9 20.1
In addition, Terri’s statement from the interview quote above, which describes a
slightly different mechanism regarding the ozone layer and also the newer term,
“greenhouse gases,” is represented on the survey with item 2.16.
Table 9 2.16 Greenhouse gases make the hole in the ozone layer worse (N=633)
Agree Neither Disagree % 54.8 23.2 21.9
Majorities of the survey respondents agreed with both statements 2.11 and 2.16.
Slightly fewer respondents agreed with item 2.11, which essentially attributes climate
change directly to the definition of ozone depletion. More than half of the survey
respondents agree with item 2.16, which more clearly combines the concepts of ozone
depletion with new elements of the mechanisms of climate change. The majority of the
respondents clearly recognize greenhouse gases as a factor in climate change, but do not
correctly understand the mechanisms by which greenhouse gases affect the global
climate.
In some cases students expanded this model to further include the factors that
cause ozone depletion into their model for the causes of climate change. In the quotes
below, two students conflate climate change with ozone depletion, and display different
ways in which they have incorporated information about climate change and information
about ozone depletion into their mental models:
59 59
Do you remember anything about the scientific process of [climate change]? I know that, is it VOCs? Volatile Organic Compounds? Um, when they go into the atmosphere they break down the ozone layer and because of that the rays from the sun are more able to penetrate the earth and that’s what’s causing the warming? I believe? Yeah cause there’s not that atmospheric buffer as much as there used to be. And because of that it’s creating a greenhouse effect and the warmth is staying in the area between the earth and the atmosphere and that’s causing the warming. What part of this do humans make happen? Ok so there’s aerosols, I know that’s part of it, pollution, like other kinds of pollution. Carbon dioxide coming from factories, um, car emissions, vehicle emissions. – Ariel (S4E, Sierra Club, Audobon Society, WWF, Human Services)
What can you tell me about the scientific mechanism of climate change? You mentioned C02. Why carbon emissions, what does it do? So because, is that like when it goes in the air, like the oxygen creates like 03, is that the same thing, like ozone? Alright, and what happens with that? Um, as far as I know it, um, like oxidizes the atmosphere kind of, allowing it to be more susceptible to the heat and the sun and stuff like that. Where do those CO2 emissions come from? They come from like energy use like coal and oil and stuff. – Joan (S4E and NYPRG, Diatetics)
Interestingly, Ariel’s response contains elements of both the greenhouse effect and of
ozone depletion. Her model of human contribution displays her issue confusion, as she
lists VOCs, pollution and aerosols as human contributions to climate change, but also
contains elements of the scientific model. She specifically names carbon dioxide and
vehicle emissions as contributing factors. Joan’s response includes ozone, but in a
different way. In her mental model ozone is created from carbon dioxide emissions and it
“oxidizes the atmosphere.” Neither scenario matches the scientific model. Both responses
are consistent with having incorporated new information about climate change into a
preexisting model of the atmosphere and ozone depletion. Ariel’s response that aerosol
cans contribute to climate change was represented on the survey with item 2.21.
Table 10 2.21 Climate change happens because we release chemicals from aerosol cans into the atmosphere (N=581)
Agree Neither Disagree % 31.1 38.2 30.4
60 60
Almost a third of the survey respondents hold mental models in which aerosol cans cause
climate change. This number is lower, however, than the total number of students
agreeing with statement 2.11. This could be due to respondents’ incorporation of correct
scientific information, like the contribution of CO2, into previously held mental models
about ozone depletion, just as can be seen in the interview responses of Ariel and Joan.
Students’ confusion between climate change and other environmental issues
extended beyond ozone depletion. The interviewee quoted below, Renee, mentioned
ozone depletion, but she also displayed confusion regarding nuclear power plants and
their role in the climate change debate.
What have you heard about climate change? I’ve heard that we are helping it… I mean we’re hurting ourselves I mean with the whole nuclear power plants and how we’re degrading the ozone layer and how also in the arctic, like the north and south, everything’s melting. I mean I know the gist of it for the most part. – Renee (S4E, Nursing)
Nuclear power is sometimes incorporated in the scientific discussion of climate change
but usually as a solution, since it is an alternative to traditional fossil fuels. It is a
contentious alternative, given the overall costs and risks associated with nuclear power
generation and nuclear waste. However, these negative connotations seem to have spilled
over into Renee’s mental model of climate change, in which she sees nuclear power as a
contributing factor. This idea was tested on the survey with item 2.22.
Table 11 2.22 Nuclear power plants create pollution that causes climate change (N=571)
Agree Neither Disagree % 37.5 25.4 37.1
Nearly 40% of the survey respondents mistakenly believe that pollution from
nuclear power plants contributes to climate change. Renee’s conflation is not unique to
her. Pollution, sometimes including nuclear power or ozone depletion, plays a role in
61 61
students’ models of climate change mechanisms. This role is not as distinct for pollution
as for ozone depletion, but does exist. When asked what he has heard about climate
change, the student quoted below displays confusion between climate change and
multiple other environmental issues.
What have you heard about climate change? I’ve heard everything from gases and materials that we use polluting the atmosphere either opening the ozone layer to let more radiation from the sun in to the complete opposite which is we’re polluting it so much that the stuff is, the radiation levels within the earth’s atmosphere are reflecting back down on us and… All varieties, everything, it’s like no matter what we do we’re damaging the atmosphere somehow. Have you heard anything in particular that humans do that make these changes happen? Pollution, dumping, other you know manmade structures changing things like the flows of rivers and damming things up that somehow effect this chain of events that always ends in catastrophe. –Michael (Computer Science)
Michael’s mental model of the mechanisms of climate change includes several
other environmental issues including pollution, dumping and river damming. General
pollution and “toxic” pollution were mentioned in several cases as contributors to climate
change. Item 2.15 was included in the survey to capture this component of mental
models. The word “toxic” was used to distinguish a type of “bad” and “unnatural”
pollution, different from gases like carbon dioxide.
Table 12 2.15 Toxic pollution in the atmosphere causes climate change (N=641)
Agree Neither Disagree % 65.2 24 10.7
Large percentages of all four Sets agreed with statement 2.15. One potential
conclusion with this statement is that CO2, which has not historically been considered a
“pollutant,” was recently named one by the EPA. Nevertheless, CO2 was not named a
pollutant at the time of the interviews and does not have the characteristics of toxicity
normally considered attributes of pollution. In the factor analysis of the knowledge
62 62
variables, item 2.15 loaded into the “Issue Confusion” (KF2) factor. In the context of
Michael’s answer, in which pollution and dumping were both included, it is likely that his
definition of pollution is that of “unnatural” pollution and his mental model includes
issue confusion.
In addition to models of the mechanisms of climate change that match the
scientific model and those that display issue confusion, some of the interview informants
expressed models in which natural causes are more significant to climate change than
anthropogenic causes. This model was not as common as the other two in the interview
process, but never the less was distinct.
The greenhouse effect occurs through various gases such as uh CO2, water vapors have actually been an even bigger one than CO2 in a lot of ways, these things get released into the air either through human processes or natural processes like volcanism, and they basically trap energy that enters the earth. – Ben (Geology)
(Later in the interview) A lot of people think about, for example that the global warming issue is just related to greenhouse gases. It is related to greenhouse gases, but it also involves things like the magnetic field which we don’t completely understand, it also involves the sun, which is totally beyond our control, cause the sun fluctuates and goes through cycles… the earth’s rotation wobbles and that can change the climate as well. The ice ages, they’re called I think Milankovitch cycles, the advancing and receding of ice ages and so on… so it’s very complicated. – Ben (Geology)
The role of natural forces in climate change is not incorrect, but the specific
references Ben makes in this response do not entirely match the scientific model. For
example, volcanism, according to the IPCC, actually contributes to global cooling rather
than global warming, and although water vapor is a radiative forcing factor, the increase
in water vapor is a feedback loop caused by increasing temperatures. Most of the
elements of Ben’s model exist, but they play a far lesser role in current, rapid global
climate change than he attributes to them.
63 63
Ben’s model of the mechanisms of climate change in which natural causes play a
greater role in climate change than anthropogenic causes was included on the survey in
item 2.62.
Table 13 2.62 From my sources I’ve learned that too much emphasis is put on the human element of climate change, rather than the natural elements (N=472)
Agree Neither Disagree % 33.1 32.6 35.3
Although the natural causes model of climate change was not very frequent in the
interview informants, the agreement of one third of the survey respondents to this survey
statement indicates that this mental model element is relatively common. Respondents
agreeing with this statement may not hold a mental model identical to Ben’s, but one of
the interconnected concepts in their mental models is one in which “too much emphasis”
is placed on the anthropogenic nature of climate change and the natural causes play a
greater role than is generally assigned to them. Again, although the greenhouse effect is a
natural phenomenon, the rapidly accumulating greenhouse gases from human fossil fuel
use are driving current climate change, and they are not part of the natural system.
Models of Action and Urgency
As defined in the Literature Review of this dissertation, mental models consist of
a set of interrelated concepts used to explain a phenomenon. The concepts of the
mechanisms of climate change described above are closely related to the students’
concepts of the actions that can be taken to reduce climate change. Similarly, the
students’ perceived urgency of climate change is determined by their models of the
mechanism of climate change, and affects their understanding of the need for these
actions. The students expressed several models of the actions that can be taken to
mitigate climate change, by individuals and by the government. Through their responses
64 64
to the direct questions regarding the actions that can be taken, as well as to other
questions regarding attitudes towards climate change, models of the urgency can also be
inferred.
During the interview process students were asked about the actions individuals
and the government can take to combat climate change. In addressing the actions
individuals can take, many students were able to name a few actions that fit into the
Climate Action Model. These were often lacking in definition, such as the most
commonly mentioned actions of “driving less.” For example, the two students quoted
below both gave answers regarding waste and transportation.
We could carpool more or take public transportation. I guess, just try to reduce your waste, personal waste, because it adds up when everyone makes a lot of waste. – Susan (Greenpeace, Biology and Psychology)
Well, I think the first thing is to look at your transportation. Find ways to get to work that damage the environment less, meaning walking, biking. If you can’t do those things, maybe you should consider moving…putting yourself in a place where you’re closer to where you need to be I guess. – Gaston (S4E, Chemistry)
The responses regarding transportation are not incorrect, but are relatively vague. Susan’s
mention of “personal waste” is not clear, but may indicate some issue confusion. The
aspect of student mental models dealing with changes in personal transportation was
expressed with the following statement on the survey:
Table 14 2.27 I’ve heard that driving less and using bicycles and public transportation are ways to reduce climate change (N=531)
Agree Neither Disagree % 92.1 5.5 2.5
A very large majority of the survey respondents have heard about the changes in
personal transportation they can make to try to reduce with climate change. In some
interview cases, however, students’ issue confusion between climate change and ozone
65 65
depletion again appeared in their answers regarding individual action and transportation.
In the case of the two quotes below, new information about switching transportation to
combat climate change has been incorporated into the ozone depletion model of climate
change:
Is there anything else individuals can do specifically for climate change? …Uh, switch transportation wise. Like cars, you know. Uh, bike, go biking or use mass transportation, bikes, trains. What happens when cars get used less? The emissions from the cars go into depleting the ozone. Car emissions deplete ozone? Yeah. – Renee (S4E, Nursing)
What can individuals do to help prevent or reduce climate change? Drive less. Stop destroying the ozone layer. Do things to help prevent overuse of resources and driving less will help prevent destroying the ozone layer and help keep the ice caps cold. Why do people need to drive less? Because the whole, whatever chemical or gas puts out when you drive, it like is destroying the ozone, supposedly. –Zoe (Studio Art)
This line of reasoning in which emissions from cars deplete the ozone layer is
consistent with issue confusion between climate change and ozone depletion.
Interestingly, the incorporation of new information in this mental model does not affect
the students’ ability to determine effective action. This is not always the cause and will be
discussed further in this section. The line of reasoning seen in Renee and Zoe’s responses
above was represented on the survey with item 2.14.
Table 15 2.14 Gas and chemical emissions from our cars deplete the ozone and cause climate change (N=648)
Agree Neither Disagree % 66.8 17.4 15.7
According to the response rates of this question, this concept is present in two-thirds of
the survey respondents’ mental models of climate change. Clearly the message that car
emissions contribute to climate change has been incorporated into most respondents’
mental models, as can be seen from the responses to both item 2.14 and to item 2.27, but
66 66
the mechanism by which cars affect climate change is misunderstood by a substantial
majority, as shown in the responses to 2.14.
Some students’ mental models were more complete and included transportation
and energy efficiency measures, as can be seen in the quote below:
I mean one of the easiest things [you can do is] to not drive when you don’t need to, I mean to walk places and bike when you can. And then things like energy efficient light bulbs and you know, heat sealing your house and trying to use more efficient appliances, just limit the amount of energy that you’re using sort of in whatever way that you can. And that sort of goes in terms of you know the whole recycling and trying to use less products because anything you consume, it uses energy to produce it. –Kyle (Biochemistry)
Although Kyle mentions recycling, which will be discussed further and is not an effective
measure for combating climate change, he does put it in the context of reducing
production. Overall, his solutions are viable and slightly less vague than those presented
by some of his peers.
Some of the students incorporated multiple ideas about individual action to
address the multiple causes of climate change present in their mental models. The student
quoted below deals with several of the aspects of her mental model in her response:
What can individuals do about climate change? I think that the first thing they can do is educate themselves. Cause a lot of people know that they have been told to recycle and they’ve been told to drive less, but they may not understand why and how little changes can make a really big difference and I guess for people that may not be as like gung-ho granola just like simple things like CFL light bulbs instead…big one too is like appliances, when they’re plugged in when you’re not using them, like just really simple things, simple changes. Not everyone can afford to put solar panels on their house or get a wind turbine, so…little things. – Lindsay (S4E, Environmental Studies)
Lindsay’s response touched on transportation and energy efficiency, but also on
the concept of waste reduction and recycling. Lindsay was one of the few students to
mention limiting or reducing ones energy consumption and increasing energy efficiency,
67 67
both effective measures an individual can take regarding climate change. Students were
asked if they had heard of some specific energy efficiency measures on the survey.
Table 16 2.42 I’ve heard that using efficient light bulbs, turning off electric appliances and insulating my house are all ways I can reduce my contribution to climate change (N=494)
Agree Neither Disagree % 91.7 4.9 3.4
A large majority of the respondents agreed that they had heard of these measures,
but surprisingly few interview informants were able to produce this answer in response to
an open-ended question. This echoes the results seen when respondents were asked about
the mechanisms of climate change. Students were readily able to identify a description of
the greenhouse effect and the contribution of fossil fuels when presented with statements
on the survey, but on their own they frequently could not articulate the primary
mechanisms of climate change.
Like both Kyle and Lindsay, who mentioned recycling in their quotes above,
students’ responses frequently held elements of the scientific model in addition to
elements consistent with the issue confusion seen in their models of the mechanisms of
climate change. Recycling and waste reduction were some of the most commonly
mentioned solutions, as is seen in the interview quote below:
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. That kind of thing. I think just like using less is like a hard thing for Americans, we always want to buy more. Like we want to buy the more environmentally friendly thing, but like the whole point is like don’t buy anything else, just make do with what you have is how I feel. What’s the point of buying like a new, like environmentally friendly something that you don’t need? – May (S4E, Environmental Engineering)
When asked about the impact of recycling on climate change, many students
explained that recycling reduces production and therefore helps combat climate change
68 68
and keeps harmful plastics out of landfills. This line of reasoning is represented in the
following survey item:
Table 17 2.44 Recycling is essential to reducing climate change because it keeps plastic out of landfills and reduces production (N=485)
Agree Neither Disagree % 77.3 14 8.6
Production of recyclable materials does use energy and electricity and therefore
produces greenhouse gases. Recycling does not, however, make a significant dent in this
process, and in and of itself requires energy expenditure. It is not an essential or effective
part of reducing climate change. Thus, due to the “and” in 2.44, the correct answer would
be “disagree” or at least “neither.” However, a substantial majority of the student
respondents agreed with statement 2.44.
In the manifestation of their issue confusion regarding the mechanisms of climate
change, some students mentioned elements of reducing ozone depletion when asked how
to combat climate change. The interview quote below again incorporates both correct and
incorrect information regarding how an individual can deal with climate change:
What can individuals do about climate change? Well, they can cut down on their carbon emissions by just not using things that are going to produce anything that’s going to cause emissions. So it can be having a sustainable car, a car that’s more sustainable like a hybrid, you know something that doesn’t use as much gas. Walking or biking to work or wherever you need to go. Not using things in general, like plastic bottles, you know to create plastic there’s a factory so not using things that need to be produced like that. And just reusing, because almost all products are coming from a factory of something that’s burning emissions. Not using aerosol cans…that’s like one of the examples they use. – Ariel (S4E, Sierra Club, Audobon Society, WWF, Human Services)
The concept of avoiding aerosol cans in order to reduce climate change was
included on the survey in item 2.36:
69 69
Table 18 2.36 I can help prevent climate change by not buying or using aerosol cans (N=505)
Agree Neither Disagree % 50.1 28.7 21.1
Unlike the cases explained earlier, in which the confusion between climate change
and ozone depletion led to a line of reasoning in which car emissions were the cause of
ozone depletion and a scientifically correct action came from an incorrect line of
reasoning, this aspect of issue confusion has led respondents to an incorrect conclusion.
Half of the survey respondents believe that they can reduce their contribution to climate
change by avoiding aerosol cans. Given that the contents of aerosol are not a significant
radiative forcing factor of climate change, this measure is ineffective. In fact, given that
CFCs, which are associated with ozone depletion, have been banned from aerosol cans in
the US, avoiding the use of aerosol cans is no longer an effective measure for preventing
ozone depletion.
Finally, a few of the interviewees were not sure how their specific actions affect
climate change. Elizabeth, who is quoted below, listed several measures she has learned
she can take to protect the environment, but admitted to now knowing how she
contributes to climate change:
For the environment in general, I mean, recycling. I feel like, I was watching something the other day about how like being a vegetarian and how taking one serving a meat out of your meal for like a week can like completely, largely change how much meat is eaten during that week. Like if every person does this one little thing. So I feel like everything doing one little thing like recycling or like not, as an old school example, not dumping stuff in oceans, like if one person would not do that or would do something like that one time less I think it could make a big difference. You said that is for environmental problems in general though? Yeah, I mean I don’t really know what I do myself that promotes or encourages global warming. – Elizabeth (Early Childhood Education)
70 70
Another student simply stated the essence of the last line of Elizabeth’s quote; she does
not know how her individual actions effect climate change. These statements were
represented on the survey in item 2.41.
Table 19 2.41 I am not sure how my personal actions specifically effect climate change (N=465)
Agree Neither Disagree % 25.7 16.4 57.9
A slight majority of the students disagree with this statement, indicating that they
believe they know how their actions affect climate change. Disagreement with this
statement does not necessarily translate to knowledge. It is likely that the one-fourth of
the respondents agreeing with statement 2.41 are correct in their ignorance. However,
given the numbers of respondents identifying incorrect actions as factors in climate
change and the levels of issue confusion, it is expected that some of the students who
believe they know how they affect climate change are incorrect. Further discussion of this
and other observations dealing with self-evaluated knowledge and ignorance will be in
the Discussion and Conclusions chapter of this dissertation.
The Climate Action Model, to which the students’ models have been compared,
and which was defined in the Research Design and Methodology chapter, includes all
forms of policy and governmental action that are designed to address the correct
scientific mechanisms of climate change. When asked about the ways in which the
government can address climate change, students lacked concrete knowledge of the
possible steps the government could take. Very few interviewees were able to name
specific economic, international or regulatory policies aimed at reducing or mitigating
climate change. A few of the most specific responses mention renewable resource use,
cap and trade, and regulation of emissions. One political science major mentioned the
Kyoto Protocol, but he was unable to connect the name of this agreement with how it
71 71
works to combat climate change. In several of the more vague responses, students
mention the need for increased educational material from the government and general
regulation of pollution.
The quotes below include elements of the Climate Action Model regarding the
role the government can play in reducing climate change. These more specific
suggestions were not as common as the less concrete examples to be explored later, but
nevertheless they were present in interviews.
The government, I think, could do a lot more that what they’re doing. Spending more money to change the standards that we have, like change emissions standards for cars; really just totally change everything to electric. I mean they could put in place just more alternative fuel or alternative energy things, like wind, whatever, solar. You know if the government had all their facilities running like that maybe that would inspire the rest of the country to do it. Sort of lead by example? Yeah exactly and I know that there is a lot that is going on like that but definitely not enough and we’re definitively not spending the money in the right places, I don’t think. – Eileen (Environmental Science)
I think the government should be regulating fuel efficiencies, first off. And then on top of that I think they should be restricting oil collection a lot more than they are. I see that you know there’s so much big business that has a big hand in encouraging more drilling and I think I would like to see some limitations on that. – Gaston (S4E, Biochemistry)
Again, no specific policies are mentioned, but the use of alternative energy and
the regulation of fuel efficiency are both actions that match the Climate Action Model.
Ten of the 26 interview informants mentioned the encouragement of alternative energy.
On the survey this item was represented with item 2.43
Table 20 2.43 The government could put more resources into developing alternative and renewable sources of energy in order to reduce climate change (N=489)
Agree Neither Disagree % 84.9 10.8 4.2
72 72
Although fewer than half of the interview informants could produce this response on their
own, a large majority of the survey respondents recognized this governmental action as
one to mitigate climate change.
The burning of fossil fuels for transportation is the process for the emission of
greenhouse gases that seems to be the most prevalent in mental models. This process is
frequently addressed with solutions such as “drive less”, “ride a bike” or “use public
transportation” but Lucille was one of a 2 interview informants who noted that the public
transportation system is in need of further funding and infrastructure to be a more viable
option.
What specifically do you think the government can do about climate change? About climate change? Oh man, I don’t know. Because we’re obviously not gonna stop using cars. But I think one of the reasons we use cars is because our public transportation system that used to be so great before we had all these interstates is now awful. I don’t know anyone who says they use the dart bus to go to their job at the mall. You know, little things like that, like public transportation, bullet trains, and I know people don’t want to pay the taxes for that but…it really would, I think they would be surprised how much money that would save in gas just doing that… I feel like if the government doesn’t put infrastructure in that supports an educated environmental choice, then there is no way that people can go about their daily lives and have hectic busy schedules and actually do it responsibly, environmentally responsibly. – Lucille (High School Environmental Group, English)
Despite its infrequent mention during the semi-structured interviews, this solution
was again highly recognized on the survey.
Table 21 2.40 We need to change our transportation, like creating better public transportation, in order to make a big impact on climate change (N=501)
Agree Neither Disagree % 72.5 19.6 8
There is a pattern emerging in these data, in which students cannot recall specific answers
regarding climate change, but can recognize the correct mechanisms and solutions when
73 73
presented with them. Their inability to spontaneously produce correct answers, and their
propensity to also label incorrect statements about climate change as correct, suggests
incomplete mental models of climate change. This pattern will be further discussed in the
Discussion and Conclusions chapter of this dissertation. The pattern continues in
students’ responses about the ways in which the government can address climate change.
Three of the 26 informants were able to mention the specific economic policy of cap and
trade as a way to deal with climate change, as is seen in the quote below:
Another thing I think [the government] can do is really start finding companies who are polluting and I’m all for some sort of a cap system where if they go above this certain amount of pollution they have to start paying…like carbon credits and you know that system. I’m all for that. I really don’t think any company that is polluting excessively should get any kind of a tax break or anything, and I think if anything they need to either raise taxes or give them some sort of a fine. And then another thing that I think is that the government should, I honestly hope that gas just keeps going up, I mean because I’m hoping that at some point people will be like “Ok well I can’t pay $5 a gallon for gas, I have to find a better way” – Ariel (S4E, Sierra Club, Audubon Society, WWF, Human Services)
Interestingly, Ariel refers to emissions as “pollution.” The confusion of
greenhouse gases with general pollution or toxic pollution is relatively common. Her use
of this term is vague, however, and her level of confusion is difficult to determine. As a
result of her also mentioning “carbon credits” in the same line of reasoning, it is assumed
that she understands that carbon or carbon dioxide are the contributing emissions in need
of regulation. The use of cap and trade is represented in survey item 2.32.
Table 22 2.32 The government could tax carbon emissions or introduce a system of cap and trade in an effort to reduce climate change (N=513)
Agree Neither Disagree % 59.6 23.8 16.5
74 74
Again, a majority of the survey respondents recognize cap and trade as a policy meant to
deal with climate change. Fewer respondents agree with item 2.32 than do with item 2.40
on transportation. Two possible explanations for this would be either the more politically
controversial nature of economic policy (tax), or the more immediately clear strategy that
names a polluting activity (transportation) directly.
One of the most common responses seen in the interview informants regarding
possible government action increased informal education and communication. Examples
of this line of reasoning are seen below:
I think the biggest thing the government has to do is promotion for [climate change]…I think that they need to get it across on how important it actually is. I feel like they are trying to do that right now, there is just a whole lot of stuff going on in the government right now… Do you mean they need to do more education? Yeah education, and I mean like in a positive way. I don’t like it when people do the whole, like, scary thing. Cause I don’t really think you can reverse it as much as you need to like slow it down. – Anastasia (Nursing)
I think [the government] need[s] to be more informative because everyone’s like “oh my god global warming” and “oh my god, like climate change” but I don’t know the details of it and I think that they aren’t… I think they need to increase the educational component because people don’t really know the details and besides driving less, I don’t really know what to do to reduce climate change. Maybe plant trees? Reforestation efforts? But um I don’t really know what to do. They need to be more involved in terms of educating the public. – Denise (S4E, Wildlife Conservation and Biology)
Informal public education is generally not a primary function of the federal government.
Still, the call for more information from the government was a common theme in
interview informants. This response was addressed on the survey with statement 2.28:
Table 23 2.28 The government should better educate us about environmental problems (N=529)
Agree Neither Disagree % 82.4 12.9 4.7
75 75
An overwhelming majority of the respondents agree with statement 2.28. These results
indicate that the students believe it is the government’s responsibility to further inform its
citizens about environmental issues. This logic may be reinforced by the lack of student
initiative to find climate change information seen in this study and further examined later
in this chapter.
The final, common response to the interview question addressing the actions the
government can take was the regulation of pollution. Some mention was made of
regulating climate-relevant emissions, but most commonly the interviewees’ responses
were less targeted and indicated general pollution or toxic chemicals.
I think that it’s necessary to have like stricter laws, because people aren’t necessarily going to listen. But policy changes that come from the government make a bigger, lasting impact in my opinion…You said stricter laws. What kind of laws? I think that there should be more government, or more corporate accountability for like things, for pollutants that are given off in processing. – May (S4E, Environmental Engineering)
Five students mentioned the regulation of pollutants during the interviews. This line of
reasoning was represented on the survey in item 2.35. The term “toxic pollution” was
used to distinguish these pollutants from greenhouse gas emissions, as was done with
item 2.15.
Table 24 2.35 The government can reduce climate change by regulating toxic pollution (N=507)
Agree Neither Disagree % 65.7 21.7 12.7
Interpretation of this survey statement is less straightforward than some of the
previous statements. Students’ agreement or disagreement with statements regarding
government actions can be influenced not only by their mental models of climate change,
but also by their political beliefs and values. For instance, students disagreeing with
statement 2.35 may understand that toxic pollution is not a cause of climate change, and
76 76
therefore that its regulation is not an effective solution to climate change. Alternatively,
students might disagree because they do not believe in substantial government regulation,
regardless of their understanding of the causes of climate change. Nevertheless, more
than half of the students agreed with this action as a way for the government to combat
climate change. In the Research Design and Methodology chapter of this dissertation, the
Climate Action Model was explained as including those polices aimed at effective
climate change mitigation based on its scientific causes. Regulation of toxic pollution
does not fit into the Climate Action Model, and students including this element in their
mental models may not hold models of climate change that match the scientific model.
Nevertheless, at least 2/3 saw government regulation as an appropriate component of
responding to climate change.
Students’ concepts of the individual and governmental actions that can be taken to
mitigate climate change are related to their concepts of the mechanisms of climate
change, as well as their understanding of the urgency of the issue. In some cases, students
directly commented on the urgency of climate change, but frequently their perception of
urgency was implied in their responses to questions regarding the different elements of
the climate change model. Most of the interview participants lacked much urgency in
their presentation and demeanor, speaking of climate change as something they knew
about but weren’t particularly concerned with or didn’t regularly think about. It might be
expected that a respondent who readily confesses that he or she does not know what
causes climate change does not see it as a pressing issue for which he or she should be
concerned. A statement to this effect was included on the survey with item 2.13.
Table 25 2.13 I know that changes in the atmosphere cause climate change, but I don’t know very much about the scientific processes that make it happen (N=658)
Agree Neither Disagree % 45.3 18.2 36.5
77 77
A majority of the survey respondents indicated that they do now know very much
about the science of climate change. This is not a direct question concerning urgency, but
a low measure of urgency can be inferred by these responses. Similarly, when asked
about their sources of climate change information, several students stated that they do not
actively go looking for information about climate change. Again, this is not a direct
measure of students’ perception of the urgency of climate change, but it may speak to
their perception of urgency. Item 2.51 was designed from responses that they do not look
for information about climate change.
Table 26 2.51 I hear people talk about climate change, but I don’t really look for information about it (N=481)
Agree Neither Disagree % 42.8 17.3 39.9
Similar percentages of respondents both do and do not claim to specifically seek
out information about climate change. One interpretation of these results might be that
more than 40% of the respondents do not see climate change as an issue urgent enough to
justify seeking additional information.
In other parts of the interview, a few students gave answers implying or stating
that climate change may not be a particularly urgent issue. When asked if they thought
environmental issues were ever exaggerated, four students specifically mentioned climate
change or global warming in their responses:
I think that people look at global warming and they kind of maybe blow it out of proportion or something, like they should be looking at more direct things that will affect us right now. Like maybe water quality or just like organic farming that could affect us immediately instead of something that’s super long-term like global warming. – Eileen (Environmental Science)
78 78
Misunderstanding of the urgency of climate change is one possible explanation for the
belief that climate change concerns are exaggerated. As a summary of these students’
opinions, item 2.9 was included on the survey.
Table 27 2.9 I think climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science supports (N=695)
Agree Neither Disagree % 23.7 27.6 48.6
Although almost half respondents disagree with this statement, nearly a quarter
agrees. This statement does not directly address urgency, but taken into consideration
with the other statements in this section, can help to indicate students’ appreciation of the
urgency of climate change.
When asked what she knows about climate change, interview respondent Terri
mentioned that it is “not such a big deal:”
I mean I’ve been told global warming, like that whole controversy, that it’s not such a big deal and that you know there’s a lot of scientists out there saying that this is just normal, this is what the earth goes through every whatever, so many years, so I don’t know what to think about it. –Terri (English)
Similarly, Consuela mentions in her closing remarks that she believes climate
change has received too much attention and is not the most important environmental
issue that we face.
I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing issue on the environment today I guess. And I wish that it didn’t get as much hype. What do you think is the most pressing? Our propensity to buy everything with plastic packaging and just discard everything and there’s a lot of trouble with mine drainage there’s more direct sources of pollution. – Consuela (Geology)
When tested on the survey, Consuela’s viewpoint was supported by less than one-fifth of
the survey respondents.
79 79
Table 28 2.73 I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face today and I think it gets too much press (N=466)
Agree Neither Disagree % 18.2 31.3 50.4
From the opposite direction, a few of the interview informants stated that climate
change is a subject for which immediate action must be taken. Two interviewees in
particular were adamant about the urgency of climate change. Carlos, who is highlighted
as an outlier in Chapter 5, produced the following statements during the course of his
interview:
[Climate change] is statistically valid. All the evidence points that it is happening, it’s almost definitely caused by man, none of this cycle whatnot. It’s happening way too fast for that to be true. And the best way to deal with it would be to reduce or completely eliminate carbon based fuel sources… - Carlos (Engineering)
(Later in the interview) The entire fact that there is a debate about global warming is complete bullshit. It’s happening, and it’s just people who are more concerned with short-term profits than long-term survivability of the planet ignoring it because they see dollar signs. –Carlos (Engineering)
Carlos’ understanding of the urgency of climate change is very evident in his
responses. Although not specifically asked, five students mentioned taking their own
actions to reduce their climate change impact. The most common of the actions
mentioned was eating less meat.
I actually just switched to vegetarianism because I decided that cows and pigs’ burps and farts are outpacing transportation, than maybe I should stop eating bacon and cheeseburgers. That seemed like a really easy change for me, especially now that there are so many fake meat kind of options. – Lucille (High school environmental group, English)
Whether or not this is the most effective action an individual can take, attempting to take
it could be a sign of an understanding of the urgency of climate change.
Students’ overall understanding of the urgency of climate change is difficult to
quantify. Although there were a few students in each of the extreme categories, most of
the interview informants seemed to fall in the middle of the urgency appreciation scale
80 80
when their statements and general attitudes towards climate change were examined. Very
few of the students expressed a level of urgency the interviewer perceived as warranted
given the scientific model of climate change. Students’ perception of urgency or lack
thereof is examined at multiple points in this dissertation, as it is an important component
in relation to most other components of mental models and cannot easily be separated.
Models of Climate Change Conflict and Source Reliability
Students’ sources of information varied considerably by Student Set, as will be
covered in Chapters 5 and 6. The ways in which students determined the reliability of
their sources and dealt with conflicting climate change information are examined here for
their connection to students’ mental models. During the interviews, students were asked
if they ever saw conflicting information about climate change among their sources, and
how they determined which information was valid. A majority agreed that they had seen
or heard such conflicting information. Some interviewees mentioned the conflict over the
existence of climate change.
Do you ever hear conflicting information about climate change? I guess the big one is yes or no is it real? …I feel like the biggest conflicting thing is if it’s happening or if it’s natural, if it’s not natural and other than that what contributes to it I guess. – Charlie (S4E, Biology and History)
I have definitely heard a significant amount about people not believing that climate change is real and global warming is a farce created by the leftist media to push their political agenda. I’ve definitely heard that. Where have you heard that? Newspapers and Fox. It’s more that I’ve heard the response to the criticism of climate change rather than the criticism [of climate change science itself]. –Gaston (S4E, Biochemistry)
Both the above quotes report conflicting information regarding the existence of
climate change. This was represented on the survey with item 2.53.
81 81
Table 29 2.53 I have seen and heard arguments both for and against the existence of climate change (N=482)
Agree Neither Disagree % 85.7 7.9 6.4
A large majority, over 85%, reported seeing conflict over the existence of climate change.
In the quote above, Gaston specifically mentioned media as a source of conflicting
information. Several other students expressed this in their interviews, and their statements
were represented on the survey in item 2.72.
Table 30 2.72 There is a lot of conflicting information in the media about climate change (N=465)
Agree Neither Disagree % 67.1 21.9 11
Again, a majority of respondents see conflict over climate change in the media.
Some of the respondents saw conflict over the causes of climate change rather
than its existence.
A lot of people say that humans aren’t a contributing factor for it, and others say that they are. So they usually agree that it’s happening, but not whether or not it’s because of humans? Yeah, I guess people don’t, there are some people that think that it’s like, well I guess everyone sees that it’s happening, but not that it’s necessarily “climate change”, that like it’s just the rotation that the earth goes through. Cycles? Yeah. – Joan (S4E and NYPIRG, Diatetics)
Do you ever see conflicting information about climate change? I would say definitely. Cause I guess different groups will go different places, you know? And find that there’s no real evidence that this isn’t just part of a normal cycle, and other groups will say hey this hasn’t happened before. I would say I probably lean a little bit towards that this is sort of accelerated more than normal, but it could be a little bit of both, as far as like climate change. But there is definitely controversy. – Dan (Biology)
This observation was common among the interview respondents. It was also common
when students were asked about certainty among scientists, which will be discussed in
the next section of this chapter.
82 82
When asked how they determined whether or not their sources were reliable, or
how they sort through conflicting information and decide what to believe, the interview
respondents gave a variety of answers. A few students stated that “both sides of the
story” or balance were important criteria in their judgment of validity.
I like to see an acknowledgement of, you know any time I read an opinion piece to see an acknowledgement of the other side of the story, um cause anytime I don’t see that I tend to think that they’re avoiding things that might be contradictory. – Kyle (Biochemistry)
How to decide if they are reliable? I guess how much, how in depth they go to the sort of pros and cons of things. Like if they’re just on the surface… Talking about something as if it’s a certainty always makes me suspicious but just cause in classes and stuff I know that everything that we talk about in science is like “well this guy says this, but this guy says that! So we’re not really sure” so if a news source is too certain of themselves than I’m never too [convinced]. –Consuela (Geology)
Kyle’s statement that he likes to see the inclusion of “the other side of the story”
was represented on the survey with item 2.56.
Table 31 2.56 I think a source is reliable if it shows both sides of the climate change debate (N=478)
Agree Neither Disagree % 54.4 29.9 8.8
Given that a majority of students agree with this statement, it is likely that these students
believe there is some merit to each “side,” including the skepticism that is not part of the
scientific model, and that these “sides” need to both be addressed. The concept of
“balance as bias” in the case of climate change is further examined in the Discussion and
Conclusions chapter of this dissertation.
Consuela’s statement that she trusts a source that does not express certainty about
climate change is similar, but reveals a slightly different model. It was included on the
survey with item 2.63.
83 83
Table 32 2.63 I don’t trust a source that sounds too certain about climate change because I know there is a lot of uncertainty (N=471)
Agree Neither Disagree % 37.6 36.3 26.1
The split response on this item indicates a certain level of confusion. Still, more than a
third of the students believe that there is enough uncertainty surrounding climate change
to warrant expression of uncertainty in the subject’s coverage.
Several students mentioned that they determine the reliability of information
based on its repetition between sources.
How do you decide if a source is reliable? I don’t know. I don’t really go that far, I usually just read it and kind of assume it’s alright. I guess if I hear about it in, like if I hear about, maybe my professor will open up with something that just happened in class, or I hear about it through Students for the Environment, like the club members are talking about it and then also read about it in CNN…I guess just how many times I hear it. – Lindsay (S4E, Environmental Studies)
How do you usually determine if a source is credible? They obviously have scientific people researching it, or the sources at the bottom are from a science journal or something, as opposed to, you know, ‘Bob’s Blog’ or whatever. Basically I used the sources to compare against each other. Like if one source said the ice caps are melting at [a certain rate] I would check the next one and see if it had similar information to see if it actually held any weight. –Zoe (Studio Art)
Besides expressing how casually they check their information about climate change, both
of these students said that they like to see the same information in multiple sources. This
element of respondent models was included on the survey in item 2.47.
Table 33 2.47 I trust the information I get about climate change if I see the same information in multiple sources (N=481)
Agree Neither Disagree % 50.9 32 17.1
84 84
This criterion for determining whether or not information is trustworthy is
employed by about half of the survey respondents. The repetition of information between
multiple sources can indicate the reliability of that information, but it is dependent upon
the sources used. An item that is picked up by one media source may spread among other
media sources. This information may be repeated in multiple sources in the eyes of the
consumer, when in fact that piece of information came from only one study. If multiple
scientific studies produce the same results, that is a much more valid test of information
reliability. There was little indication of the use of this latter criterion in the interview
transcripts.
Another factor mentioned to determine the reliability of a source was the
inclusion of or reference to a scientist.
How do you decide if a source is reliable? I guess how much it’s backed up. What do you mean by backed up? Um, [if a] doctor, or like not doctor, but like scientist, who says what. For example the News Journal will just say “well this person says this and this is what’s going on.” They don’t really have so much backing up where they found the information, where, you know who created the study or where the conference was held… - Renee (S4E, Health Sciences)
On the survey, respondents were asked if the mention of a scientist increases the
reliability of a source in their eyes.
Table 34 2.66 When I read an article about climate change, I trust it more if it quotes or references a scientist (N=471)
Agree Neither Disagree % 55.4 28.5 16.2
A more refined answer would be that the mention of a scientist in a source does not
indicate validity without further investigation. If the scientist is an expert in a relevant
field, his or her opinion may be of importance. However, the mere inclusion of a scientist
is not a reliable criterion in and of itself. Again, the interview responses gave little reason
85 85
to believe that they used more thorough methods of investigation, and some students
explicitly stated as much when interviewed in depth.
If it’s something that I am questioning or that I am interested in, I’ll try to look up more about it and see if there is consensus or if it is controversial and then I’ll just take it with a grain of salt. When you’re looking up more information, where do you look it up? Probably in the news, I guess. So you’ll look up other news articles? Yeah. It’s not something I do often, to be honest. If you read a news article and they give you some statistics, how do you believe what they’re saying? Um, I don’t really know. I guess well if it’s a study looking at the validity of it, like how long it lasted and what kinds of techniques they’re using, um… Do you ever really do that, or is it just something you know you could do if you really needed to know? More that I could do it. – Joan (S4E and NYPIRG, Diatetics)
In summary, the interview and survey responses indicate that respondents see and
hear a great deal of conflicting information about either the existence of or causes of
climate change. Although the interviewees do employ some cursory techniques to
determine the validity of the information they receive about climate change, they do not
frequently go beyond surface level investigation to judge their sources and the
information they provide. These elements of students’ mental models of climate change
could reflect the urgency with which they see climate change. In addition, these elements
are related to the ways in which certainty is perceived in the scientific community, the
media, and in the general public.
Models of Scientific Certainty, Media Certainty and Public Certainty
One of the primary elements of the scientific model of climate change defined in
the Research Design and Methodology chapter of this dissertation is the high degree of
scientific certainty regarding the existence and anthropogenic nature of climate change.
This element of mental models was analyzed in both the interview and survey responses.
In addition, students were asked about how they perceived the level of certainty in the
media and in the public.
86 86
Some student models of scientific certainty matched the scientific model, in
which the scientific community agrees on the anthropogenic nature of current, rapid
climate change. The most strongly worded version of this statement, taken from the
transcripts of interviews, was item 2.10.
Table 35 2.10 Scientists are highly certain that humans are definitely the cause of the current, rapid climate change (N=682)
Agree Neither Disagree % 53.2 29 17.8
Just over half of the survey respondents agreed with this item 2.10. A similar item
expressing some hesitation to call any science “certain” was based of statements like the
one quoted below:
I think they’re pretty certain. I don’t think they’re absolutely certain because you know it’s not really a definite. It’s just kind of I guess patterns and theories that they’re seeing and you know predictions. But I mean, but they are really really backed up with evidence and science, so… - Renee (S4E, Health Sciences)
The responses to survey item 2.75 can be seen in the table below. A large majority of the
respondents agree with this component of Renee’s mental model.
Table 36 2.75 It’s hard for scientists to be certain about anything, but I think the patterns and trends they see in climate change have them pretty well convinced (N=466)
Agree Neither Disagree % 70.2 24.7 5.2
Several interviewees also mentioned that although scientists are certain that the
climate is changing, they are not necessarily sure that humans play the most important
role in the process. This line of reasoning is shown in the quotes below:
87 87
I feel like in science there is always uncertainty, but um…I feel like they’re certain that it’s happening. I don’t know really if they really know the best way to approach it or like what things need to be done. Do you think that they’re certain that climate change is happening and that it’s caused by humans, or just that it’s happening? I don’t know if they think that humans…I mean I know that they think that humans definitely have an influence but I think that they think there are other things as well. I don’t think that they think it’s just humans’ fault. – Denise (S4E, Wildlife Conservation and Biology)
Do you think scientists are certain about climate change? No. I would say that they’re certain that we’re definitely having an impact on the cycles and the environment, but I don’t know if they’re certain about, you know specifically that we’re causing the earth to warm faster than it normally would have. – Dan (Biology)
In their quotes both Denise and Dan admit that scientists understand that humans are
having an impact on the environment, but they both express doubts that scientists are
certain that humans are the major cause of climate change. These statements, and those
similar to these, were included on the survey in item 2.69.
Table 37 2.69 I think scientists are certain that the climate is changing, but not about who or what is responsible (N=467)
Agree Neither Disagree % 58.9 20.8 20.4
A majority of the survey respondents agreed with item 2.69. This model of scientific
agreement and certainty, or the lack thereof, was common in both the interview and the
survey data. This model does not, however, match the scientific model. It is likely
influenced by and related to the conflicting information students report seeing in their
sources.
Two of the interview informants stated that scientists believe that natural causes
are more important than the anthropogenic components of climate change. These two
students were outliers and are considered specifically in the Outliers and Interesting
Cases section of Chapter 5.
88 88
When asked about certainty in the media, the interview informants gave a wide
variety of answers. A majority saw some level of certainty in the media, but some
students felt that they simply did not pay enough attention to the media to have a good
idea one-way or the other. One student pointed out that her certainty about climate
change comes from the media, but that she doesn’t have an in depth knowledge of the
process and that media does not cover that component of climate change well enough:
I guess that’s where, the media is where I get a lot of my information about it, so I guess that’s where I think it’s certain. I must have gotten that from the media. But I think it’s a problem that I know about it and I know it’s bad, but I don’t know what causes it so I think there’s a gap in information. Like people know it’s a problem but they don’t know why or what they can do to help. Including myself. – Alice (S4E, Hotel and Restaurant Management)
Several interviewees said that the media is most interested in sensationalism while
Gaston, who is quoted below, said that he thinks the media doesn’t fully commit to
certainty:
No, the media is pretty wishy-washy on it in general, especially the political affiliated media, like Fox, but even like the other news sources are not, because…you don’t want to offend your viewers, all the media in general tends to not say things they’re going to have people disagree with and losing their viewers and resources. If someone is 100% convinced that global warming is a farce and then media source isn’t gonna want to say global warming is true and turn off the viewer. They have to be sensitive. So I think the media is as a whole is wishy-washy. – Gaston (S4E, Biochemistry)
A majority of the interview informants stated that there is a divide in public certainty.
Several students mentioned that there is controversy in the public, although not
necessarily among the people and peers with whom they usually associate.
I think there is a lot of controversy [in the public] that I wouldn’t necessarily have thought, because the people that I hang out with mostly think that it’s happening. But working with NYPIRG, I talk to a lot of people who don’t think that it’s happening, so yeah it’s a lot more controversial in the public, even than in the news I would say. – Joan (S4E and NYPIRG, Diatetics)
89 89
I would say that [the difference is] generational and cultural. I think that maybe educated individuals would believe that it’s true for one thing, and then in terms of generational, I feel like a majority of older Americans, maybe older than say 60 ish, I feel like since it really hasn’t been a hot topic during their entire lives they’re indifferent and I feel like anyone younger than that has been exposed to some sort of environmental consciousness that we all need to be aware of what we do and how it affects the world. And I feel like in my age group I feel like we have been exposed to it our whole lives, so we’re gonna believe it. – Charlie (S4E, Biology and History)
Interview informants listed generational, educational and cultural reasons for
differences in climate change acceptance. A few also specifically mentioned political
affiliations and ideologies as driving forces in certainty about climate change.
Do you think the public is certain about climate change? I think that it’s fairly certain. I think that most people you know think that it’s happening or are aware that there’s atleast a discussion or debate about the fact that it’s happening. I think that probably most people believe that it’s happening but maybe don’t agree with the causes of it? Um, like I said before, I think that it’s also entwined in politics as well. So that definitely makes it way more complex and difficult to deal with sometimes. – Ben (Geology)
Do you think the public is certain about the existence of climate change? I think around here they are. But my boyfriend lives out in OK and they definitely think it’s all a hoax. And I think the coasts are probably more liberal in their thinking and then they’re more apt to think that climate change exists, is real. They believe. I think it’s a fact, I believe in climate change. But I think it depends on geographic location. They hate Obama. So it’s political whether or not they believe in climate change? I think it’s political. Usually it’s liberals who believe or who care. – May (S4E, Environmental Engineering)
Regardless of their understanding of the climate science or of scientific certainty
regarding climate change, the vast majority of the interview informants stated that they
think at least some action should be taken regarding climate change. Interviewees varied
in their support for policy, their understanding of urgency, or their level of personal
commitment to mitigating action, but several students expressed views similar to the one
below:
90 90
I think the evidence I’ve seen, the science I’ve seen, there is climate change. But even if there isn’t I still am on the fact that [you should] at least conserve all you can, save all you can. –May (S4E, Environmental Engineering)
The “it’s better to be safe than sorry” line of reasoning was included in the survey with
item 2.74, to which a large majority of the survey respondents agreed.
Table 38 2.74 Even if the science is not clear to me, I think it is better to act and be safe rather than sorry (N=466)
Agree Neither Disagree % 80 11.2 8.8
Respondents’ agreement with this statement obviously does not mean that they will act
on their own, but it does indicate a willingness to do so, perhaps with better models of
effective action.
Students display a wide variety of mental models of the different components of
climate change. The physical mechanisms of climate change are explained in ways that
match the scientific model of climate change, as well as in ways that show confusion
between environmental issues and skepticism regarding the anthropogenic nature of the
phenomenon. Students also show limited understanding of the urgency of the issue, and
only vague and sometimes misguided ideas regarding the ways in which the government
and individuals can deal with climate change. With more in depth examination, it
becomes apparent that student mental models of climate change vary greatly depending
on environmental group membership and college major. The differences between the four
Student Sets, based on these variables, will be examined in Chapter 5.
91 91
Chapter 5
MIXED METHOD ANALYSIS: COMPARISON OF THE FOUR STUDENT SETS
In this chapter the respondents are separated into the four Student Sets to
illuminate and clarify the multiple layers in their mental models of climate change.
Course work in environmental or earth sciences appears to have an impact on student
mental models, as does participation in an environmental group. Within the semi-
structured interviews, these two distinctions affected the mental models in different ways.
To illustrate this finding, observed mental models will be compared to the scientific
model of climate change. This model will be broken down into the four parts outlined in
the Climate Science Model section of the Research Design and Methodology Chapter: 1)
The process of the greenhouse effect and the gases involved in this effect, 2) The
anthropogenic influence on climate change driven most significantly by our ever
increasing contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, 3) the scientific consensus regarding
the occurrence of climate change and 4) The urgency and immanency of this issue and
the severity of the consequences. Which of these four elements were observed in the
models of which students was dependent upon the presence of related coursework and
environmentalism. In some instances, the amount of coursework (i.e. the number of
courses taken specifically addressing climate change) appeared to have a further effect on
completeness of respondent models. Finally, differences, some subtle and some more
obvious, can be seen in the mental models of different types of science major.
In this chapter, the analysis is split by the four Sets to examine and compare the
mental models held by each of these groups. Within each of these sections, all of the
interview quotations belong to the students within the group being examined. The survey
statements included are accompanied by the responses from all for Student Sets to
92 92
facilitate comparison. In addition, a few interesting cases, outliers, and further findings
are examined separately from the analysis of the four Sets. Finally, overall observations
of student mental models based on this mixed methods analysis are summarized.
Students belonging to an environmental group and enrolled in a science major (Sci/Env Set)
The students selected for the Sci/Env Set were enrolled in biology, chemistry,
geology or environmental science-related majors. These students were also members of
an environmental group, most frequently the student environmental group S4E.
Of the interviewees, those from this Set were the best equipped to answer questions about
climate change. The mental models they revealed in their answers more closely matched
the model set forth by scientists than did the mental models of the remaining three Sets,
across all three parts of the Climate Science Model. These students better understood the
processes of the greenhouse effect, identified CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as
methane, mentioned changes in transportation and industry needed to reduce the emission
of these gases, saw consensus among scientists on the issue, and were able to itemize
some consequences of climate change beyond “ice melting.” Students from this Set most
frequently mentioned classes as their main source of information about climate change.
Although the Sci/Env Set showed the greatest understanding of climate change of
the four groups examined, the students from this Set did not always display a strong
understanding of climate change compared to Climate Science Model. Some confusion of
environmental issues existed in this group, and their models of the specifics of climate
change causes and effects were often vague. Despite being the group best educated to
articulate climate change, the mental models observed are not complete or detailed
enough to produce specific solutions.
93 93
The students in the Sci/Env Set outlined causes and effects of climate change that
matched elements of the scientific model. Six of the seven informants mentioned carbon
dioxide and six of the seven were also able to explain a process by which gases trap heat
in the atmosphere. Two students mentioned the word “emissions”, while three students
brought up cars as a source of those emissions and two mentioned the burning of fossil
fuels. None of the students specifically addressed electricity generation, but one student
used the phrase “fuels that give us energy” in describing the causes of climate change. In
addition to the carbon dioxide and fossil fuel models, two informants mentioned that
methane and cows were factors involved in climate change.
The understanding of these parts of the scientific model across the four Student
Sets was tested with survey statements 2.18 and 2.23, shown below.
Table 39 Set Responses: 2.18 Climate change is caused by an increased amount of gases like carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere (N=682)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 87.5 83 88.2 72.9
Neither 12.5 15.1 11.8 21.9 Disagree 0 1.9 0 5.3
Table 40 Set Responses: 2.23 Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps heat and causes climate change (N=566)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 90 83 86.5 75.3
Neither 5 13.2 11.5 21.4 Disagree 5 3.8 1.9 3.3
Students in the Sci/Env Set were also clear on the anthropogenic causes of climate
change.
I’ve heard that it’s due to anthropogenic sources, that we seem to be changing the balances of the atmosphere and that I think its 350 ppm that we’re not supposed to exceed? Of what? Of carbon, CO2 right? … And I
94 94
feel like its coming from human sources. Even though it’s debated whether, what the impacts are, I feel like it’s been pretty well documented, at least what I’ve seen. That it’s our fault and its creating worse and worse problems. It’s creating more extreme weather events, worse, and also I learned this cool thing about how we’re making the oceans more acidic, the acidification of the oceans. And that was also mentioned in my marine science class. – May (S4E, Environmental Engineering)
A survey statement corresponding to May’s response was included on the survey
to better quantify her mental model of the debate over the anthropogenic cause of climate
change and her conclusions regarding that discussion:
Table 41 Set Responses: 2.25 Even though it’s sometimes debated, I feel that it’s pretty well documented that humans have released too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (N=558)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 95 77.4 82.7 70.8
Neither 2.5 13.2 7.7 23.3 Disagree 2.5 9.4 9.6 5.9
A majority of respondents in all four Sets agree with May. Those students
belonging to environmental groups are most likely to agree with May’s conclusion. This
is overwhelmingly true in the Sci/Env Set.
There was limited confusion between the causes of climate change and other
environmental issues in this Set, but two students mentioned ozone, ozone depletion and
two mentioned CFCs.
So what does the CO2 do that makes the climate change? It’s a greenhouse…it’s a greenhouse gas…it holds in the heat, CO2…but now I’m thinking about UV rays and the ozone layer and the ozone breaking off…so I guess that’s my answer. So is the ozone layer related to climate change? Mhmm, yeah. Cause when the ozone layer is thinning, more of the sun’s rays get through, so that heats up the atmosphere. – Jasmine (S4E, Chemistry)
Do you know anything about the scientific process of what the emissions do that make climate change happen? I would assume it just keeps, like it… so the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are what keeps the heat in, something like that …I don’t know exactly which emissions it is specifically, I guess carbon dioxide, ozone, um..I think then there’s more
95 95
of those in the atmosphere or something like that and then therefore more of the energy is trapped and making the earth hotter I guess. That’s I guess the basic gist of it. I’m not entirely sure of the rest. – Charlie (S4E, Biology and History)
These mental models display a mix of elements from both the scientific model
and from the ozone depletion model. Jasmine’s quote, which was first seen in Chapter 4,
is a clear representation of this problem. This confusion is seen more frequently in some
of the other Sets. Charlie is a more puzzling case. He mentions ozone as a greenhouse
gas. This is a correct statement, however, ozone is a very low priority gas. It does not
remain in the atmosphere for nearly as long as other gases like CO2 and is not nearly as
great a factor of radiative forcing. It could be argued that Charlie’s mention of ozone has
more to do with a lingering association between ozone depletion and climate change than
with an actual understanding of ozone’s role in the greenhouse effect, otherwise we might
expect him to mention CH4 before ozone.
The effects of climate change were less frequently mentioned than the causes in
the Sci/Env Set, but students did speak about changes in temperature and extreme
weather. Two students mentioned ocean acidification as one of the effects of climate
change and one student noted the possibility of changes in ocean currents. Despite the
low number of references to effects, the mental models of the students in the Sci/Env Set
included some of the more complicated issues related to climate change.
To elicit the Climate Action Model, students were asked about the individual and
governmental actions that can be taken to address climate change. For the listing of
individual actions, students in the Sci/Env Set were the best equipped to answer this
question compared to the other Sets. Although their ideas for the implementation of their
answers were vague, the students in this group were able to offer a variety of actions, and
a majority of the actions mentioned by these students were effectively aimed at
combating the root causes of anthropogenic climate change.
96 96
Responses in the Sci/Env Set often incorporated multiple ideas to address the
multiple causes of climate change present in their mental models. Lindsay, a member of
S4E majoring in Environmental Studies quoted in Chapter 4, gave a succinct answer,
which included several aspects of her mental model, including transportation and energy
efficiency. She also addressed the concept of waste reduction and recycling. These are
complicated elements of student mental models in that they are only correct in a limited
sense. Reducing ones energy consumption and increasing energy efficiency are effective
measures an individual can take regarding climate change, but Lindsay was the only
student in this Set to mention energy efficiency measures. On the survey, students were
asked if they had heard of some specific energy efficiency measures. The results of this
item are presented in Table 16 in Chapter 4. Large majorities of students agreed that they
had heard of these measures, but surprisingly few interview informants were able to
produce this answer on their own.
Although Lindsay was the only student in the Sci/Env Set to mention energy
efficiency, changes in transportation and waste reduction played a large part in the
models of several students. This aspect of student mental models was expressed with the
following statement on the survey:
Table 42 Set Responses: 2.27 I’ve heard that driving less and using bicycles and public transportation are ways to reduce climate change (N=531)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 87.5 94.3 96.2 92.1
Neither 7.5 3.8 3.8 5.3 Disagree 5 1.9 0 2.6
Again, a large majority of the respondents in all four Student Sets have heard of these
actions for reducing one’s individual contribution to climate change. These actions fit
into the climate action model.
97 97
Recycling was brought up by three of the seven students in the Sci/Env Set,
usually in association with overall waste reduction. A quote from a member of this
Student Set was presented in Chapter 4 and is reproduced below.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. That kind of thing. I think just like using less is like a hard thing for Americans, we always want to buy more. Like we want to buy the more environmentally friendly thing, but like the whole point is like don’t buy anything else, just make do with what you have is how I feel. What’s the point of buying like a new, like environmentally friendly something that you don’t need? – May (S4E, Environmental Engineering)
The mention of recycling as a solution for climate change was common in the other Sets.
In the statements of the Sci/Env Set it was associated with a reduction in production, and
therefore a reduction in fossil fuel and energy usage. Although reducing factory
production may lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, scientists do not
consider this to be one of the best or most effective solutions to climate change. It is
likely, however, that students have taken a previously held mental model in which
recycling and waste reduction are generally good for the environment and incorporated
that information into their model for climate change reduction. This finding also supports
Bostrom et al and Reynold et al’s findings that in the absence of information, people tend
to resort to actions of “good environmental practice” to explain or solve climate change.
Another issue given attention by the students in the Sci/Env Set was agriculture
and meat consumption.
I’ve been learning more about how a lot of it is due to our diet. So um like we chop down rainforests to like grow beef basically or we have like these huge farms and things like that, so I’ve tried to lead a more vegetarian lifestyle since then. – May (S4E, Environmental Engineering)
Also meat consumption? Just the whole process…that’s something I actually read about this on PETA, so I don’t know like where their data comes from but like going vegetarian is like more green than getting a hybrid car just because of all like the waste and I think methane comes out of the whole animal producing…so I also I tried to go vegetarian but I couldn’t do it so I just try to eat less meat, like a couple days I go vegetarian… and that all relates… - Jasmine (S4E, Chemistry)
98 98
This aspect of greenhouse gas production was touched on almost exclusively in
the Sci/Env Set. One other student from the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set mentioned
vegetarianism, but was unable to detail how meat production affects climate. The
inclusion of this issue displays a more developed mental model of climate change in this
Set than is seen in the others groups.
Finally, only one student in the Sci/Env Set mentioned political action and
support as an action that individuals can take regarding climate change.
Student interview respondents were next asked to detail the ways in which the
government can address climate change. Overall, the students in the Sci/Env were not
able to give answers much more concrete than those from other Sets. None of the
students in this Set were able to name specific economic, international or regulatory
policies or treaties dealing with climate change. Gaston gave the most unambiguous
response regarding government action. His mention of fuel efficiency was unique within
this group and amongst environmental group members. The most common responses in
regarding government action in the Sci/Env Set were increased funding for research,
regulation of general pollution and public education.
When asked what actions the government can take to deal with climate change,
education was the only answer informant Denise from the Sci/Env Student Set was able
to give. The call for more information in statements such as those made by Denise was a
common theme across the Sets. This response was addressed on the survey with
statement 2.28:
Table 43 Set Responses: 2.28 The government should better educate us about environmental problems (N=529)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 92.5 79.2 84.6 81.6
Neither 5.0 13.2 9.6 13.8 Disagree 2.5 7.5 5.8 4.6
99 99
As can be seen in the response rates above, large majorities of the students agreed that the
government should be providing more information about environmental issues. The
Student Sets including environmental group members were slightly more likely to agree
with statement 2.28. Education also played a large role in Sci/Env Set member May’s
answer regarding the actions the government could take to deal with climate change, but
unlike Denise, May’s model also includes regulation and policy action:
I think the government, I think a big part of it would be governmental education. Because if people aren’t educated about environmental issues, they, there’s no way they’re gonna act in favor of the environment. I also think that it’s necessary to have like stricter laws, because people aren’t necessarily going to listen. But policy changes that come from the government make a bigger, lasting impact in my opinion…You said stricter laws. What kind of laws? I think that there should be more government, or more corporate accountability for like things, for pollutants that are given off in processing. – May (S4E, Environmental Engineering)
Although her mental model of the actions the government could has more depth than
does Denise, May’s solutions lack clarity or detail. May also mentioned that the
government should increase regulation of general pollution. This statement was echoed in
some of the other Sets, in some cases in the context of toxins or toxic pollution, and is
further examined in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set section of this chapter. This element of
student mental models, that the government should regulate general pollution to deal with
climate change, does not effectively deal with the scientific mechanisms of climate
change.
Three of the interview informants in the Sci/Env Set mentioned funding for
research and development as a way in which the government can act to combat climate
change, and this idea is represented in the quote below.
Obviously better legislation for alternative energy sources would be one thing. Maybe put a little bit more effort into making I guess green energy into the mainstream. Hmm. Other than that I’m not entirely sure. I guess trying to allocate funds towards that, I guess towards research and
100 100
development as opposed to relying on the private sector to do it, which doesn’t always do it. – Charlie (S4E, Biology and History)
Charlie’s answer is mostly in line with the scientific model and the Climate
Action model. Government encouragement of alternative energy addresses the use of
fossil fuels and therefore directly responds to the root causes of climate change. The
mention of funding for research and development, made by Charlie and several other
informants throughout this study, is not a wholly ineffective strategy, but is a bit behind
the science. Many scientists would argue that although new technology will help in
dealing with climate change, many viable alternatives have already been developed and
are in need of supportive infrastructure and implementation plans rather than further
research and development. It could be argued that a similar response to a question
regarding the actions the government can take to deal with climate change is a form of
“wait and see” or “we need more information” rather than a statement of direct action.
Survey statement 2.43 was designed to capture the idea that the government
should put more resources into alternative and renewable energy, and was considered to
be an item matching the Climate Action Model portion of the scientific model.
Table 44 Set Responses: 2.43 The government could put more resources into developing alternative and renewable sources of energy in order to reduce climate change (N=489)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 94.9 88.5 88.5 83.2
Neither 0 7.7 5.8 12.5 Disagree 5.1 3.8 5.7 4.3
A large majority of the respondents agree with statement 2.43, and that majority is
greatest in Sci/Env Set. The high percentage of agreement in this Set supports the finding
that those students in science majors and belonging to an environmental group hold the
mental models that most closely match the scientific model.
When asked about their sources of information, six of the seven interview
informants in the Sci/Env Set mentioned class as a source of information. The amount of
101 101
weight given to class as a source of information varied depending on the specific science
major within this Set. Lindsay, an environmental studies major, mentioned her course
work before being specifically asked about her sources:
What have you heard about climate change? A lot. I’m an environmental studies major, so I um, and I am on exec [the executive board] for students for the environment and I’ll be president next year, so, I’ve heard a little bit about global warming… - Lindsay (S4E, Environmental Studies)
When asked about her sources for climate change information, her first answer was
simply “Class.” On the survey, students were asked if climate change and the greenhouse
effect were covered in their course work in item 2.60.
Table 45 Set Responses: 2.60 In my classes I’ve learned about climate change and the greenhouse effect (N=467)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 92.3 78.8 63.5 47.9
Neither 5.1 9.6 11.5 13.8 Disagree 2.6 11.5 25 38.4
Students in the Sci/Env Set were far more likely to have covered climate change in their
courses than students in the other Sets. Science majors were more likely than Non-
Science majors to have covered climate change in class. One interesting difference is that
seen between Sets 2 and 3. It might be concluded Non-Science majors belonging to an
environmental group are more likely to take a class, perhaps outside of their major, that
includes climate change in the curriculum. If students belonging to an environmental
group have a greater interest in the subject than students who do not choose to join an
environmental group, than their choice of coursework involving climate change or other
environmental subjects seems plausible.
Students interviewed in the Sci/Env Set and in science majors other than
environmental studies frequently said that climate change was mentioned in their classes,
but not covered extensively.
102 102
It’s not something I’ve ever really tried to actively learn about but I’ve come across it I guess. Did you specifically cover climate change in any of your classes? I’d say ecology specifically, Bio 300 or 302 or something like that. Basically it talked about habitat loss and destruction, and then shifting biomes and that’s really the only thing I can remember. Maybe in a couple of chemistry courses we talked about like ozone things like that, greenhouse gases. But that’s a long time ago. – Charlie (S4E, Biology and History)
In the example above, and in a similar quote by Gaston seen in Chapter 4, the interview
informant had experienced some coverage of climate change in their majors, but had not
specifically studied the issue to any great extent. Charlie’s inclusion of an incorrect part
of his climate change model as something he had learned in his course work is not unique
to him and is seen more frequently in other Sets. Like Charlie, some of the students in the
Sci/Env Set admitted that they do not seek out information about climate change unless it
has been assigned for a class, but the occurrence of this statement was also less common
than in other Sets.
Both Charlie and Lindsay mention Students for the Environment (S4E) as a
source of climate change information, but other students claimed that this environmental
group did not cover the topic in much depth. Three students cited other environmental
groups, environmental websites or environmental newsletters as sources of information
about climate change.
I get emails from like the Sierra Club and more reliable sources like the Wildlife Society, I get emails from them and they have all these movements and stuff, that’s like they send you emails trying to keep you updated on stuff. –Denise (S4E, Wildlife Conservation and Biology)
In addition to environmental websites, three of the students in the Sci/Env Set mentioned
online news webs websites as an important source of climate change information. Two
students also mentioned that they had heard about climate change just from “being
around campus,” which suggests person-to-person communication. This statement was
represented on the survey with statement 2.58.
103 103
Table 46 Set Responses: 2.58 I hear a lot about environmental issues just being on a college campus (N=476)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 84.6 75 63.5 53.5
Neither 7.7 9.6 13.5 17.8 Disagree 7.7 17.3 23.1 28.7
The results from this survey statement show that students in science majors agree more
frequently that they hear about environmental issues on campus. This is an interesting
result, given that the students in all four groups are on the same university campuses. It is
possible that students in science majors more frequently hear about environmental issues
in their classes or in conversations amongst other science majors, even if they do not
study it specifically in class. It is also possible that science students are more aware of
environmental issues when they are presented to them on campus, so they would better
recall when they did hear, although this interpretation might lead one to assume that the
Environmental Group students in the Non-Sci/Env Set would be equally aware. Those
students in the Non-Sci/Env Set do see environmental issues as more present on campus
than do those in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set, reinforcing the interpretation that the
environmental group members better recall or understand climate change information.
In the Sci/Env Set interviews, the student informants generally did not watch
much TV news. Books, documentaries and scientific journals were each cited by one
student. Despite the lack of scientific journals as a primarily mentioned source, students
in the Sci/Env Set frequently mentioned the use of those journals as the ultimate test in
reliability of a source. Jasmine specifically stated this in the quotation below.
Personally if it came from a journal….that’s what I consider official just because the process of getting, like a published journal…Have you ever looked it up in a published journal or seen anything about it there? I haven’t seen it. I can picture like a citation from class. But that is what I would consider the most reliable. – Jasmine (S4E, Chemistry)
Much like her peers, Jasmine believes that scientific journals are the most reliable source,
but also states that she does not actively look for information about climate change in
104 104
these journals. Although Jasmine knows how to find the most reliable information about
climate change, she does not seek it out to further her understanding or check on the
information she is given.
Besides mentioning the journals themselves, the citation of scientific resources is
also considered a hallmark of reliability by the students in the Sci/Env Set. Susan even
mentioned checking the validity of the study by examining methodology:
Well I guess if they’ve cited some sort of studies, you could investigate the validity of that by kind of seeing who did it and how did they study it, and how did they come to the conclusions that they did. But sometimes it’s impossible to actually do that because they’ll just kind of throw facts at you and you don’t know where they actually came from, so yeah. – Susan (Greenpeace, Biology and Psychology)
Other students reiterated the concept that sources sometimes “throw facts at you” without
backing up those facts, although more commonly in some of the other Sets. Also
commonly stated in other Sets, and by two of the students in the Sci/Env Set, was the
idea that a “big name” correlates with reliability. For Denise, this held true for most
sources, but not for the TV news:
I think that the bigger the name the more reliable I think it is. Do you feel that way about the news sources too? If it’s a big name news source it has to be correct? Not necessarily because I think newspapers like have the freedom to be more biased and be more opinionated. Like maybe the facts they are giving are real, but maybe they’re not like giving the other facts that like argue them, you know? But I guess the websites are like that too. So the news might be one sided? Yeah they might not give you the full picture. – Denise (S4E, Wildlife Conservation and Biology)
In fact, most of the students in this group either did not use or did not trust the TV news.
Two of the students in this Set said that they don’t necessarily check the reliability
of their sources or that they assume the sources they use are reliable. Gaston’s answer
when asked how he determined whether or not a source was reliable was as follows:
That’s a good question that I don’t have an answer for. I feel like I generally tend to look at sources that are more respectable. How do you choose a source that’s more respectable? Big names that I know are respectable. – Gaston (S4E, Biochemistry)
105 105
As can be seen above, Gaston cited “big names” as more reliable, but also believed that
he was able to decide which “big names” were trustworthy. Lindsay also assumed that
the sources she chooses are generally reliable:
How do you decide if a source is reliable? I don’t know. I don’t really go that far, I usually just read it and kind of assume it’s all right. I guess if I hear about it in, like if I hear about, maybe my professor will open up with something that just happened in class, or I hear about it through Students for the Environment, like the club members are talking about it and then also read about it in CNN…I guess just how many times I hear it. – Lindsay (S4E, Environmental Studies)
Besides the reliability of her own source choices, Lindsay also mentioned that she
believes hearing the same thing from multiple sources enhances the reliability of that
information.
Only one student in this Set noted that the way in which a source is funded might
influence the information it distributes.
…it depends on who is writing it, like if they’re backed by someone. Do you mean how they are funded? I would say funded…I just mean in terms of like if they’re usually thrown in with like a chemical company or like an oil company or it’s like a big name for like Exxon or something.. “We want a pipeline, here’s why we should have one” or something. – Charlie (S4E, Biology and History)
According to the literature, this proves to be an important matter in climate change
information. This level of critical thinking is not generally part of students’ evaluation of
their climate change information sources.
Along the same lines as source types and reliability, interview informants were
asked if they ever see conflicting information in their sources and how they decide what
information is valid. The latter half of this line of questioning brought out some similar
answers to those regarding source reliability, but also revealed new layers in students’
mental models regarding the truth and validity of resources and how they make informed
decisions. When asked of they ever saw or heard conflicting information about climate
change, six of the seven students in the Sci/Env Set agreed in some way that they had.
106 106
The most common conflicts they mentioned were whether or not climate change is
occurring, and whether or not it is caused by human action or natural cycles.
Do you ever hear conflicting information about climate change?I have heard that some people will just be like “no this is natural, earth goes through cycles of warm and cold” and stuff like that, so I have heard that people just think that it’s a naturally occurring thing so they don’t really think that it’s a human caused effect. – Susan (Greenpeace, Biology and Psychology)
Susan spoke about hearing conflicting information about whether or not climate
change is due to natural causes or cycles. In a quotation seen in Chapter 4, Charlie said
that he had heard people question of the existence of climate change. On the survey,
students were asked to indicate their agreement with a statement that they had heard
conflicting information about the existence of climate change. The results of this
statement, item 2.53, are below:
Table 47 Set Responses: 2.53 I have seen and heard arguments both for and against the existence of climate change (N=482)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 97.4 92.3 90.4 82.6
Neither 2.6 5.8 3.8 9.8 Disagree 0 1.9 5.8 7.5
A substantial majority of students agree that they have seen or heard arguments on both
sides of the climate change “debate.” Again, being a science major and being an
environmental group member each contribute to a positive response, with the two
together having the highest response. One possible explanation for this difference is that
students dealing with climate change more frequently or more directly, as those in the
Sci/Env Set might, are more likely to hear or perceive conflict than those who deal with
climate change less often. In other words, students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set and the
general student body may not be as inundated with conflicting information, since they are
107 107
exposed neither to the science debate nor the environmental group debate. This idea is
explored further in the discussions of the other Set interviews.
Another possible explanation for the results of item 2.53 is highlighted in the
response of Gaston from the Sci/Env Set.
I have definitely heard a significant amount about people not believing that climate change is real and global warming is a farce created by the leftist media to push their political agenda. I’ve definitely heard that. Where have you heard that? Newspapers and Fox. It’s more that I’ve heard the response to the criticism of climate change rather than the criticism [of climate change science itself]. –Gaston (S4E, Biochemistry)
Gaston, as a member of an environmental group and a science student, has more
frequently heard about climate change conflict, than he has actually heard the arguments
made. This interesting observation, although only made by one student, may explain why
the students in the Sci/Env Set see so much more conflict than do the students in the Non-
Sci/Non-Env Set. They may in fact be hearing about conflict rather than seeing it
themselves. At the same time, however, two students from the Sci/Env Set mentioned
hearing conflicting information about the existence of climate change from “more casual”
sources, like family members and other students.
Where do you think you’ve seen that conflict? I’ve heard it around, yeah I can’t think of anything I’ve seen on TV or any discussions about it, but in my family. My uncle said it doesn’t exist, so it’s more casual. – Jasmine (S4E, Chemistry)
The phenomenon of having other people, rather than news or print sources,
present conflicting information about climate change, or not “believe” in climate change,
was not unique to this Set. Another interesting response along these lines was that made
by May, in which she cited a teacher as a source of conflicting climate change
information. In May’s statement below, the use of quotation marks denotes a hand
gesture she made to indicate quotation:
Have you ever seen sources that do have conflicting views from your sources? Uh I have a teacher that doesn’t really “believe” in climate
108 108
change, my stat teacher. You’ll hear people’s conflicting opinions… - May (S4E, Environmental Engineering)
Having a teacher or a class deny the existence or human causes of climate change
was more common in the Sci/Non-Env Set than in the Sci/Env Set, but May’s statement
was used as the basis for item 2.65 on the survey. The results of this survey item are
presented below:
Table 48 Set Responses: 2.65 I have a professor who doesn’t really “believe” in climate change (N=471)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 35.9 13.5 19.6 14.1
Neither 12.8 42.3 33.3 34.1 Disagree 54.3 44.3 46.1 51.8
The percentages with which students agreed with this statement do not match the
results seen in the semi-structured interviews. During the interview process, only students
in the Sets that include science majors mentioned having a teacher who does not believe
in climate change or who emphasizes the non-human causes of climate change in courses.
This is a surprising finding given the pervasive agreement within the scientific
community regarding climate change and its human causes. On the survey, however,
students belonging to an environmental group are more likely to agree that they have a
professor who does not “believe” in climate change. One possible explanation for this
finding is that environmental students are more sensitive to or more likely to notice
skepticism.
In the section of the interview covering conflict and validity of information, the
Sci/Env Set member Gaston revealed several interesting parts to his mental model. The
answer he gave when asked how he decides what to believe when given conflicting
information included references to his own weather observations, his confusion regarding
conflicting information, and his belief that humans are accelerating a naturally occurring
109 109
phenomenon. He also entered into an interesting self-reflection to which only a few other
students came regarding how he sorts out information.
Part of me definitely believes what I want to believe. And what I have observed in my life. It’s definitely getting warmer. But I am still not 100% convinced that, that it’s not like, that environmental changes aren’t cyclic, that we’re pushing it in one way or another…either way we’re, just from everything I’ve read and encountered, it seems to me that we’re accelerating the rate at which the change is happening and what you hear, someone say “yes, but you know the climate always fluctuates” It’s like, yes but…you’re undermining the point of our impact on it. – Gaston (S4E, Biochemistry)
This quote provides interesting insight into Gaston’s mental model. Overall, he
was one of the students most capable of describing the scientific elements of climate
change. He admits, however, that although he is mostly convinced, he is not “100%” sure
how much of a role humanity plays. He also uses his own personal observations
regarding the global temperature (as a 21 year old) as a justification for his inclination to
“believe” in climate change. This model of the effects of climate change implies
confusion between the definitions of weather and climate, which has been observed in
previous literature1. Finally, his self-reflective, opening sentence states that his belief
system influences what information he absorbs. Many students did not realize or were not
capable of articulating this possibility.
Despite Gaston’s admission that his beliefs may influence his judgment, the
students in the Sci/Env Set most frequently cited the inclusion of scientific data as the
way in which they sorted through conflicting information.
When you see conflicting information, how do you decide what to believe? The one thing I can think of most specifically, I think it was a snippet from An Inconvenient Truth and I think it’s a graph about the amount of carbon emissions and how much is in the atmosphere and I guess the significant difference between how it has been in the past and what it is now….So it’s back to data again? Yeah I’m looking for data, not who’s the most
1 Bostrom et al 1994, Kempton et al 1995, Reynolds et al 2010
110 110
eloquent with words, I’m looking for some hard proof. And a majority of the time it happens to be I guess that climate change is real and we’re the problem. - Charlie (S4E, Biology and History)
In the final set of interview questions, the student informants were asked whether
or not they believed there was certainty about climate change among scientists, in the
media and in the general public. When speaking about scientific certainty, all seven
student informants from the Sci/Env Set agreed in some capacity that a majority of
scientists are certain about the occurrence of climate change. Five students made
statements similar to the one below:
I think that scientists are certain that climate change is happening, yes. And that humans are the major cause, yeah. – Gaston (S4E, Biochemistry)
This mental model component, which in some cases was worded more strongly
than in Gaston’s statement, is represented on the Survey of Student Understanding of
Climate Change with item 2.10.
Table 49 Set Responses: 2.10 Scientists are highly certain that humans are definitely the cause of current, rapid climate change (N=642)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 61.5 49.1 61.5 52.8
Neither 12.8 30.2 17.3 82 Disagree 25.7 20.8 21.2 97.7
The students in the Sets including environmental group members are those most likely to
agree with this strongly worded statement.
A second representation of the belief that scientists agree about the human causes
of climate change was used for item 2.75 on the survey, but with softer language that
acknowledged the fact that there are few absolute certainties in science. Item 2.75 yields
greater agreement from all four Sets and from the respondents as a whole. As in item
2.10, students in the Sci/Env Set have the highest level of agreement, followed by the
students in the Non-Sci/Env set. Students in the Sets containing science majors have the
111 111
lowest rate of agreement, a similar pattern as for item 2.10. The latter of these findings is
very interesting and will be discussed in detail in the analysis of the Sci/Non-Env Set.
Table 50 Set Responses: 2.75 It’s hard for scientists to be certain about anything, but I think the patterns and trends they see in climate change have them pretty well convinced (N=466)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 89.7 60.4 75.0 69.2
Neither 7.7 30.2 21.2 25.9 Disagree 2.6 9.4 3.8 4.9
In the interviews, two students of the students in the Sci/Env Set expressed that
although scientists agree that climate change is happening, they may disagree on the
causes and the anthropogenic role. Denise’s response, quoted in Chapter 4, alludes to the
inherent uncertainties in science mentioned in survey item 2.75. She also seems to be
unaware of the amount of certainty regarding the human impact on the climate that does
exist in scientific model, as she said: “I know that they think that humans definitely have
an influence but…I don’t think that they think it’s just humans’ fault.” Charlie also
mentioned that scientists might not agree that humans are to blame for climate change,
but his reasoning for this disagreement went back to his model of funding influencing
scientific outcomes.
I think a majority of them are. I feel like climate change is obviously happening, it’s just I guess the causes of it. I feel like there’s a general consensus that it’s because of emissions things like that, I guess human development… So you think they agree that it’s happening but not what the causes are, or do you think they believe it’s because of humans?... I think they believe it’s happening, the causes I think is where the do disagree. Because it depends on if they’re backed by someone. I mean they can find another reason, or doctor their results. I feel like it’s too hard to prove it’s one thing over the other. I feel like you’ll see more of, from independent groups, that it is happening and it’s our fault. – Charlie (S4E, Biology and History)
This component of students’ mental models is observed more commonly in the other
Sets, and often with less explanation than is provided by Denise and Charlie.
112 112
In terms of media certainty, the students in the Sci/Env Set frequently felt like
they couldn’t comment much on the media because they rarely used it as a source of
information. Four of the students believed that to the extent that they followed the
content, the media is relatively certain about climate change. Gaston, who is quoted in
Chapter 4, was the only student informant in the Sci/Env Set to say that he believed
media showed uncertainty, and he linked this belief to the public and the media’s
reluctance to alienate different types of viewers. Charlie’s view of climate change in the
media was the opposite of Gaston’s. His model of media and journalism relied more on
sensationalism and selling controversy.
I feel like a majority of the media believes that it’s true, but I feel like they believe it’s true because it’s provocative I guess, and like it makes people freak out, I dunno it’s an emotional topic or something. I don’t think they actually believe that it’s true, I think they do it because it sells. – Charlie (S4E, Biology and History)
The overall opinion in the Sci/Env Set was that their personal sources for climate
change information were generally certain, but that they did not use mass media enough,
or see coverage of climate change on those sources enough, to know about media
certainty. However, of the students in the Sci/Env Set only one, Jasmine, said that she
didn’t know enough to decide whether or not the public was certain about climate
change. She did say that if she had to guess, she would say that the public is certain. The
other six students felt they were able to comment on the topic.
Excluding Jasmine, five of the remaining six interview informants from the
Sci/Env Set said that the general public was divided in their certainty about climate
change. Their belief in whether or not the majority of the public was certain about climate
change varied, as did their models for what causes the perceived division. Susan
expressed that she thought students and people her age were more likely to be certain
about or “believe in” climate change.
113 113
That’s where I feel it’s a little more torn, like a lot of students do believe that it is real, but maybe more so within the student body and like kids my age. So is it a generational thing? Yeah, or maybe just the general public maybe have more doubts about it. – Susan (Greenpeace, Biology and Psychology)
Her reference to the general public is a bit unclear, but could mean that she believes the
divide is somehow educational. In his quote in Chapter 4, Charlie also mentioned both a
generational and an educational divide in acceptance of climate change.
I think that maybe educated individuals would believe [climate change is] true for one thing, and then in terms of generational, I feel like a majority of older Americans, maybe older than say 60 ish, I feel like since it really hasn’t been a hot topic during their entire lives they’re indifferent and I feel like anyone younger than that has been exposed to some sort of environmental consciousness that we all need to be aware of what we do and how it affects the world. – Charlie (S4E, Biology and History)
Charlie’s coursework in History clearly hasn’t covered much of the history of
environmentalism, as he seems unaware of how long the environmental movement has
been going on. In his defense, however, he is likely focusing on climate change and the
ways in which members of the public have been educated about that particular topic.
Three of the seven students from the Sci/Env Set mentioned political lines as
those most clearly defining the differences in public certainty about climate change.
Gaston actually rejects the idea that the divide is generational beyond any political
affiliations that might also be generational:
Do you think the public is certain about the existence of climate change? Which public? Do you think that different parts of the public believe different things? Yeah. I think the more academic, progressive populations generally tend to accept the fact that climate change is happening and that you know people are causing it and that other, less, more conservative populations tend to not think so. Do you think that there is any difference generationally? I think that the conservative parents have conservative children… I think that’s not where the clear line happens because I know that people in my generation are still thinking that global warming is fake. – Gaston (S4E, Biochemistry)
Although he didn’t mention political parties, Gaston believed in a divide between
“progressive” and “conservative” populations. May also mentioned this same divide in
114 114
her quote in Chapter 4. She used geography and the traditional geo-political separation
seen in the United States as her example of the different locations of public acceptance of
climate change. May also implies that those who are more liberal are also more likely to
care. The final student in the Sci/Env Set, who did not mention division in people’s
certainty, believed that people just didn’t care about climate change.
I don’t think people really care that much….people are just like cool I’m gonna die in 60 years and I don’t think anything’s gonna change. If they aren’t thinking long term, future generations. So do you think maybe they just don’t care, or they aren’t certain anyway, and they don’t care? Maybe the second one, like maybe both. – Denise (S4E, Wildlife and Conservation Biology)
This portion of Denise’s mental model includes a public whose members only
consider their own lifetimes. The model is not unique to Denise, but is also not as
common as one in which public concern includes the future, no matter on which side of
the perceived certainty divide they fall.
If it was not made clear over the course of their interview, students were asked at
the end what they thought about climate change and all of the students were asked if they
had anything else they wanted to say or discuss. All seven students in the Sci/Env Set
stated that they understood climate change was happening and that anthropogenic activity
has had at least some, if not the most significant, role. Most of the students used language
associated with “believing” in climate change, rather than with knowing. May, who used
the phrase “rather be safe than sorry” several times throughout her interview, again
expressed that sentiment in her closing remarks.
I believe. I think the evidence I’ve seen, the science I’ve seen, there is climate change. But even if there isn’t I still am on the fact that [you should] at least conserve all you can, save all you can. –May (S4E, Environmental Engineering)
Students in other Sets mentioned “It’s better to be safe than sorry”. Over the
course of May’s interview she expressed that she wasn’t clear on the science of climate
change, but that she continued to believe we should take action, regardless of her lack of
115 115
complete understanding. Capturing this mental model component necessitated the
creation of a multi-part survey item. The results of item 2.74 must be analyzed with this
in mind.
Table 51 Set Responses: 2.74 Even if the science is not clear to me, I think it is better to act and be safe rather than sorry (N=466)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 84.6 79.2 78.8 79.7
Neither 12.8 13.2 15.4 9.5 Disagree 2.6 7.5 5.7 10.8
The majority of all four Student Sets agree with this item. With the wording of the
statement, some respondents might disagree that the science is unclear to them, and
therefore they may not know how to answer the question. This may account for the small,
unexpected directional difference between the Non-Sci/Env and Non Sci/Non-Env Sets.
Given other results, it would seem more likely that the Non-Sci/Env Set would have the
slightly higher response, but this possible error is very small. In addition, the percent of
disagreement is much higher in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set, perhaps meaning that the
small number of students confused by the statement wording selected “Neither agree nor
disagree.” Overall, in the mental models of a large majority of the students taking action
on climate change was important, even if they do not have a solid understanding of the
science.
The mental models of climate change held by members of the Sci/Env Set were
revealed through the interview and survey. Although not all of the students have perfect
understanding of the science behind climate change, their mental models are generally
close to the scientific model in all three components. There was relatively little issue
confusion and students were able to name important greenhouse gases. The students were
generally clear about the anthropogenic causes of climate change, although they tended to
be vague regarding the specific sources of greenhouse gases. Finally, the students in the
116 116
Sci/Env Set had some understanding of the urgency and severity of the issue, although
not to the extent necessary to truly match the scientific model. In terms of the Climate
Action Model, the students in the Sci/Env Set were able to give generally correct answers
regarding the actions both individuals and the government can take to deal with climate
change, but their answers again lacked concrete examples or implementation strategies.
The students in this Set could not name or outline specific governmental policies and
their suggestions for individual action usually consisted of “using less” without much
indication of how this should happen. As will be discussed in Sets 2, 3 and 4, and in the
Discussions and Conclusions chapter of this dissertation, however, the students in the
Sci/Env Set held the mental models of climate change most closely matching the
scientific model.
Students enrolled in a science major and not belonging to an environmental group (Sci/Non-Env Set)
The students in the Sci/Non-Env Set were enrolled in biology, biochemistry,
environmental science and policy and geology majors. None of the students in the
Sci/Non-Env Set were involved in, or had been involved in an environmental group, but
one student’s parents were environmentally active and this fact may explain some the
differences between his responses and those of his counterparts in this Set. Besides this
student, those in the Sci/Non-Env Set were less likely to hold mental models as close to
the scientific model as those in the Sci/Env Set. Students held less issue confusion in this
group than in any of the other Sets, but were also more likely to mention natural causes in
their explanation of the process of climate change. Students in this group were also
generally less convinced on the anthropogenic role in climate change and of the urgency
of the issue.
Within the Sci/Non-Env Set there was a distinct difference between the mental
models of the Geology majors and those of the other science majors. The general
117 117
skepticism of the geology majors is covered in the context of the answers of the other
members of this Set in this section, and is then explored further in the Outliers and
Interesting Cases section of this chapter. In general, however, there was more skepticism
in this Set than in the Sci/Env Set.
In the first group of interview questions which focused on environmental
attitudes, four of the six students in the Sci/Non-Env Set specifically mentioned “global
warming” as an issue that is sometimes exaggerated. Only students’ chosen pseudonyms
and majors are included in the quotations from this Set as they are not members of
environmental groups.
Do you ever think that environmental issues are exaggerated? Yeah sometimes. I would say probably global warming is to some extent, but at the same time sometimes they’re not really, like there’s not enough attention called to certain issues and more to others. What do you think needs more attention that doesn’t get enough? Probably like keeping people from introducing foreign species into different places, it kind of like throws things off, especially with plants. – Dan (Biology)
I think that people look at global warming and they kind of maybe blow it out of proportion or something, like they should be looking at more direct things that will affect us right now. Like maybe water quality or just like organic farming that could affect us immediately instead of something that’s super long-term like global warming. – Eileen (Environmental Science)
The belief that climate change may be exaggerated could also mean that these
students do not understand the urgency or severity of the issue, and therefore believe it
has received too much attention. These responses were represented on the survey with
statement 2.9, stating that climate change is exaggerated more than the science supports.
The other concept presented in these responses that there are environmental issues that
may be more pressing than climate change was represented in statement 2.73, but will be
discussed in the section on Outliers and Interesting Cases.
118 118
Table 52 Set Responses: 2.9 I think climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science supports (N=695)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 12.5 30.2 19.2 23.2
Neither 12.5 20.8 15.4 27.8 Disagree 75 49 65.4 49
In the results of statement 2.9, it is unsurprising that the two groups with the
fewest number of students agreeing with the item are those groups including
environmental group members. The Sci/Non-Env Set, however, is the group with the
highest level of agreement with this statement. This finding supports the mental model
observation made in the interviews, that students in the Sci/Non-Env Set are more likely
to hold mental models in which they do not understand the urgency and severity of
climate change.
Despite this possible mental model gap, the students in the Sci/Non-Env Set were
all capable of explaining the greenhouse effect and naming the specific gases involved in
climate change. Kyle, the student whose parents were involved in environmental groups
when he was a younger, had the most complete answer, however even students who
expressed a belief that climate change was sometimes exaggerated, like Dan, were able to
correctly describe the processes of climate change.
[I’ve heard] that we’re producing statistically significant levels of carbon dioxide and, and that going by things like ice cores and other things, we can be pretty sure that we are having a real impact and we’re not just part of some sort of a cycle but we’re actually contributing to the levels of CO2 now and that in the past levels of CO2 seem to indicate shifts in climate. When you say that we’re producing CO2, how are we producing it? I guess the majority of it is from coal plants I think, but uh I mean everything from cars to coal, to uh even animals. Well not CO2 necessarily but cows and things like that but for methane I guess. But mostly for energy production. I think it is primarily coal, mostly…I mean a lot in developing countries but I mean a lot in ours too. – Kyle (Biochemistry)
Basically the more greenhouse gases like carbon and methane that build up in the atmosphere, the more the energy from the sun doesn’t get reflected into space and basically stays in the atmosphere or on earth and it’s basically like a greenhouse. And that we are producing more now than
119 119
pretty much any time than we have evidence to support in history….So you said that we’re increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, what specifically are we doing that does that? Probably a combination of things. Cars are probably the biggest thing that I know of, things like burning forests and stuff like that but I don’t know if that’s any different from normal cause they kind of burn anyway, um manufacturing. Like planes, stuff like that, building things. A lot of it is sort of self fueled, like the more the temperature increases the more the permafrost, up in the upper region of the world melts and releases the methane that’s like trapped in the ice or something like that. – Dan (Biology)
These explanations are relatively comprehensive and closely match the scientific
model of climate change. The students enrolled in geology were also able to explain the
greenhouse effect, but tended to insert natural production of greenhouse gases and earth’s
warming and cooling cycles into their explanations. Ben’s quote regarding the natural
causes of climate change was presented in Chapter 4 and is reproduced below.
The greenhouse effect occurs through various gases such as uh CO2, water vapors have actually been an even bigger one than CO2 in a lot of ways, these things get released into the air either through human processes or natural processes like volcanism, and they basically trap energy that enters the earth. – Ben (Geology)
As was pointed out in Chapter 4, the role of natural forces in climate change is not
incorrect, but the specific references Ben makes in this response do not entirely match the
scientific model. The models of geology students in particular are further explored in the
Outliers and Interesting Cases section of this chapter.
When asked about individual actions that can be taken to combat climate change,
the students in the Sci/Non-Env Set responded with models similar to the Climate Action
Model. Three of the six students in this group were able to spontaneously produce energy
efficiency measures. In the previous section, only one student from the Sci/Env Set
mentioned energy efficiency measures in her response about the individual actions that
can be taken to combat climate change. When given the same action on the survey,
however, students in the Sci/Env Set were more likely to agree. Students in the Sci/Non-
120 120
Env Set agreed as frequently as those in the Non-Sci/Env Set. All of these percentages,
however, were quite high.
Table 53 Set Responses: 2.42 I’ve heard that using energy efficient light bulbs, turning off electric appliances, and insulating my house are all ways I can reduce my contribution to climate change (N=494)
% Science/ Env. Gr.
Science/ Non-Env. Gr.
Non-Science/ Env. Gr.
Non-Science/ Non-Env. Gr.
Agree 97.4 90.4 90.4 91.8 Neither 2.6 5.8 5.8 4.6
Disagree 0 3.8 3.8 3.6
Dan also mentioned energy efficiency, and brought up supporting green companies,
political participation and the use of public transportation.
Probably try to buy more energy efficient cars, use less energy at home…simple things like use CFLs instead of incandescent bulbs… Probably opt to buy things from companies that are making more sound environmental decisions as far as how they produce their goods and whatnot. Vote for people that support lowering the allowable limits of how much greenhouse gases are produced or how much pollution is produced. Use public transportation, which we pretty much don’t have in our country. It’s funny, when I was in Ecuador, they’re a third world country and their public transportation is pretty much better than ours. Ridiculous. –Dan (Biology)
This response was one of the most complete in that it covered several different areas in
which individuals can take action. Dan’s statement that we need a better public
transportation system in the United States was echoed by other students, and was
represented on the survey with item 2.40.
Table 54 Set Responses: 2.40 We need to change our transportation, like creating better public transportation, in order to make a big impact on climate change (N=501)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 87.5 78.8 90.4 68.2
Neither 10 11.5 3.8 22.6 Disagree 2.5 9.4 5.7 9.1
121 121
The responses to the issue of changing our transportation system are divided amongst the
Sets. Those in Sets including environmental group members feel much more strongly that
this is a necessary step than do those in non-environmental Sets. Possible explanations for
this difference include understanding of the causes of climate change, the reputation and
stigma of public transportation in the U.S., or some objection to funding or resources
being put into transportation. Given the fact that there is little outright rejection or
disagreement with the statement, confusion about the connection between transportation
and climate change is a plausible reason for this division in agreement.
Finally, Jackie’s response in the Sci/Non-Env Set focused on consumption in
some depth and mentioned the process of transportation as it is involved in food and
internationally created goods.
Individually we feel that we don’t have a lot of power, but collectively we really can make differences if we look at the patterns of our consumption. And our consumption not only means the food that we eat, but the products that we buy and also the cars that we drive and the methods that we use for transportation… Driving is consuming fossil fuels, which is gasoline burning, creating carbon emission out of our tailpipe. Consumption, if you’re looking at the manufacturing process of our iPods and cellphones, that a lot of times it’s happening in China where their environmental standards aren’t as high as ours, and then additionally you have to transport that back and the process of transportation is involving shipping, or on a plane which is burning fossil fuel as well, and then being distributed amongst the country and other countries. So, if we can be more conscious about what we are consuming, or even the food. The food that we’re consuming, if it doesn’t have to come from California and if it can come from our back yard…I think that that would provide us a more sustainable way of living. – Jackie (Energy and Environmental Policy)
These, more detailed responses show mental models of action similar to the
Climate Action Model and supported by a general understanding of the processes of
climate change. This more detailed understanding was also evident in the Sci/Non-Env
Set students’ ideas on how the government can better combat climate change. In some
122 122
cases, however students’ lack of understanding regarding the urgency of the issue, and
possible political mindsets were more evident in their answers about government action.
Four of the six students in the Sci/Non-Env Set mentioned government
investment in alternative energy and two of the six students mentioned changes in fuel
efficiency standards, either by regulation or incentives. In Eileen’s response, quoted in
Chapter 4, she mentioned alternative energy and efficiency standards, as well as the idea
that the government should lead by example. Eileen’s response shows a mental model
that matches the Climate Action Model. Also interesting in her response is the implied
urgency, given that in an earlier statement she indicated that she thinks climate change
concerns are exaggerated.
Two students specifically mentioned subsidies for renewable resources as a way
to “invest” in those resources and one student mentioned removing fossil fuel subsidies
as a government action that could impact climate change:
The tax subsidies which are given to gas are unreal! So stop subsidizing this one that’s not helping us and start subsidizing the ones that would. I mean the reason that we’re moving towards renewable resources isn’t because fossil fuel has been our best friend. I mean, it’s obviously becoming more expensive, less available and is harming our planet, so I think that the government, if you’re gonna manage our resources, which is ultimately what they’re there to do, they can do a better job of understanding which ones are gonna be better for us and for our future. – Jackie (Energy and Environmental Policy)
Jackie also mentioned that the government needs to “stop taking power away
from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).” She was the only student to mention
a specific governmental organization when explaining the role the government can play
in reducing climate change.
Within this Set there were three students who believed that the government should
only play a limited role in dealing with climate change, two of whom were Geology
majors. Consuela’s answers focused on the negative economic consequences of specific
climate change policies:
123 123
It’s a tough question just because the government also has a responsibility to um keep the country safe and prosperous and um a lot of times like capping carbon emissions would really, really hurt a lot of people as far as their economic abilities go….But there’s certainly you know stuff that can be done as far as encouraging cleaner sources of energy to be used…then well that too gets into, for example solar panels aren’t necessarily for everyone the most cost efficient thing and can really hurt a family. If you’re forced to get a certain thing it can really have negative consequences. There’s definitely things that can be done hopefully in a wise manner that can strike a balance between protecting the environment and then also being able to help families and stuff like that still. –Consuela (Geology)
Consuela’s focus is on families, and she expresses a fear that policies will be put into
place “forcing” families to enact certain changes. Policies focused on regulating families
are, however, not particularly realistic in terms of those likely to be enacted by the U.S.
government. Over the course of her interview, Consuela did mention both taxing carbon
emissions and cap and trade, two policies brought up by very few other students.
Although she disagreed with their implementation, her mention of these policies shows
that she understands they are designed to deal with climate change. To test students’
recognition of these policies, even if many students were unable to produce these answers
on their own, the following item was included on the survey:
Table 55 Set Responses: 2.32 The government could tax carbon emissions or introduce a system of cap and trade in an effort to reduce climate change (N=513)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 82.5 52.8 75.0 55.7
Neither 10 30.2 13.5 24.6 Disagree 7.5 17 11.5 19.6
The use of the word “could” in this item wording was designed to minimize
politically fueled responses, but this cannot be perfectly controlled. It is possible that
objections to taxation or regulation could have caused the lower acceptance rates seen in
the Sets not including environmental group members. The fact that the Sci/Non-Env Set
has generally shown moderate to high comparative understanding of climate change
124 124
science but shows the lowest rate of agreement to statement 2.32 supports this
hypothesis. In both Sets including environmental group members, the rates of acceptance
are 75% or above, indicating that students recognize these policies as ones that combat
climate change, even if they may not be able to produce the names of these policies on
their own.
In the Sci/Non-Env Set interviews, Biology student Dan’s responses focused on
the consequences government policies for climate change mitigation could have on
businesses:
The government should, I mean I don’t know if they should play too big of a role. I would be more likely to vote for someone if they were concerned about the environment, but at the same time I am a pretty big proponent of small government, so I don’t know that the government should really reward or really, they should maybe provide some incentives to not pollute as much… it should basically be like they should keep companies from you know dumping pollution that effects other people and surrounding area, but if they’re just polluting their own property, you know that’s cool, but if they’re polluting you know the air in general and property that continues onto other peoples’ property and public land than there should be heavy fines for stuff like that and they should have to pay the full cost of you know cleaning that up…but at the same time it’s kind of hard to say that because you know other countries they’re just going to like do it anyway and that kind of handicaps us. So it’s kind of hard to really expect companies to do that sort of thing. – Dan (Biology)
Dan is a self-proclaimed proponent of small government and his response clearly
reflects that viewpoint. He was also one of the few students to bring up the actions of
other countries or governments in his responses. Dan and Consuela’s responses reflect
previously held political viewpoints, but it could also be argued that these viewpoints
reflect their mental models and understanding of climate change. Specifically, these
responses show gaps in their models of both the urgency of the issue and who or what is
responsible for climate change. The economic impacts of the consequences of climate
change will likely be far greater than those of regulation, and the contribution of the
125 125
United States to greenhouse gas emissions is far greater, per capita, than those of any
other country.2
When asked about their sources of information on climate change, all six of the
students interviewed in the Sci/Non-Env Set mentioned their university classes. Some of
the students studied the issue in depth, while some said that climate change was briefly
covered in class in relation to another subject. Besides class work, students mentioned a
variety of other sources.
A lot of time it comes from classes, I mean I am part of a program called Energy and Environmental Policies and we’ve got professors who are on the IPCC panel. Mostly academic records are what I am reading, but I also read like NPR and other television news sources. Mostly it’s online articles or listening to the radio. When you use online articles, what sources do you usually use? Are they news articles? If I’m researching it for a paper then I am going onto like JSTOR and other academic peer reviewed articles, but if I’m, or actually a lot of government articles we use as well from NREL or um or the DOE, so they may not talk specifically about, some of them have reports that are specifically about climate change but, I mean if I am just doing my personal research and interest I use Wikipedia. I’m alright with that. – Jackie (Energy and Environmental Policy)
In her response Jackie not only states that she has covered climate change in her
course work, but that she has had to research the subject further for class. This statement
was represented on the survey with item 2.57.
Table 56 Set Responses: 2.57 I have had to research climate change for a class before (N=478)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 92.1 73.1 76.9 46.9
Neither 0 3.8 1.9 4.9 Disagree 7.9 23.1 21.2 48.2
2 IPCC 2007
126 126
Interestingly, students in the Sci/Env Set are almost 20% more likely to have researched
climate change for class than their fellow science majors in the Sci/Non-Env Set. It is
possible that due to their environmental interests, the students in the Sci/Env Set are more
likely to choose specific courses or science majors that cover climate change in more
depth, or that students in the Sci/Env Set are more likely to choose specific research
projects relating to climate change. These explanations may also apply to the Non-
Sci/Env Set, in which the level of agreement is higher than in the Sci/Non-Env Set.
Statements such as this illustrate some of the reasons for the findings in the Survey
Results and Analysis section in which membership in an environmental group was a
greater indication of climate change knowledge than enrollment in a science major.
In the Sci/Non-Env Set interviews. two students, including Jackie in her quotation
above, named NPR and two students, including Jackie, named Wikipedia as sources of
information. Five of the six students mentioned using the internet in some capacity to
find information, and three students said that they watch either TV news or educational
TV shows. One student specifically stated that he does not like the TV news because of
the bias he perceives, and he explained how he finds sources he believes are unbiased.
Where do you get information about climate change? Usually from the internet. I don’t really use like the television as a source of information. I feel it’s extremely biased, about everything. The internet is still biased but at the same time you can kind of, it’s easier to determine what is biased and what’s not. It’s easier to find citation for like claims on this and that. What kind of internet sites? I used Wikipedia a lot, because you can go there and search for a topic and then I usually go to references and then go to the actual sites that it links you to. And sometimes I’ll just use Google or Bing and just search for things and, usually I don’t really look at anything that doesn’t really have like citation or a supporting study, that’s like factual information, I don’t really put too much stock in it. – Dan (Biology)
Dan’s response touches on not only the sources he uses, but also on how he
determines the reliability of those sources. He also specifically states that he searches for
information on his own about climate change, something mentioned by very few other
127 127
students. A statement relating to Dan’s response was included in the survey. Although
Dan said that he does not use television, his statement was broadened slightly to
encompass more types of media with the phrase “see in the news” which could apply to
the internet, TV, or printed news.
Table 57 Set Responses: 2.50 When I look for information about climate change, I try to find the original scientific studies and data backing up what I see in the news (N=481)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 66.7 64.7 59.6 44.9
Neither 17.9 19.6 15.4 27.2 Disagree 15.4 15.7 25 27.9
Unsurprisingly, the students in Sets including science majors are more likely to agree that
they look up the scientific information behind the news when looking for climate change
information. The percentage of agreement in the Non-Sci/Env Set is not far off from
those in the two Sets including science majors, likely due to their high level of interest in
the subject of climate change. In the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set, fewer than half of the
students indicate that they look for information beyond the surface level of what is
presented to them in news media.
When asked about the reliability of their resources, the students in the Sci/Non-
Env Set, three of the six students talked about sources grounded in science, citing
scientific data or examining the methodology used in a source study.
I usually look at their methods and stuff like that. I feel like I’ve gotten to the point where I can look at their methods and what kind of statistical analysis they’ve… I mean I guess I feel like I can kind of tell if it’s legitimate or if they’re kind of biased or trying to, you know, just say something just to prove their point even if the data doesn’t really line up with it. – Dan (Biology)
In this response, Dan expresses faith in his abilities as a scientist to discern the
legitimacy of a study based on its methodology. Rather than going directly to the
128 128
methodology, Kyle likes to see the source affiliated with an academic or governmental
institution, or someone who has a related, advanced degree.
I like to see that there is someone, I mean any time it’s attributed to an academic institution or someone with an advanced degree in a particular topic that they are talking about, that would seem to indicate that they are somewhat reputable. Something from a .gov, or a .org, is one way to tell. – Kyle (Biochemistry)
Kyle’s specific method of using the top-level domain (ie .gov or .org) of a web address as
a way to determine the legitimacy of a website was common in other Sets and will be
discussed in detail in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set. Kyle also mentions in his response that
he thinks balance in reporting, or showing “both sides of a story” is an indicator of
reliability.
I like to see an acknowledgement of, you know any time I read an opinion piece to see an acknowledgement of the other side of the story, um cause anytime I don’t see that I tend to think that they’re avoiding things that might be contradictory. – Kyle (Biochemistry)
This was also a commonly expressed mental model component of source reliability in
other Sets. A related statement on the survey was item 2.56.
Table 58 Set Responses: 2.56 I think a source is reliable if it shows both sides of the climate change debate (N=471)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 48.7 46.2 59.6 58.1
Neither 35.9 32.7 21.2 27.7 Disagree 15.4 21.1 19.3 14.2
About half of the students interviewed agreed that balance in reporting is an
indicator of reliability. This percentage of agreement was slightly less in the two Sets
including science majors. Statements about the inclusion of both sides of the climate
change argument within one source were more common in the interviews of Sets 3 and 4,
as well. In the Sci/Non-Env Set, however, Consuela did not use the same wording as
129 129
Kyle or the other students, but she mentioned that a source coming off as too “certain”
about climate change struck her as suspicious.
How to decide if they are reliable? I guess how much, how in depth they go to the sort of pros and cons of things. Like if they’re just on the surface… Talking about something as if it’s a certainty always makes me suspicious but just cause in classes and stuff I know that everything that we talk about in science is like “well this guy says this, but this guy says that! So we’re not really sure” so if a news source is too certain of themselves than I’m never too [convinced]. –Consuela (Geology)
Consuela mentions the uncertainty of science and therefore her apprehension about
certainty in media coverage. Her mental model, both her and in other responses, shows a
lack of understanding regarding the degree to which climate scientists agree about the
occurrence and anthropogenic causes of climate change. Her argument about certainty in
sources and reliability was represented on the survey with statement 2.63.
Table 59 Set Responses: 2.63 I don’t trust a source that sounds too certain about climate change because I know there is a lot of uncertainty (N=471)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 35.9 36.5 36.5 38.2
Neither 17.9 28.8 46.2 39.3 Disagree 46.2 33.8 17.3 22.4
The student responses to this survey question were split relatively evenly between
Agree, Neither and Disagree for the overall student body. Interestingly, the students in
the Non-Sci/Env Set seemed least likely to know what to think about statement 2.63, with
a majority of the students selecting Neither. A little more than a third of the students in
her Set and in the overall student body agree with Consuela’s belief that there is
uncertainty in climate change science and that a source “sounding too certain” is not
trustworthy.
All six of the interview informants from the Sci/Non-Env Set said that they saw
conflict in their sources about climate change and three of the students said that they saw
conflict over whether or not the causes of climate change are anthropogenic or part of a
130 130
natural cycle. Dan, who is quoted in Chapter 4, saw the controversy as a separation of
“groups” while Jackie specifically named political parties as the separating factor in
climate change beliefs.
Oh yeah, I mean there is definitely a conflict amongst political sources. I mean unfortunately the situation of global warming –climate change has become…is bipartisan mean that it’s separate? No, bipartisan means that it’s both. Well then it’s become a partisan issue, completely. It’s definitely become a partisan issue between you know liberals and conservatives, which is ironic because if you want to be a conservative, than let’s start conserving! – Jackie (Energy and Environmental Policy)
Jackie also said that she believes that different media sources cover climate change
differently, and specifically mentions Fox News as an organization that is skeptical of
climate change.
If you see something on the news, do you see conflict portrayed or do you see more certainty? So I don’t watch Fox News but my parents do and I know that whenever I talk with them our attitudes towards things like this are conflicting and I take this, I understand this as they’re watching a news source which is telling them that it’s not a big deal or telling them, you know giving them different facts. Because as we know it’s not the facts that are lying, but the analyst. So I take it that we’re listening to different sources and that our conflicts come from there. – Jackie (Energy and Environmental Policy)
In order to determine what percentage of students saw conflicting information
about climate change in the media, the following statement was included in the survey:
Table 60 Set Responses: 2.3 There is a lot of conflicting information in the media about climate change (N=465)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 61.5 56.6 76.5 68.3
Neither 28.2 30.2 19.6 20.1 Disagree 10.3 13.2 3.9 11.6
Despite its mention in the Sci/Non-Env Set interviews, the students in this group were
least likely to see conflict in the media. Students not agreeing with this statement may not
use media as a major source of information or may only use one type or source for their
131 131
media information. Students agreeing with this statement may in fact see more
controversy because they are looking for it or because they’re more aware of the issue.
No matter what the explanation, around two thirds of the respondents agreed that there is
conflict about climate change in their media sources.
Besides conflict over the anthropogenic responsibility for current climate change,
one student also mentioned conflict about the effects climate change will have and the
best solutions to the problem.
I guess even in journal articles and stuff talking about possible methods of coping with global warming like carbon sequestration and what we should do and that sort of thing, you know what’s a good idea, what’s not a good idea, and then also talking about the effects on the deep water circulation, like whether that’s actually plausible or not, whether its actually happening or not… so it’s mainly in the more detailed side of things that sources tend to disagree. – Consuela (Geology)
Understanding and observing conflict over different types of climate change
action shows an inherent understanding of the climate change science in Consuela’s
mental model. She is able in this response to name both a possible solution and a possible
effect of climate change generally not known or mentioned by her peers. Consuela,
demonstrates a better understanding of the processes of climate change, but as can be
seen in some of her other responses and as will be discussed in the Outliers and
Interesting Cases section of this chapter, her overall mental model of climate change does
not match the scientific model in other areas.
The students in the Sci/Non-Env Set were split in their understanding of scientific
certainty regarding climate change. One student each responded simple “No” or simple
“Yes” when asked if scientists are certain about climate change. The other four students
expressed varying degrees of doubt about the levels of scientific certainty. In the case of
the student quoted below, he was mostly convinced that scientists are certain about
climate change, and that no matter what it is important for humans to reduce their impact
on the environment.
132 132
I think we are not certain about what will happen necessarily. I think that we’re pretty certain that we’re causing an impact, and whether or not we’re the main cause…you know often times the argument is “well maybe we’re just part of some cycle and we’re just a small contributing factor” but I think that it’s pretty clear that we are contributing and if there’s any contributing than we should think about how to eliminate that because anytime we’re changing the environment in such a drastic way we really have no idea what could possibly happen. –Kyle (Biochemistry)
Similarly, Eileen stated that scientists are certain we are having some sort of impact on
the environment, whether or not that impact is changing the climate.
I think there is consensus, especially now that like, ok what we’re doing now is probably hurting the planet. Like regardless of whether is causing global warming or not, it’s hurting the planet in some way. – Eileen (Environmental Science)
Dan’s response, quoted in Chapter 4, was similar to Eileen’s, although he stated outright
that scientists are not certain about climate change or human’s impact.
While these students expressed a mental model in which human activity is
harming the planet but may or may not contribute to climate change, the two geology
students held a slightly different view in which scientists are certain that the climate is
changing, but not that humans drive this change.
I think that scientists are definitely certain that it happens, I don’t think that all scientists agree on who or what is primarily responsible… I worked for someone who was involved in like the environment and studying the earth and that sort of thing and he was really adamant about the human element in global warming and I kind of thought…you know with all that we know about how much the climate has changed in the past, is it really any huge surprise to us that it’s changing now? Because the earth is doing stuff too. – Ben (Geology)
Two separate ideas from Ben’s response were represented on the survey. The first
is the mental model component that scientists are certain the climate is changing but “not
who or what is primarily responsible.”
133 133
Table 61 Set Responses: 2.69 I think scientists are certain that the climate is changing, but not about who or what is responsible (N=467)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 64.1 46.2 69.2 59.5
Neither 10.3 25 15.4 21.1 Disagree 25.1 28.8 15.4 19.4
This statement has two parts and could therefore be confusing for students to
answer. The intent is to capture the entire thought or line of reasoning in students’ mental
models, and students agreeing with this statement are ideally agreeing with both parts and
the entire meaning. It is important to keep in mind, however, that students disagreeing
with this statement may disagree that scientists are certain that the climate is changing, or
may believe that scientists are certain the climate is changing and that humans are
responsible. For this reason, the agreement percentages are the most important to
examine in this survey item.
Over half of the respondents agree with this statement and hold the same mental
model component as does Ben. In the Sci/Non-Env Set, however, this number is close to
half, but not as high as in the other Sets. Again, this could mean more students are
skeptical about scientific certainty, or that more students believe that scientists are certain
about the human component of climate change.
The next item, 2.70, was designed to capture the mental model component that
Ben expressed regarding the way in which the climate has changed over time and his
skepticism regarding the certainty of human contribution.
Table 62 Set Responses: 2.70 The climate has changed a lot in the past, so I think we might be making too big a deal about how it’s changing now (N=467)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 20.5 28.8 23.1 29.5
Neither 7.7 19.2 17.3 23.6 Disagree 71.8 51.9 59.6 46.9
134 134
Although the rates of agreement with this item are slightly higher in those Sets not
containing environmental group members, a majority of respondents in all groups
disagree with the statement based off of Ben’s response. This mental model component
may be more highly prevalent in Geology majors, and this will be further examined in the
section entitled Outliers and Interesting Cases.
Four of the six students interviewed in the Sci/Non-Env Set said that they did not
see certainty in the media regarding climate change, and one student basically said that
she could not comment on media certainty because she distrusts the news and refuses to
watch it. Dan’s take on the news coverage of climate change was that the viewpoints
depicted varied for sensationalism and that sometimes the news strays from the facts:
I would say the media kind of portrays it as this thing that is, they kind of blow it off sometimes. It’s funny because some times you’ll see on the evening news one night “oh, this company is whatever polluting” and then the next night it will be “because the government is trying to say that this company pollutes too much, they’re losing money” and they kind of just go back and forth. I feel like the news half the time just makes stories to get people riled up and they don’t really care if it’s factual or not. – Dan (Biology)
Kyle also stated that he thinks the truth is sometimes distorted in the media, and
that funding plays a role in this distortion. He sites some sources of media information he
believes are more reputable, and says that he still sees uncertainty or conflict in those
sources.
Yeah, I tend to not really like a lot of the media. That’s often special interest funded. I mean you definitely see things like Fox News just blatantly distorting truth. I mean really some of the most reputable stuff is coming from the Daily Show and shows like that, so I don’t really watch news TV, I really get all my information from the internet. Although I do see, I do read articles that are coming from Wall Street Journal or Times or stuff like that. Do you see conflict there? I actually do see some conflict I think, even in main media sources. –Kyle (Biochemistry)
In Consuela’s response she alludes to a certainty within each source, but a
dichotomy between different sources.
135 135
Is the media certain about climate change? Yes. Uh well it depends on what media. You think some sources are certain yes and some sources are certain no? yeah. Do you see anybody in the middle? Um, not really. – Consuela (Geology)
When asked about the level of certainty in the general public concerning climate
change, two of the students interviewed in the Sci/Non-Env Set said that public
uncertainty is driven by the uncertainty portrayed in the media.
Do you think the public is certain about climate change? Not at all. And I think most of that is attributed to mainstream media distortion. – Kyle (Biochemistry)
I think that the media is also representative of the public, you know, I think that the public and the media interact very interestingly together. –Jackie (Energy and Environmental Policy)
Students in this Set also expressed the idea that the public is divided in its
certainty about climate change. Two students stated that this divide was along political
lines. Ben’s response regarding the public’s certainty, quoted in Chapter 4, echoed his
previous responses about scientific certainty, and but he also mentioned a political divide
in public opinion. Consuela specifically rejects the political divide in her response, and
points to a generational difference in opinion regarding climate change.
I would say certain areas of the public are [certain climate change is happening], certain areas are certain against it. What do you think divides it usually? Um well it’s not always necessarily politics or anything I think that its… I think age might divide it. Cause I know a lot of older people who are more skeptical about it and I know a lot of people my age who are really gung-ho about it. Certainly politics along some lines, but I’ve heard people from both sides talk on both sides of the issue, so… - Consuela (Geology)
In her final remarks during the interview, Consuela expressed a belief that climate change
is an overblown issue and that there are other, more pressing concerns that should be
addressed. This statement was quoted in Chapter 4. Consuela’s concern that other
environmental issues are more important or pressing than climate change was represented
on the survey with item 2.73.
136 136
Table 63 Set Responses: 2.73 I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face today and I think that it gets too much press (N=466)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 17.9 20.8 19.2 17.7
Neither 20.5 34 17.3 34.8 Disagree 61.5 45.3 63.5 47.5
Those Sets including environmental group members are the most likely to
disagree with this statement. Students in the Sci/Non-Env Set have the highest level of
agreement, although that percentage is not the majority of the responses.
The overall mental models of climate change seen in the interviews of the
Sci/Non-Env Set matched different parts of the scientific model than did those of other
Sets. The students in the Sci/Non-Env Set showed little to no issue confusion regarding
the scientific processes of climate change and were generally able to correctly explain the
greenhouse effect. The students interviewed for this Set also had relatively complete
mental models regarding the possible effects of climate change and the actions that can
be taken by both individuals and the government regarding the issue. The area in which
these students’ mental models most frequently diverged from the scientific model was in
scientific certainty about the issue and the urgency of climate change. Students in this Set
were more likely to specifically mention climate change as an exaggerated environmental
issue, and some students expressed skepticism regarding the human elements or the
extent of human contribution to climate change.
The students in the Sci/Non-Env Set do not show one, entirely coherent mental
model. There was a range in student skepticism shown in the interviews of this Set. This
is made particularly clear in the difference between the mental models shown in the
Geology majors and those of the members of other science majors interviewed. The
differences were sometimes subtle. Some skepticism was seen even in the answers of
Environmental Science major, Eileen. The mental models of the Geology majors were
not just more skeptical, but were also skewed towards a different worldview regarding
137 137
timescales and human’s importance on the planet. This phenomenon will be explored
further in the later section dedicated to analysis of the Geology majors.
Students belonging to an environmental group and not enrolled in a science major (Non-Sci/Env Set)
The interviews with students belonging to environmental groups, contained many
similarities, especially in the areas of climate change concern and the understanding of
the severity of the issue. There were also distinct differences in the mental models
displayed by these two Sets. In the Non-Sci/Env Set, the students’ mental models of the
scientific process were, for the most part, much weaker than the models held by students
with a science background. The students in the Non-Sci/Env Set, however, were much
more likely to take environmental and climate change concerns seriously than students in
the Sci/Non-Env Set, and some students mentioned specific lifestyle changes they have
made in order to limit their contributions to climate change.
When asked about the scientific processes involved in climate change, the
students in the Non-Sci/Env Set gave a wide range of answers. Three of the five students
interviewed in this Set showed some form of issue confusion between climate change and
ozone depletion. As quoted in the previous chapter, Ariel and Joan, who belong to this
Student Set, hold a mental models of climate change that display this issue confusion in
both the process of climate change and in the human actions that cause this process.
Shortened versions of these quotes are included below:
Do you remember anything about the scientific process of [climate change]? …Volatile Organic Compounds? …when they go into the atmosphere they break down the ozone layer and because of that the rays from the sun are more able to penetrate the earth and that’s what’s causing the warming? … And because of that it’s creating a greenhouse effect and the warmth is staying in the area between the earth and the atmosphere and that’s causing the warming. What part of this do humans make happen? Ok so there’s aerosols, I know that’s part of it, pollution, like other kinds of pollution. Carbon dioxide coming from factories, car emissions, vehicle emissions. – Ariel (S4E, Sierra Club, Audobon Society, WWF, Human Services)
What can you tell me about the scientific mechanism of climate change? You mentioned C02. Why carbon emissions, what does it do? So because,
138 138
is that like when it goes in the air, like the oxygen creates like 03, is that the same thing, like ozone? Alright, and what happens with that? As far as I know it oxidizes the atmosphere kind of, allowing it to be more susceptible to the heat and the sun and stuff like that. Where do those CO2 emissions come from? They come from like energy use like coal and oil and stuff. – Joan (S4E and NYPRG, Diatetics)
Issue confusion between ozone depletion and climate change was included in the
survey in several questions. The idea that the hole in the ozone layer allows more sun to
enter and creates a warming effect was represented in item 2.11.
Table 64 Set Responses: 2.11 Climate change is happening because we are depleting the ozone layer and that lets in more heat from the sun. (N=672)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env
Agree 20 35.8 55.8 46.1 Neither 17.5 17 19.2 28.1
Disagree 62.5 47.1 25 25.8
The students in science majors were less likely to hold this confusion than those not
studying science majors. The students in the Non-Sci/Env Set were the most likely to
agree with this statement. This may not indicate, however, that they are more confused
than those in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set but rather that they are more convinced that
humans are causing climate change which is also implied in this statement.
Non-Sci/Env Set member Renee also displayed issue confusion in her mental
model. As was discussed in the previous chapter, she mentioned ozone depletion, but she
also displayed confusion regarding nuclear power plants and their role in the climate
change debate. Another of the students interviewed for the Non-Sci/Env Set had heard of
climate change and knew that it was an atmospheric issue, but when she was asked about
the causes she stated that she doesn’t know what contributes to it. Her statement was
represented on the survey in item 2.13.
139 139
Table 65 Set Responses: 2.13 I know that changes in the atmosphere cause climate change, but I don’t know very much about the scientific processes that make it happen (N=658)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 12.8 17 34.6 56.5
Neither 17.9 17 17.3 16 Disagree 69.2 66.1 48.1 27.4
The four Student Sets differ drastically in their responses for item 2.13. Sets including
science majors are much more likely to believe that they are not ignorant about the
processes of climate change than those students in Sets not including science majors.
Environmental group membership also seems to have a lesser, additive effect on
students’ belief in their own climate knowledge.
The final student in the Non-Sci/Env Set was able to correctly explain the
greenhouse effect and did not confuse climate change and ozone depletion in her mental
model. In her initial answer she listed an interesting variety of sources of greenhouse
gases.
What makes the extra greenhouse gases [that you mentioned]? Pretty much everything. I actually just switched to vegetarianism because I decided that cows and pigs burps and farts are outpacing transportation, than maybe I should stop eating bacon and cheeseburgers. That seemed like a really easy change for me, especially now that there are so many fake meat kind of options, that…and you get more energy from it and all this stuff and, but really what swayed me was the idea of all this methane just floating up from where the jungle used to … So farming? Farming, transportation, gold mining! God, gold mining we need to quit that. Finding a needle in a haystack. Let’s just poor some cyanide on it, there’s gotta be gold in there somewhere! – Lucille (High School Environmental Group, English)
Although Lucille mentions transportation and the methane emissions from livestock, she
does not mention carbon dioxide, fossil fuels or electricity production in this first answer.
Her decision to become a vegetarian in order to reduce the production of methane is a
good one, but it does not address the biggest radiative forcing factors. When asked how
individuals can address climate change, however, her answer included saving electricity
and she connected the burning of coal with greenhouse gas emissions. Within her Set,
140 140
Lucille’s mental model of the process of climate change is the most complete and she is
one of the few students to talk about initiatives they have taken on their own to deal with
climate change.
As was seen in their explanations of the processes of climate change, some of the
Non-Sci/Env Set members had incorporated new information into their preexisting
mental models of climate change. When asked what individuals could do to prevent
climate change, Renee mentioned switching to mass transportation or biking and driving
less. The incorporation of this new information did not, however, change the basic
structure of her mental model, as was revealed in the quote initially included in Chapter 4
and reproduced below:
Is there anything else individuals can do specifically for climate change? …Uh, switch transportation wise. Like cars, you know. Uh, bike, go biking or use mass transportation, bikes, trains. What happens when cars get used less? The emissions from the cars go into depleting the ozone. Car emissions deplete ozone? Yeah. – Renee (S4E, Nursing)
This line of reasoning in which emissions from cars deplete the ozone layer is
consistent with issue confusion between climate change and ozone depletion. A student
interviewed for the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set made an almost identical statement. Survey
item 2.14 was created based on these statements, the frequencies for which can be seen
below.
Table 66 Set Responses: 2.14 Gas and chemical emissions from our cars deplete the ozone and cause climate change (N=648)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 47.5 64.2 75 69.5
Neither 22.5 13.2 15.4 16 Disagree 30 22.6 9.6 14.4
The frequency with which students from all four Sets agree with statement 2.14 is
alarmingly high. Two thirds of all of the respondents hold mental models in which car
141 141
emissions deplete the ozone layer. This percentage is even higher, 75%, in the Non-
Sci/Env Set, from which Renee was quoted.
Renee also mentioned recycling and reducing waste as ways in which individuals
could combat climate change. As was explained in Chapter 4, reducing production and
recycling were common answers in this and other Sets. The most frequent line of
reasoning regarding the impact recycling has on reducing climate change was included in
survey item 2.44:
Table 67 Set Responses: 2.44 Recycling is essential to reducing climate change because it keeps plastic out of landfills and reduces production (N=485)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 82.5 84.6 76.9 77.2
Neither 10 7.7 11.5 14.6 Disagree 7.5 7.7 11.5 8.3
As was explained in Chapter 4, the production of recyclable materials uses energy
and produces greenhouse gases, but recycling itself also requires energy expenditure. It is
not an effective action for reducing climate change. Large majorities of the respondents
agreed, however, with statement 2.44. The science majors were more likely to agree with
this statement than those not enrolled in science majors. It is possible that the strength of
the agreement seen with this item has to do with confusion about the second half of this
statement, as explained in Chapter 4.
Joan’s response included reduction, but she did not mention recycling as a way to
do that. She also mentioned alternative energy as a way to combat climate change.
You can make a conscious effort to be using less of everything because it takes energy to produce anything, not to mention your own electricity and stuff like that, but conserving the amount that you’re using, if that makes sense. Reduce. Ok. Is there anything else we can do? Well there’s cleaner forms of energy that you can use, like wind and solar. – Joan (S4E and NYPRG, Diatetics)
142 142
Joan’s answers are in line with the scientific model, but do not offer much in the way of
specific solutions. Another student in the Non-Sci/Env Set, Ariel, mentioned reusing and
reducing consumption, as well as creating fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Her response
included some correct and some incorrect ideas about the ways in which individuals can
reduce their contribution to climate change. Ariel implicated both vehicle emissions and
aerosol cans as contributing factors to climate change and her quote can be found in
Chapter 4.
Alice, the final member of the Non-Sci/Env Set, could not name any ways in
which individuals, or her personal actions, contribute to climate change. Her statement
was represented on the survey with item 2.41.
Table 68 Set Responses: 2.41 I am not sure how my personal actions specifically effect climate change (N=465)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 15 17.3 15.4 31.1
Neither 12.5 11.5 13.5 17.4 Disagree 72.5 71.1 71.2 51.5
Unlike Alice, a majority of the respondents believe that they know how their
personal actions effect climate change. There is a distinct gap, however, in the number of
students agreeing with statement 2.41 in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set and those agreeing in
the rest of the Sets. Self –identified ignorance and perception of knowledge will be
further examined in the Discussions and Conclusions chapter of this dissertation. When
looking at this table, it is important to remember that disagreement with this statement
may not correlate with actual knowledge.
As stated earlier in her interview, Alice felt that she knew little to nothing about
climate change and its causes. Similar to her statement regarding her personal actions,
Alice did not have any suggestions for how the government could handle climate change.
Renee also said that she knew very little about what the government can do other than
143 143
“lead by example.” The other three students in the Non-Sci/Env Set were able to name
some important governmental actions that can be taken, some more specifically than
others.
Lucille’s primary concern in terms of governmental action was the improvement
of the public transportation system in order to reduce the use of cars, and her quote can be
seen in Chapter 4. Although Lucille makes no mention of electricity generation, her
answer addresses one of the more important causes of climate change, the burning of
fossil fuels for transportation. Lucille was one of a few students who noted that the public
transportation system is in need of further funding and infrastructure to be a more viable
option. As seen in Table 54, shown in the analysis of the Sci/Non-Env Set, the students in
the Non-Sci/Env Set were most likely to agree (90.4%) with item 2.40: “We need to
change our transportation, like creating better public transportation, in order to make a
big impact on climate change.”
As quoted in Chapter 4, Ariel’s response covered a slightly broader range of
topics in governmental action and addresses the need to reduce consumption of fossil
fuels and she mentions carbon credits and cap and trade as possible ways to accomplish a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. She also mentions investment in renewable
energy and an increase in gas prices. Ariel refers to emissions as “pollution,” but because
she mentions of “carbon credits” in the same line of reasoning, it is assumed that she
understands that carbon or carbon dioxide are the contributing emissions in need of
regulation.
Joan also mentioned regulation of carbon emissions and support for renewable
energy in her response regarding government action:
The government can set stricter regulations for corporate energy use and carbon emissions and stuff like that. And also help to educate. Is there anything else the government could be doing? Well they could stop subsidizing a lot of energy companies that are harming the environment and start, you know if they’re gonna subsidize anything they should
144 144
subsidize like cleaner forms of energy. – Joan (S4E and NYPRG, Diatetics)
Besides subsidies and stricter regulation of emissions, Joan mentions education as
something the government should be doing to combat climate change. Similar responses
were seen in all four Sets. The frequencies for the related survey statement can be seen in
Table 43, analyzed in the section on the Sci/Env Set.
The students in the Non-Sci/Env Set mentioned a variety of sources for their
climate change information. Four of the five students mentioned environmental
organizations as sources of information and three of the five students named a news
organization, either televised, online, or in print, as a source of information.
Where do you get your information about climate change? NYPIRG [New York Public Interest Research Group]. I try to like look at the news and stuff like that, like online if I would look at anything. And then pretty much through word of mouth, I’ve met a lot of people through NYPIRG that stay on top of things more than I do, so… Are you still pretty active with them? Well I work there over the summer, so I’ve worked there two summers and one summer was working with climate change. –Joan (S4E and NYPRG, Diatetics)
I read [about climate change] on the internet a lot on CNN and we get the paper so, sometimes in there. And I do get emails from, uhhh I can’t remember the name, Green something… Greenpeace? Yes. I signed up senior year. I went to DC and we had a conference and they were there and I am on the mailing list now. Which paper do you get? I get the News Journal. It’s like the Delaware paper. –Renee (S4E, Health Sciences)
The information students received from environmental group membership came from
meetings, email lists and websites. Students specifically mentioned going to
environmental websites to find information about climate change in Sets 1 and 3. This
finding was represented in the survey with statement 2.64.
Table 69 Set Responses: 2.64 I get information about climate change from environmental websites (N=471)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 66.7 30.8 34.9 17.8
Neither 15.4 28.8 36.5 33.6
145 145
Disagree 18 40.3 28.8 48.7
The two Sets including environmental group members show the highest rate of
agreement with this survey item, but the students in the Sci/Env Set agree much more
frequently than do those students in the Non-Sci/Env Set. In the interviews, the students
in the Non-Sci/Env Set were more likely to receive information passively from
environmental groups (via email) than to actively look for information on websites.
The students in the Non-Sci/Env Set were less likely mention classes as a source
for climate change information. When they did, they usually spoke about one course they
had taken for an elective, or about environmental issues being covered in some of their
basic science courses.
Is climate change covered in any of your classes? I did take some bio and chem classes in previous years that have mentioned it. I remember in microbiology talking about, um, well the oil spill…I’m associating the environment with climate change…but talking about bacteria that are eating up like the oil in the oil spill last summer. But mostly not really. – Joan (S4E and NYPRG, Diatetics)
In this quote, Joan realizes that when she looks back at her course work she associates
most environmental issues with climate change. She may in fact be scratching the surface
of the process by which environmental issues become confused and comingled in student
mental models. This observation aside, class was not a major source of information about
climate change for the students in the Non-Sci/Env Set.
The students in the Non-Sci/Env Set were less able to identify valid ways of
determining the reliability of their sources than were the science students from Sets 1 and
2. Two of the students in the Non-Sci/Env Set said that they simply trust information
from environmental organizations but that you have to be more careful with the internet.
One of these students said that she has more faith in the TV news:
Students for the environment I definitely trust cause I feel like the officers have worked with the club a lot and they have a lot more knowledge about it than I do, so um, I pretty much just believe what they say. Um, on the internet I think you have to be very very careful because people will just put whatever they think on the internet. But I think its more credible on
146 146
TV cause there’s more regulations. – Alice (S4E, Hotel and Restaurant Management)
Alice’s answer does not mention scientific research in any way. On the other hand,
Renee, whose quote was included in Chapter 4, believes a source is more reliable if they
reference a scientist or a study, but she says little to nothing about looking at the study
herself or finding more information about that scientist.
On the survey, students were asked if the mention of a scientist within a source
increases the reliability of that source in their eyes.
Table 70 Set Response: 2.66 When I read an article about climate change, I trust it more if it quotes or references a scientist (N=471)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 66.7 53.8 63.5 52.5
Neither 23.1 23.1 25 30.2 Disagree 10.3 23.1 11.5 17.3
A majority of the students in all four sets agree with item 2.66, with the largest
majorities agreeing in the sets including environmental group members. Although the
mention of a scientist or study, leading to the possibility of further research, is likely a
better sign of reliability than no references, this inclusion in no way is the best way to
determine the reliability of information without further research. In her response seen in
Chapter 4 and reproduced below, Joan mentions further researching the information she
receives in her sources, but she qualifies that although she knows she can do this
research, she does not usually do it.
If it’s something that I am questioning or that I am interested in, I’ll try to look up more about it and see if there is consensus or if it is controversial and then I’ll just take it with a grain of salt. When you’re looking up more information, where do you look it up? Probably in the news, I guess. So you’ll look up other news articles? Yeah. It’s not something I do often, to be honest. If you read a news article and they give you some statistics, how do you believe what they’re saying? Um, I don’t really know. I guess well if it’s a study looking at the validity of it, like how long it lasted and
147 147
what kinds of techniques they’re using, um… Do you ever really do that, or is it just something you know you could do if you really needed to know? More that I could do it. – Joan (S4E and NYPIRG, Diatetics)
Again, these responses regarding reliability of resources are far less thorough than those
given by the students in science majors.
When asked about conflicting information about climate change in their sources,
four of the five students said that they saw conflict to some degree. The answers the
students gave covered a wide range, however. One student said that she saw no conflict at
all, while another stated that the amount of conflict she saw made the topic confusing.
The rest of the student responses fell in the middle of these two extremes. The concept
that there is disagreement over the causes of climate change, but not over the change
itself was again mentioned:
A lot of people say that humans aren’t a contributing factor for it, and others say that they are. So they usually agree that it’s happening, but not whether or not it’s because of humans? Yeah, I guess people don’t, there are some people that think that it’s like, well I guess everyone sees that it’s happening, but not that it’s necessarily “climate change”, that like it’s just the rotation that the earth goes through. Cycles? Yeah. – Joan (S4E and NYPIRG, Diatetics)
The idea that news media intentionally creates controversy about climate change or
chooses individuals to highlight who do not represent the scientific consensus was also
mentioned:
I feel like the news sometimes will be like “New study shows that…” and I guess I’m kind of contradicting myself with that because if I see a study by a university I’ll look at it, but sometimes I feel like the news gives it… “Breaking news! Global warming isn’t as bad as we think it is!” or something like that. Do you mean that they create controversy? Yeah, create either a controversy or a lot of times I feel like they are interviewing people who are… sometimes I just feel like people who are interviewed for a news story like that, they’re always going to be just one person’s opinion and I don’t like that. – Ariel (S4E, Sierra Club, Audobon Society, WWF, Human Services)
Ariel also mentioned seeing “propaganda ads” stating that climate change isn’t
real or explaining the benefits of global warming. The phenomenon of conflict in the
148 148
media was mentioned by students in a few of the Sets and was included in the survey in
item 2.72.
Table 71 Set Responses: 2.72 There is a lot of conflicting information in the media about climate change (N=465)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 61.5 56.6 76.5 68.3
Neither 28.2 30.2 19.6 20.1 Disagree 10.3 13.2 3.9 11.6
Nearly 70% of the overall respondents agreed with this statement. The two Sets not
including science majors were the most likely to agree that they see conflict in the media,
and the highest percentage of agreement was seen in the Non-Sci/Env Set.
The one student who said that she did not see conflict was Alice, the Hotel and
Restaurant Management major who had earlier stated that she does not know what causes
climate change or how it happens. When asked about conflict, she simply responded:
“Actually, I thought that it was pretty generally accepted that it is occurring.” A few of
the students throughout the interview process stated that they thought climate change was
well accepted, and this component of their mental models was represented on the survey
in item 2.68.
Table 72 Set Responses: 2.68 I think that it’s generally pretty well accepted that climate change is occurring (N=467)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 74.4 78.4 86.5 81.3
Neither 12.8 17.6 11.5 12.2 Disagree 12.8 4 1.9 6.5
A large majority of the students agreed with statement 2.68. Interestingly, those
students in Sets including science majors were slightly less likely to agree that they think
the occurrence of climate change is well accepted. Respondents who disagreed with this
149 149
statement could be highly sensitive to any skepticism that they see, could be in an
environment either at home or at school in which skepticism is present, or it could be that
they do not accept that climate change is occurring. Given that the fewest number of
students in the Sci/Env Set agreed with statement 2.68, it is likely that these students are
sensitive to the skepticism they see. It is more difficult to discern the reason for this
response rate in the Sci/Non-Env Set, but it is not as far below the rate of the rest of the
Sets. the Non-Sci/Env Set, again, had the highest level of agreement for this statement.
All five of the students interviewed in the Non-Sci/Env Set stated that there is at
least some level of scientific agreement about the occurrence of climate change and its
anthropogenic causes. Two of the students simply stated that scientists are certain, and
one of those two equated the debate over climate change to that over evolution:
Do you think that scientists are certain about climate change? Um, yeah. I think it’s kind of like that argument about evolution that’s still going on, it’s like “OK…so what do you think is happening? You think that god put all these fossils in the earth for us to find?” You know? Somebody is just turning up the heat in the oven, that’s all it is. – Lucille (High School Environmental Group, English)
Two other students alluded to a previously seen concept that there is always
uncertainty in science, but that in general they believe that scientists agree about climate
change. In Renee’s answer, shown in Chapter 4, she mentions that she believes the
“evidence and science” support the idea that climate change is occurring. Ariel was
slightly less convinced about the level of scientific understanding and expresses that in
the first half of her response:
I think most…I know there are some scientists that are like trying to disprove it or “have” disproved it…you know in quotes. I just really think that, I think that the majority of environmentalists agree with climate change, I don’t really know as much about scientists in general. But I know that I think that…I mean I am sure that like anything there is conflict within the scientific arena about it, but I feel like the majority of them would agree that it is real and that the spike in temperature isn’t normal and stuff like that…
150 150
In the second half of her response, however, she lists some evidence she thinks supports
the existence of climate change. She has chosen three examples, two of which are valid
effects of climate change, but the other of which is less so:
Another thing is I feel like you can’t deny that there are some signs that have been happening that science has been looking at like, I know that like amphibians are starting to change and trees are starting to get pushed further north and like disappearing from some areas and like in some areas frogs are having like two heads and a lot of times I think a lot of scientists, things I’ve read about that, are attributing that to global warming. And of course the glaciers. – Ariel (S4E, Sierra Club, Audobon Society, WWF, Human Services)
The shifting of biomes and glacial melting are legitimate effects of climate change. The
statement that scientists are attributing genetic mutations in frogs to climate change may
show confusion between environmental issues, or a case of attributing all “bad” possible
human effects on the environment to climate change, as an counterpoint to previously
observed mental models in which all “good environmental practices” are associated with
preventing climate change.
The students interviewed for the Non-Sci/Env Set were split in their beliefs about
media certainty regarding climate change. Two of the students believed that media shows
a sense of certainty, and Alice used her own understanding of the occurrence of climate
change as evidence of this:
I guess that’s where, the media is where I get a lot of my information about it, so I guess that’s where I think it’s certain. I must have gotten that from the media. But I think it’s a problem that I know about it and I know it’s bad, but I don’t know what causes it so I think there’s a gap in information. Like people know it’s a problem but they don’t know why or what they can do to help. Including myself. – Alice (S4E, Hotel and Restaurant Management)
Alice makes an interesting observation here that she believes the media coverage
does not explain the process of climate change well enough for the public to understand
its causes and consequences. Given the results of this study, she may be correct in this
151 151
observation, even if the media is not the only place from which more in-depth
information should be covered.
In contrast, three of the five students interviewed for the Non-Sci/Env Set
believed that there is no certainty in the media coverage of climate change. In Ariel’s
interpretation she sees a great deal of advertising for green products, but little mention of
climate change itself.
I think that the media, like a lot of products now are saying like “oh, help be green” but I don’t really think that they’re saying like …I don’t think anyone really wants to say climate change is real or not right now. Like I feel like the media is saying be green, buy this like green cleaner or buy like reusable water bottles, but I don’t really think anyone’s…I feel like it’s more…no one really wants to say like “Because the earth is changing”, I think it’s more just like the trend right now. – Ariel (S4E, Sierra Club, Audobon Society, WWF, Human Services)
In terms of their opinions about public understanding and certainty regarding
climate change, the students in the Non-Sci/Env Set were mostly in agreement. Four of
the five students stated explicitly that the public is not certain about climate change and
the fifth student said that the public believes what it is told to believe from their news
shows. In her response, Alice explained that people don’t take climate change seriously
or joke about it while Ariel believed that people’s awareness of climate change had been
declining in recent years.
I think that a lot of people aren’t sure about [climate change]. I think that a couple of years ago people were more sure about it. Right now, though, I feel like a lot of people are changing their opinions because they haven’t heard as much in the news recently…I haven’t seen as much about it recently and I’m assuming that because of that people are kind of forgetting about it and thinking that it’s not as big of a deal. I know that like my dad is the kind of person who is like “I don’t know if it’s real, we don’t have all the facts” and it makes me really angry to like, cause I think I know that it is…I think that more people were convinced when An Inconvenient Truth first came out and I think that since then it’s died down and more people are unsure. I really think that in the political stuff, I think that people are really going to be split on it. – Ariel ((S4E, Sierra Club, Audobon Society, WWF, Human Services)
152 152
While Ariel believes that the public certainty has declined over time, Joan stated
that she didn’t see much controversy over climate change in her acquaintances until she
began working for an environmental organization and speaking with more people outside
of her regular environment.
I think there is a lot of controversy [in the public] that I wouldn’t necessarily have thought, because the people that I hang out with mostly think that it’s happening. But working with NYPIRG, I talk to a lot of people who don’t think that it’s happening, so yeah it’s a lot more controversial in the public, even than in the news I would say. – Joan (S4E and NYPIRG, Diatetics)
Joan’s response implies that she believes that the public might be divided,
depending on environment, location or some other variable in their certainty about
climate change. Lucille, on the other hand, believes that public uncertainty is driven by
an inability to understand the scale of our actions and how they could effect the
environment.
Do you think the public is certain about climate change? No. I think we’re even more confused if anything. Cause we’re not really sure how it works. We know that when we start our car or if we plug in our gas stove, we know that we’re gonna be able to get to where we’re going and we know that we’re gonna cook something. We don’t really know about the fact that a million people just lit their gas stove, you know? We have a hard time with scale because our little cave man brains can only do a hundred and fifty people at once, you know, so when you translate that to 6 billion it’s like…oh shit! – Lucille (High School Environmental Group, English)
The interviews of the students in the Non-Sci/Env Set reveal mental models of
climate change that match the scientific model in some basic ways but not in others.
Students in the Non-Sci/Env Set were likely to understand the scientific agreement
regarding climate change and to consider climate change a serious issue. However, in
their descriptions of the processes involved in climate change, these students hold some
issue confusion and tend to incorporate parts of other environmental processes and
problems into their mental models. This issue confusion can translate to incorrect or
inadequate understanding of the ways in which climate change can be combated. The
153 153
students were also able to produce little information regarding the effects of climate
change. They expressed some frustration with public and governmental inaction
regarding the issue, and with the amount of information available for public consumption.
Students not enrolled in a science major and not belonging to an environmental group (Non-Sci/Non-Env Set)
The students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set tended to hold mental models of climate
change that were the least similar to the scientific model and scientific action model.
Many of the issues in these students’ mental models were seen in the analysis of previous
Sets, but were more widespread in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set. These students’ mental
models were the least likely to match the three parts of the scientific model or the
scientific action model. One student interviewed for this Set, Carlos, was an extreme
outlier in his understanding of climate change across all four Sets. His responses and
mental model will be further examined in the Outliers and Interesting Cases section of
this chapter.
Six out of seven students interviewed in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set mentioned
ozone depletion or a hole in the ozone layer as the reason for climate change. Carlos was
the only student who did not mention ozone, and the only one who did mention carbon
dioxide in his explanation of the climate change process. Besides Carlos, only one
student used the term “greenhouse gas,” and in her quote seen in Chapter 4 and
reproduced here, Terri mentions greenhouse gases, she used this term in conjunction with
ozone depletion.
The ozone layer is, it has holes in it, and we’re making it worse cause of greenhouse gases and without that layer the sun is able to beat down on the earth more and more heat is trapped within the earth and can’t get out. And so it’s melting ice caps and causing a lot of weird weather patterns – Terri (English)
Terri expresses a model of the climate change process in which ozone depletion
lets in “more heat from the sun,” and this concept was included on the survey in item
154 154
2.11 and can be seen in Table 64 in the Non-Sci/Env Set section. 46.1% of the students in
the Non-Sci/Env Set agree with this model. The component of Terri’s mental model in
which a new piece of information, greenhouse gases, has been incorporated into the
ozone depletion model was represented on the survey in item 2.16.
Table 73 Set Responses: 2.16 Greenhouse gases make the hole in the ozone layer worse (N=633)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 35 49.1 55.8 56.6
Neither 17.5 24.5 23.1 25.7 Disagree 47.5 26.4 21.1 17.7
The students in Sets including science majors were the least likely to agree with
this statement. Environmental group membership also seems to slightly lessen the
frequency of agreement, although to a lesser extent than science major. The survey
respondents in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set, the Set most closely resembling the majority of
the student population at these two Universities, are the most likely to believe that
greenhouse gases increase ozone depletion.
In her response above, Terri mentions that climate change causes ‘weird weather
patterns’, and this effect seemed to be prominent in the minds of several of the
informants. Five of the seven informants mentioned that we were seeing effects of
climate change now in the form of ‘weird’ or more severe weather. The students in the
Non-Sci/Non-Env Set did understand that rising temperatures and melting ice were not
the only possible effects of climate change (although melting ice caps and polar bears
were mentioned substantially more that other effects). The informants mentioned
increasing numbers of storms and changes in wind and weather patterns and were much
more capable of listing the effects of climate change than they were the causes.
155 155
In further attempting to discuss the scientific process of climate change, several
students expressed complete confusion. Michael, a student from this Set who was quoted
in Chapter 4, confused the mechanisms of multiple environmental issues with those of
climate change. His quote is reproduced here.
I’ve heard everything from gases and materials that we use polluting the atmosphere either opening the ozone layer to let more radiation from the sun in to the complete opposite which is we’re polluting it so much that the stuff is, the radiation levels within the earth’s atmosphere are reflecting back down on us and… All varieties, everything, it’s like no matter what we do we’re damaging the atmosphere somehow. Have you heard anything in particular that humans do that make these changes happen? Pollution, dumping, other you know manmade structures changing things like the flows of rivers and damming things up that somehow effect this chain of events that always ends in catastrophe. –Michael (Computer Science)
Michael’s issue confusion includes dumping, river damming and pollution. His
line of reasoning regarding pollution was repeated by other students in the Non-Sci/Non-
Env Set and was represented by survey item 2.15.
Table 74 Set Responses: 2.15 Toxic pollution in the atmosphere causes climate change
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 57.5 67.9 65.4 67.6
Neither 20 22.6 28.8 21.9 Disagree 22.5 9.4 5.7 10.5
As was discussed in Chapter 4, toxic pollution is not a cause of climate change. Although
a majority of the students showed issue confusion regarding this issue, those students
belonging to environmental groups were slightly less likely to agree with this statement.
Michael also used several examples of contradictory ideas to express his doubt in
the idea of climate change and presented evidence that he had heard about controversy
156 156
among scientists in regards to climate change. One other student interviewed talked about
climate change as a scientific controversy early on in her interview.
I mean I’ve been told global warming, like that whole controversy, like that it’s not such a big deal and that you know there’s a lot of scientists out there saying that this is just normal, this is what the earth goes through every whatever, so many years, so I don’t know what to think about it. –Terri (English)
Besides these two accounts, the other students generally accepted that climate change is
happening and has anthropogenic causes, although a few of their descriptions of the
process included the word “supposedly.”
The students interviewed for the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set were often unable to
describe what individuals can do to address climate change, or described actions that are
considered “bad for the environment” but have little to do with climate change itself.
Some students answered in the ways one might expect given the confusion present in
their mental models, but others, revealed that they had incorporated some new
information into those models.
Individuals can…not drive gas guzzling cars, big cylinder cars, things of that nature. Just conserve as far as energy. Not use more than they need. –Patrick (Political Science)
There’s the whole movement about reducing the greenhouse gases with your car, like with the hybrids. I think it’s really possible to reduce a lot of it by changing the way we drive and the way we get around. –Terri
Five of the seven informants were able to list driving less and energy conservation
as actions individuals can take to combat climate change. Although these responses are
vague, they do match the scientific model. When questioned about energy conservation,
one student brought this measure back to the concept of pollution and even repeated a
model seen in earlier Sets that nuclear power production contributes to climate change:
You said decrease energy use, how does that effect climate change? Um I guess my understanding is that the way that, energy doesn’t just come, like electricity doesn’t just come, like it has to be generated and places like
157 157
coal plants or nuclear power plants which create pollution of their own kind and that contributes to climate change. – Janet (Geography)
This mental model component was represented on the survey with item 2.22. A majority
of students in the Non Sci/Non Env Set agree with this item.
Table 75 Set Responses: 2.22 Nuclear power plants create pollution that causes climate change (N=571)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 23.1 32.1 28.8 42.3
Neither 25.6 20.8 21.2 23.6 Disagree 51.3 47.2 50 34.1
Buying hybrid cars was specifically mentioned multiple times, suggesting that
media and advertising have brought forth hybrids and reduced fuel consumption to the
public mind in conjunction with climate change. These informants infrequently or never
mentioned CO2 or other greenhouse gases. Connections between driving and climate
change were revealed in quotations such as the following, reproduced here from its first
appearance in Chapter 4:
What can individuals do to help prevent or reduce climate change? Drive less. Stop destroying the ozone layer. Do things to help prevent overuse of resources and driving less will help prevent destroying the ozone layer and help keep the ice caps cold. Why do people need to drive less? Because the whole, whatever chemical or gas puts out when you drive, it like is destroying the ozone, supposedly. –Zoe (Studio Art)
This specific statement that emissions from cars cause ozone depletion was seen
in the Non-Sci/Env Set and the corresponding survey item, 2.14 “Gas and chemical
emissions from our cars deplete the ozone layer and cause climate change” is shown in
Table 35. 69.5% of the students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set agreed with this survey
statement, showing this as a very common mental model component for climate change
in this Set.
158 158
The concepts of preventing of dumping and recycling also came back in student
responses regarding how individuals can prevent climate change. One student, Elizabeth,
listed the things she knows she can do to “help the environment” but admitted that she
does not know how her individual actions affect climate change. Her quote was included
in Chapter 4 and is reproduced below:
For the environment in general, I mean, recycling. I feel like, I was watching something the other day about how like being a vegetarian and how taking one serving a meat out of your meal for like a week can like completely, largely change how much meat is eaten during that week. Like if every person does this one little thing. So I feel like everything doing one little thing like recycling or like not, as an old school example, not dumping stuff in oceans, like if one person would not do that or would do something like that one time less I think it could make a big difference. You said that is for environmental problems in general though? Yeah, I mean I don’t really know what I do myself that promotes or encourages global warming. – Elizabeth (Early Childhood Education)
Similarly vague answers were predominant in the informants’ suggestions for
what governments can do to prevent climate change. Two students were an exception to
this observation and gave relatively well-targeted policy examples. One of those two
students was Carlos, the student who will be examined further in a later section. The
other student, Patrick, was a political science major and had heard of a few specific
policies and treaties, like the Kyoto Protocol, in his classes. He was unable, however to
explain how these policies will solve or combat climate change and showed issue
confusion in his mental model. Patrick will also be discussed in the Outliers and
Interesting Cases section of this chapter.
The most common response regarding governmental action given by the students
in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set was the increase of education and awareness. This proposal
may have been a self-reflective policy suggestion, as six of the seven informants
volunteered that they felt they knew and understood very little about climate change and
several felt that the government should step in and help make the public more aware.
159 159
I think the biggest thing the government has to do is promotion for [climate change]…I think that they need to get it across on how important it actually is. I feel like they are trying to do that right now, there is just a whole lot of stuff going on in the government right now… Do you mean they need to do more education? Yeah education, and I mean like in a positive way. I don’t like it when people do the whole, like, scary thing. Cause I don’t really think you can reverse it as much as you need to like slow it down. – Anastasia (Nursing)
Listing education as a government action to combat climate change was seen in previous
Sets and Table 43. Eighty two percent of the students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set agreed
with the statement “The government should better educate us about environmental
problems”.
One student suggested that the government should regulate pollution to better
combat climate change. This statement was represented on the survey with item 2.35. As
with item 2.15, the term “toxic pollution” was used to distinguish pollution from
greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide.
Table 76 Set Responses: 2.35 The government can reduce climate change by regulating toxic pollution (N=507)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 62.5 66.7 67.3 66.9
Neither 22.5 17.6 17.3 21.3 Disagree 15 15.7 15.4 11.8
As is explained in Chapter 4, interpretation of this survey statement is not
straightforward. Students may disagree with this statement because their mental model
informs them that it is not general toxic pollution that causes climate change, or because
they are politically against significant government regulation. Despite this possibility, a
majority of the students in all four Student Sets agreed with statement 2.35. Students in
the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set were the most likely to agree that the government should
regulate pollution to reduce climate change. This element of student mental models does
160 160
not fit into the Climate Action Model defined in the Research Design and Methodology
chapter of this dissertation.
All seven of the student informants in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set mentioned the
internet as a source of their information about climate change. Some of the students used
the websites of standard and well-known news organizations, including CNN and
MSNBC. This source statement was included on the survey with item 2.47
Table 77 Set Responses: 2.47 I get a lot of information about the environment from news websites like CNN or MSNBC (N=482)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 12.8 21.2 19.2 23.8
Neither 17.9 15.4 3.8 21.8 Disagree 69.2 63.5 76.9 54.5
Only three of the seven informants said that they used the news on television as a
source of climate change information. This source was included on the survey with item
2.46.
Table 78 Set Responses: 2.46 Most of my information about climate change comes from the news shows on TV
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 7.7 19.2 9.6 27.5
Neither 0 9.6 3.8 21.3 Disagree 92.3 71.1 86.6 51.2
An interesting contrast is present between the percentages of agreement in the
Sets containing environmental group members and those that do not. The sets not
including environmental group members were much more likely to have high percentages
of agreement with statement 2.46.
When asked how they determined whether or not a source was reliable, the
answers divided into two groups, those students who saw controversy in their sources
161 161
regarding climate change, and those who did not. The students who saw controversy
claimed to fact check between reports, especially if they felt one report might be biased.
I mean I haven’t ever specifically gone out there looking for [information about climate change] but usually I try to get it from varying sources, like research publications, magazine articles, but I try not to stick to one source because usually you start to detect a bias. So you know I’ve seen everything from like the argument for and against global warming and stuff and you look at what correlates between the two and figure ‘well if they’re both on it that must be the stuff that is the case.’ –Michael (Computer Science)
How do you usually determine if a source is credible? They obviously have scientific people researching it, or the sources at the bottom are from a science journal or something, as opposed to, you know, ‘Bob’s Blog’ or whatever. Basically I used the sources to compare against each other. Like if one source said the ice caps are melting at [a certain rate] I would check the next one and see if it had similar information to see if it actually held any weight. –Zoe (Studio Art)
The concept of looking for similar information in multiple sources to check the
validity of that information was mentioned by students in multiple Sets and was included
in the survey with item 2.55.
Table 79 Set Responses: 2.47 I trust the information I get about climate change if I see the same information in multiple sources (N=481)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 46.2 42.3 51.9 51.8
Neither 46.2 28.8 30.8 30.8 Disagree 7.7 28.8 17.3 174
The students in Sets not including science majors were slightly more likely to
agree that seeing information in more that once source is sufficient proof of reliability.
Still, a majority of the students in those Sets including science majors agreed with item
2.47.
Students who did not mention controversy about climate change were more likely
to believe the information from a source if they knew the name or trusted that source, and
were also likely to emphasize that they don’t hear or research much about the subject.
162 162
I honestly don’t hear a lot, but I usually trust most of what I hear, like if it’s a name that I know, I usually at least think about it. A name? Like a famous person, like if the president were to talk about it I would think more about it than if like someone protesting on the street…you know…well I guess it depends. Their status in their field of knowledge. –Elizabeth (Early Childhood Development)
I mean to me if it’s on CNN, I do pretty much just believe it. If I am looking up something, you can tell by the end of the website, like if it’s .edu or .gov. But I don’t know if I really look [climate change] up that much. –Anastasia (Nursing)
Ana’s statement that she tends to believe what she sees or hears on major news
networks, combined with similar statements made by other students, was represented on
the survey with item 2.48.
Table 80 Set Responses: 2.48 I tend to believe what I see and hear on major news networks because of their reputation (N=479)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 18.4 17.6 23.1 24.9
Neither 18.4 39.2 11.5 21.3 Disagree 63.1 60.8 65.3 53.8
A majority of the survey respondents do not agree with statement 2.48, but the
levels of agreement are slightly higher in the Sets not including science majors.
The interviews of the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set were the first conducted in this study,
and they were done before the final few interview questions revolving around scientific,
media and public certainty were developed. As is mentioned above, however, some of
these students did spontaneously produce answers regarding the uncertainty that they
have observed regarding climate change. Overall the students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env
Set were less informed (frequently admittedly so) and less certain about climate change
than the students in the other three Sets. The mental models of these students frequently
showed confusion between climate change and a variety of other environmental issues,
and these students were the least capable of naming actions, both individual and
governmental, that can be taken to prevent or mitigate climate change. Their overall
163 163
scientific models frequently did not match any of the parts of the scientific model or and
were similarly weak on items of the climate action model.
Outliers and Interesting Cases
During the interview process a few outliers and interesting cases or phenomena
were identified. Two students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set stood out as outliers, Patrick
and Carlos. Patrick is a political science student and as a result of his major he was more
able than many other students to name important climate change policies in his responses.
He did not, however, hold a strong mental model of climate change. His example is
included in order to analyze the scientific information gap and lack of scientific literacy
seen in students without science majors. Carlos, on the other hand, is an engineering
student with no environmental group association. However, he was arguably the most
informed student interviewed. He attributed his informedness to an extreme interest in
climate change and to his own research initiatives that are unique to him in this study.
Besides these individual students, two outlying phenomena are examined in this
section. The first is the skepticism seen in the interviews of Geology majors regarding
climate change. The second was an observation seen across Sets in which students
occasionally cited classes as sources of misinformation regarding climate change. Each of
these topics will be discussed below.
Patrick and Carlos
It is here that the answers of two particularly interesting informants from the Non-
Sci/Non-Env Set will be examined. The first of these is Patrick. Like most of the students
in his Set, Patrick knew very little about the scientific causes of climate change.
What have you heard about climate change? I’ve heard that we need to end pollution or certain things will happen. The polar ice caps are beginning to melt, water levels are beginning to rise, its effecting just general trends in weather and temperatures, things like that. Not specifics
164 164
as far as the science of all of it. Do you remember what causes it? Yeah, um pollution can cause it, the ozone layer, eating away at the ozone layer. – Patrick (Political Science)
Issue confusion with general pollution and ozone depletion were primary components in
Patrick’s mental model of climate change. He was able to identify “driving less” as an
individual action of mitigation.
Different from the rest of the students in his Set, and indeed from almost all of the
students interviewed, when asked about governmental action that can be taken to combat
climate change Patrick mentioned the names of several specific government actions
matching the Climate Action Model. He attributed to his major the fact that he recalled
the general idea behind “Cap and Trade” and that he knew that government incentives on
fuel-efficient and hybrid vehicles are possible actions that can be taken to deal with
climate change. He also expressed a belief that the U.S. should sign the Kyoto Protocol,
which he was able to recall by name.
I guess just I think they should, America in general should sign the Kyoto Protocol and just kind of get on board with the rest of the world as far as realizing that it’s an issue and starting to do something about it. – Patrick (Political Science)
Judging by his inability to link CO2 and greenhouse gases to climate change,
however, it is likely safe to say that Patrick does not remember important specifics about
these treaties and policies and how they work in the process of climate change mitigation.
His political science studies gave him the information on possible solutions, but it
appears that neither his classes nor his personal sources taught him the scientific process,
or at least not in a way he could easily recall.
The second informant whose answers deserve further attention is Carlos. It is
important to review Carlos’ interview in more detail because in this small sample he was
by far the most informed in his Set and perhaps in the entire study. Although it is always
risky to draw conclusions from a single case, he may represent a small group that knows
a great deal about climate change and the environment. Carlos had spent a considerable
165 165
amount of effort researching climate change, all of which has been on his own time, not
as required by course work. He was able to accurately describe the process by which
climate change occurs in considerable detail and he named specific actions individuals
could take including buying local products to reduce shipping emissions, using public
transportation and providing political support to clean energy initiatives.
The greenhouse effect. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not let infrared radiation reradiate back into space so that causes a warming effect which then can cause things like currents and things like the golf stream to change and leads to more extreme weather locally, that sort of stuff. –Carlos (Engineering)
Besides having a relatively well-developed understanding of the processes of
climate change, especially when compared to his peers, Carlos was the interview
informant most confident in the existence and severity of climate change. He was also
quite aware of the fact that a controversy over the science has been portrayed in the
media.
[Climate change] is statistically valid. All the evidence points that it is happening, it’s almost definitely caused by man, none of this cycle whatnot. It’s happening way too fast for that to be true. And the best way to deal with it would be to reduce or completely eliminate carbon based fuel sources…
(Later in the interview) The entire fact that there is a debate about global warming is complete bullshit. It’s happening, and it’s just people who are more concerned with short-term profits than long-term survivability of the planet ignoring it because they see dollar signs. –Carlos (Engineering)
Although Carlos used some of the same news resources as his peers, he was
unique in his choice to further investigate the things he saw in the news in scientific
journals and science news sources, which provides a good explanation for his knowledge
and responses. As an engineering student Carlos had no class work in climate change
science and had never been a member of an environmental group.
166 166
Skepticism in Geology Majors
The environmental and climate change mental models of the two geology majors
were quite similar to one another, but were different from those identified in the other
interview subjects. Both geology majors stated that it was important to protect the
environment, but they also believed that environmental concerns are sometimes
exaggerated, and one specifically mentioned climate change as an example of this. Both
expressed little acceptance of climate change as a major concern throughout their
interviews. Although they could explain quite clearly the processes of the greenhouse
effect and what gases contribute to climate change, they both emphasized the possibilities
of nature’s role in the process.
Actually as a geology major, we’ve studied um historical climates from tens of thousands of years ago to millions of years ago, and so [climate change is] a very complicated issue, that’s the first thing. It would be very hard to say one really short conclusive statement about it… but there’s definitely a lot of complex science about it. There’s science involving the sun, which you know a lot of people don’t think about. A lot of people think about, for example that the global warming issue is just related to greenhouse gases. It is related to greenhouse gases, but it also involves things like the magnetic field which we don’t completely understand, it also involves the sun, which is totally beyond our control, cause the sun fluctuates and goes through cycles… the earth’s rotation wobbles and that can change the climate as well. The ice ages, their called I think Milankovitch cycles, the advancing and receding of ice ages and so on… so it’s very complicated. –Ben (Geology)
Both geologists mentioned the role of Milankovitch cycles and the sun, as well as water
vapor and volcanoes in the change in earth’s climate over time. The cultural models and
environmental worldviews of the geology majors seemed to involve a much larger time
scale than did those of the other informants in this study.
On the survey, statement 2.62 was included to represent the geology student
mental model component that too much emphasis is put on the human elements of
climate change.
167 167
Table 81 Set Responses: 2.62 From my sources I’ve learned that too much emphasis is put on the human element of climate change, rather than the natural elements (N=472)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 28.9 25 21.2 37.6
Neither 31.6 30.8 32.7 31.7 Disagree 39.5 44.3 46.1 30.7
Across all four Sets, from one fifth to one third of the students surveyed agreed
with survey item 2.62. This statement starts with “from my sources” rather than “from
my classes” so students agreeing with this statement could be getting this information
from a variety of sources.
In the interviews, the geologists expressed a great deal of skepticism about
sources of information besides their classes. As a comparison, the first quote below is
from one of the better-informed students from the Sci/Env Set who first named class as a
primary source for information, but was probed further. The second quote is from a
geology major:
Besides class, where do you get your information about climate change? I mean the internet, CNN.com is pretty good….How do you decide if a source is reliable? I don’t know. I don’t really go that far, I usually just read it and kind of assume it’s alright. – Lindsay (S4E, Environmental Studies)
You mentioned the news [as a source of information about climate change]. Which news programs? Well at my house, we live at home, and we’ll watch Fox News sometimes and then also what’s the other one? MSNBC. And I listen to NPR all the time just in my car and they have some funny things to say sometimes like I was listening to them recently and a preview came on for an upcoming segment and it was like “Oh! Flooding and earthquakes and volcanoes! Don’t people understand that global warming is happening yet?” and I was like “Earthquakes? Volcanoes? Are you serious?” so I mean wherever you get the source you have to take it with a grain of salt, these aren’t really you know always scientists talking and stuff. –Connie (Geology)
When asked about his sources of information about climate change, geology student Ben
stated that he learned about the greenhouse effect in class, but that the coverage he had on
the subject was skeptical.
168 168
Greenhouse gas information, a lot of that came from my geology classes actually. And that includes both…I’ll put it this way, a lot of the information that I get about the non-human element of greenhouse gases effect I got from my geology classes. Um as far as the, as far as humanities effect on the greenhouse effect (laughs) um I got that mostly from like newspapers and magazines, that sort of thing. – Ben (Geology)
Ben’s statement that his course work has focused on the non-human elements of
climate change and greenhouse gases was included on the survey in statement 2.61.
Table 82 Set Responses: 2.61 My classes and information has focused more on the non-human causes of climate change (N=475)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 12.8 15.4 15.4 7.2
Neither 41 40.4 23.1 38.5 Disagree 46.1 44.3 61.5 54.2
When looking at the results of this survey statement, it is clear that the experience of
these geology majors quoted above has not been widespread across the respondents.
As might be expected from looking at the geologists’ mental models and
understanding of climate change, both geology majors believed that there is not a
consensus among scientists about climate change. Specifically, both geology majors
stated that although scientists are relatively certain that the climate is changing, they are
less certain about the anthropogenic role in that change.
I think that scientists are definitely certain that [climate change] happens, I don’t think that all scientists agree on who or what is primarily responsible…but it’s interesting but you know I was talking to um I worked for someone who was involved in like the environment and studying the earth and that sort of thing and like he was really adamant about the human element in global warming and I kind of thought… you know I was kind of like you know with all that we know about how much the climate has changed in the past, is it really any huge surprise to us that it’s changing now? Because the earth is doing stuff too. –Ben (Geology)
In order to compare the geology students’ approaches to climate change and the
cultural models they reveal through their interviews to the models of the scientists, the
three parts of the scientific model defined earlier must again be examined. In terms of the
169 169
understanding of the physical scientific process of the greenhouse effect and the gases
involved, the mental models of the geology students interviewed match the scientific
model.
Well the greenhouse effect occurs through various gases such as uh CO2… these things get released into the air either through human processes or natural processes like volcanism, um and they basically trap energy that enters the earth. – Ben (Geology)
However, as can be seen from earlier quotes, neither geology student’s mental model fit
the second part of the scientific model; consensus that climate change has anthropogenic
causes. They were equally unconvinced of the third part of the scientific model; climate
change is a serious threat requiring urgent attention.
…Having had the background about paleoclimate and history of the earth and also the background on climate and understanding the earth’s processes and stuff like that, it seems to me that it’s really not any sort of catastrophic event. It seems that earth is always changing and that mankind certainly might be having an effect but… we don’t know enough with certainty to be able to say that this is the way that earth is going to react, and we can’t make these predictions about what the future is going to be cause we don’t know how it’s reacted in the past… we don’t understand fully the processes of how the climate works and stuff so it seems fishy to me when people talk with certainty about what the climate is going to do in reaction to an input form mankind. And then I also… there’s questions about whether mankind is doing it fully… when I look at the data and stuff its like why don’t we see a spike during the industrial revolution like when we first started burning fossil fuels? And so there are questions that come up…
(later in the interview) Is there anything else you would like to discuss about climate change or the environment in general? I guess to be blunt, life has survived changes in climate in the past and it will survive this change in climate, but you know, it would be harder to survive like you know having all of the streams have mercury in them and it’s not like we won’t survive that but I mean it would have more a detriment …the climate change thing I think really does take a lot of attention off of those other things. Why do you think that is, do you think because it’s controversial? I think it’s new and its also sort of en vogue right now. There are a lot of really dramatic things that you can link to global warming like big blizzards and storms and hurricanes that you can’t link to throwing plastic bottles away and stuff, so… I think it seems like sort of a fad to me (laughs) and you know I think it’s definitely something that is
170 170
worthy of study and attention and stuff but it just seems a little overblown. – Consuela (Geology)
Two statements related to Consuela’s remarks were included in the survey. Item
2.70, stating “The climate has changed a lot in the past, so I think we might be making
too big of a deal about how it’s changing now” and item 2.73, stating “I don’t think
climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face today and I think that it
gets too much press” were both analyzed in the Non-Sci/Env Set in conjunction with
Consuela’s statements. These two items can be seen in Tables 29 and 30 respectively.
26.7% of the respondents agreed with item 2.70, while 18.2% of the students agreed with
item 2.73. Although these are not majorities of the students, more than a quarter of the
students believe that we might be making “too big of a deal” about climate change and
nearly 20% believe climate change might get “too much press” compared to other
environmental issues.
Given the fact that these students held models of the physical processes of climate
change matching the scientific model, it is therefore no surprise that these students were
able to correctly name actions individuals can take to mitigate climate change. Although
Ben called individual responsibility a “balancing act,” the two Geology students
mentioned energy efficiency measures, limiting fuel consumption and reducing ones
carbon footprint. When asked about governmental action, however, Consuela expressed
that she thought the government has other important responsibilities that could be
hampered in dealing with climate change:
What can the government do about climate change? It’s a tough question just because the government also has a responsibility to keep the country safe and prosperous and um a lot of times like capping carbon emissions would really really hurt a lot of people as far as their economic abilities go… - Consuela (Geology)
Through her response to this interview question and her statements at other points in the
interview regarding the importance of climate change as compared with other issues,
environmental or not, it was observed that Consuela believed that the government has
other issues it needs to deal with before it handles climate change. This belief was
represented on the survey with item 2.29.
171 171
Table 83 Set Responses: 2.29 The government has too many other important issues to deal with right now to focus on climate change (N=529)
% Sci/Env Sci/ Non-Env. Non-Sci/ Env Non-Sci/ Non-Env Agree 5 20.8 7.7 18.7
Neither 7.5 15.1 28.8 23 Disagree 87.5 64.1 63.5 58.4
A substantial majority of the students disagree with statement 2.29, however the
percentage of students agreeing with the statement is much greater in the Sets not
including environmental group members, and is highest in the Set including the
geologists. Students in environmental groups clearly rate environmental issues as a higher
priority for the government than do those students not belonging to environmental
groups.
The geology students’ skepticism was consistent with the 21% of members of the
Sci/Non-Env Set, but in the interviews their skepticism was more robust than the other
science majors not belonging to environmental groups. Given that there were only two
geology students interviewed and very few geology students completed the survey
despite 100% sampling of geology majors in the junior and senior classes, it is unsafe to
generalize if this attitude and these mental models as characteristic of most geology
majors. Also limiting the comparison, no geology students also belonging to
environmental groups could be identified for interviews. This could again be indicative of
different attitude towards the environment amongst geology students, or could simply be
a coincidence. The observations made here about the worldviews and environmental
attitudes of two geology majors interviewed are interesting, however, and warrant further
study.
Citing class for incorrect information
At least three different students interviewed throughout the course of this study
mentioned having taken a specific class related to climate change outside of their major.
Each of these three students, however, held incorrect mental models of climate change in
172 172
which they seemed to have incorporated some of the new information they learned in
class into a preexisting model of climate change.
Janet, a geography major and member of the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set, was one of
these students. She revealed that she has studied no climatology, which at her university
is technically within the Geography department, but that she had taken one environmental
course. Despite participating in this course, which she said directly addressed climate
change, Janet cited ozone depletion as the main cause of climate change. She was able,
however, to identify “driving less” as a way in which individuals can help prevent
climate change. Similar to Janet, Ariel, a member of the Non-Sci/Env Set, mentioned
having taken an AP Environmental Science class in high school and covering climate
change in an ecology course earlier in her university career. She too displayed issue
confusion in her mental model of climate change and listed “not using aerosol cans” as a
way in which individuals can prevent climate change.
The third student from whom similar information was received was Renee, a
member of S4E with a Health Services major. In her interview, Renee revealed that she
too had taken an environmental class. In the following quote she directly cites her class
for her model of climate change:
I know that the ozone layer is depleted, or like not depleted but like it’s wearing away and that is what keeps out the really harmful arrays of the sun and I guess that’s what’s melting the ice. And I know that our water levels will raise, and I mean that’s about as scien…cause I took an environmental course and that’s what they said. – Renee (S4E, Nursing)
It seems highly improbable that in her environmental course the professor told Renee that
ozone depletion is the main cause of climate change. It can therefore be inferred that
despite picking up some new information, Renee did not completely let go of her
previously held mental model regarding climate change during or after her environmental
course. Janet’s similar cultural model and similar experience level with environmental
173 173
study may offer further evidence to this theory, and this is a noteworthy outcome that
could warrant further investigation.
174 174
Chapter 6
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS
As explained previously in the Methods section, the statements from the Survey
of Student Understanding of Climate Change have been sorted into three types or
categories: Knowledge Variables, Opinion Variables and Source Variables. A list of the
variables and the groupings into which they fall can be found in Appendix F. The Survey
Results and Analysis section of this report will be broken down and organized according
to these three types of variables.
Analysis of Knowledge Variables
Those statements that fell into the “Knowledge Variables” category were
analyzed in multiple ways in order to form a clearer picture of level of students’
understanding. This included the creation and subsequent analysis of a Knowledge Score,
and the use of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
Analysis of Knowledge Scores
One of the methods used to capture and illustrate student respondent
understanding was the creation of a measure or score of student climate change
knowledge. With this score, the overall knowledge of the students can be measured and
the levels of knowledge of specific groups of students can be compared. In order to create
the Knowledge Score, the data was recoded for correct and incorrect statements based on
climatology literature and the statement’s consistency with climate science. Agreement
with a statement consistent with climate science would gain the survey respondent a
positive score, as would disagreement with a statement inconsistent with climate science.
175 175
A complete list of the variable groupings and those statements counted as correct and
incorrect in the knowledge score can be found in Appendix F.
Table 84 Descriptive Statistics of Student Respondent Knowledge Scores
N 465 Mean 17.84
Median 18.00
Std. Deviation 5.40
Range 35.00
Minimum 0
Maximum 35
The Knowledge Score variable was created by summing the scored “Knowledge
Variables.” Incomplete surveys were excluded from this analysis, as their scores skewed
the rest of the results. Descriptive statistics were performed on the Knowledge Scores of
the students who participated in the study as is shown in Table 84. The Knowledge Score
was calculated on a scale of 0 to 35 with the 465 students from both universities who
completed the survey; their mean score was 17.84 with a standard deviation of 5.40. The
score distribution can be seen in Figure 3.
Descriptive statistics were then performed and compared on different groups of
students based on their science education and their environmental group membership.
The first subset of students examined were those students with the previously chosen
science majors3 as compared with non-science majors4. An independent samples t-test 3 The previously chosen science and science education majors are explained in the Methodology section. For simplicity, these students will be referred to as “science majors” for the remainder of this analysis, but only include selected environmental science, biology, chemistry and geology majors
4 “Non-science” students in this analysis refer to students not enrolled in the previously selected environmental sciences, biology and chemistry majors as explained in the Methodology section.
176 176
was run comparing the mean scores of the science and non-science majors. A significant
difference was found between the means of the two groups (t(448)=3.46, p<.05). The
mean Knowledge Score of the science majors was significantly higher (m=19.60,
sd=5.98) than the mean Knowledge Score of the non-science majors (m=17.43, sd=5.19).
Figure 3 Student Respondent Knowledge Score Distribution
Students who belong to an environmental group were compared with students
who do not. An independent samples t-test found a significant difference between the
means of the two groups (t(456)=4.44, p<.05). The mean Knowledge Score of
177 177
environmental group students was significantly higher (m=20.11, sd=5.04) than the mean
Knowledge Score of the non-environmental group students (m=17.36, sd=5.35).
To refine the finding that the selected science majors have higher knowledge
scores, each specific science major was separately examined with a one-way ANOVA.
The science majors were separated into: Geology, Chemistry, Earth and Life Science
Education, Biology and Environmental Science and Policy.5. A significant difference was
found between the majors (F(4,107)=3.542, p<.05). A table of the mean scores (Table
85), ranked by scores, shows an obvious difference between Environmental Science and
Policy, and the rest of the selected science majors. A post hoc analysis using Tukey HSD
showed a p of .06 between the mean scores of the Environmental Science and Policy
majors and the Science Education majors, but an independent samples t-test showed a
significant difference (t(49)=-2.46, p<.05).
Table 85 Mean Knowledge Scores of Science and Science Education Majors
Major Mean Knowledge Score Science Education 15.75 Geology 16.57 Chemistry 17.74 Biology 18.49 Env Sci and Policy 21.53
A 2 x 2 (Environmental Group Membership X Science Major) between-subjects
factorial ANOVA was calculated to examine the effects of environmental group
membership and science major and to find possible interactions between these two
independent variables. A significant main effect was found for belonging to an
environmental group (F(1, 447) = 15.59, p<.05), meaning that these students earned
significantly higher Knowledge Scores than those students not belonging to an
5 As explained in the Methodology section, the Environmental Science and Policy group and the Earth and Life Science Education group included several related majors grouped together.
178 178
environmental group. A significant main effect was also found for whether or not
students belonged to a science major (F(1, 447) = 5.17, p<.05), indicating that students
with a science major scored significantly higher than those students with a non-science
major. The interaction between environmental group membership and science major,
however, was not significant (F(1, 447) = 6.36, p>.05). This indicates that the effect of
environmental group membership on Knowledge Score is not influenced by whether or
not a student is in a science major. The two are separate, additive effects, with the highest
scores present in the group combining both science major and environmental group
membership. The mean Knowledge Scores of the four Student Sets are shown in Table
86.
Table 86 Mean Knowledge Scores of the Four Student Sets
Student Sets Mean Knowledge Score Sci/Env 21.38 Sci/Non-Env 18.36 Non-Sci/Env 19.50 Non-Sci/Non-Env 17.13
For the final Knowledge Score analysis, the four Student Sets were separated and
their mean knowledge scores were analyzed. A one-way ANOVA found a significant
difference between the groups F(3, 447) = 9.60, p<.05). Post hoc analysis using Tukey
HSD shows that environmental group membership is a greater indicator of a high
Knowledge Score than enrollment in a science major.
Factor Analysis of Knowledge Variables
The prior Knowledge Score was based on judgments regarding which statements
are consistent with the scientific model of climate change. However, there can be more
dimensions of knowledge than simply a score for the degree of “correctness” a student
earns. A factor analysis was performed to further explore the variations and subtleties in
students’ responses to the total set of knowledge questions. Factor analysis allows for
statistically finding the most important sets of variables and their relationships to one
179 179
another, independent of the judgment or knowledge of the researcher. As will be
explained in this section, this analysis uncovered three separate components of student
knowledge.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the original
knowledge statements. Exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation for the 34 items
of this classification determined underlying relationships between them. Initially, the
factorability of the 34 items was examined using well-recognized criteria for
factorability. First the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was
observed to be .919, well within the adequate range (greater than .07). This means that
the sampling is adequate for satisfactory factoring. In addition, the Bartlett’s test of
sphericity was found to be significant (.000, less than .05) indicating that the correlation
matrix is significantly different from the identity matrix. This means that the three factors
are measures of three separate aspects of the respondent’s knowledge, independent of
each other.
A minimum criterion for primary loading was set at .46. A three-factor solution
was preferred based on percentage of the total variance, their initial eigenvalues and their
location on the scree plot. The first three factors accounted for 18%, 13% and 12% of the
total variance, respectively. One item did not load into any of the three factors above the
minimum primary loading criterion of .4 and was eliminated from the analysis due to a
survey creation error: 2.38 The U.S. government could start dealing with climate change by signing the Kyoto
Protocol
The likert scale for this item was inadvertently flipped on the survey, with the response
choices showing in a different order than in all other questions of the survey. This likely
confused survey respondents, and was cause of elimination of this item. 6 .4 is the well-accepted cut-off point for factor loading (Manly 1994).
180 180
A final confirmatory three-factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed
on the remaining 33 items with three factors accounting for 45% of the total variance.
The first factor includes almost all of the scientifically correct statements about the
mechanisms, causes, scientific consensus and severity of climate change and has been
labeled “Predominantly Scientific Understanding.” However, there were three statements
that loaded into this factor that do not follow the scientific model and are judged to be
incorrect: 2.39 Cutting down on waste and pollution will help stop the melting of the ice caps
2.44 Recycling is essential to reducing climate change because it keeps plastics out of
landfills and reduces production
2.35 The government can reduce climate change by regulation toxic pollution
The factor analysis shows that students who otherwise agreed with statements consistent
with climate science also ranked these true, even though they were ranked negatively on
the Knowledge Score. These statements, and the possibilities for their inclusion in this
factor, will be examined further in the discussion section.
The items loading into the second factor are statements that attribute the causes or
mechanisms of various environmental issues to climate change, but these causes are not
actually significant to the issue. This factor is here labeled “Issue Confusion.” The
statements in the third factor all refer to skepticism about the severity and scientific
certainty of climate change, as well statements expressing a belief that natural causes are
responsible for climate change. This factor has been labeled “Natural Causes and
Skepticism.” The full statements and question numbers for each of the 33 items, as well
as the factors into which they loaded, can be seen in Appendix F. The results of the
varimax rotated three-factor analysis of the Knowledge Variables can be seen in Table
87.
181 181
Table 87 Factor Loadings of the Rotated Factors for Knowledge Variables
Sci Und.
Issue Conf
Nat Cause and Skep
2.40 We need to change our transportation system, like creating more public transportation, in order to make a big impact on reducing climate change .710 2.37 Individuals can reduce climate change by not buying gas-guzzling cars and instead maybe owning a more fuel-efficient car or hybrid .687 2.43 The government could put more resources into developing alternative and renewable sources of energy in order to reduce climate change .672 2.42 I’ve heard that using efficient light bulbs, turning off electric appliances and insulating my house are all ways I can reduce my contribution to climate change .624 2.25 Even though it’s sometimes debated, I feel that it’s pretty well documented that humans have released too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere .619 2.32 The government could tax carbon emissions or introduce a system of cap and trade in an effort to reduce climate change .616 2.30 The best way to deal with climate change would be to reduce or eliminate carbon-based fuel sources
.611 2.23 Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps heat and causes climate change .600 2.31 Individuals can give political support to clean energy initiatives to help deal with climate change
.571 2.39 Cutting down on waste and pollution will help stop the melting of the ice caps
.512 .401 2.74 Even if the science isn’t clear to me, I think it’s better to act and be safe rather than sorry
.508 2.27 I’ve heard that driving less and using bicycles and public transportation are ways to reduce climate change .507 2.44 Recycling is essential to reducing climate change because it keeps plastics out of landfills and reduces production .506 2.18 Climate change is caused by an increased amount of gases like carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere .502 2.75 It’s hard for scientists to be certain about anything, but I think the patterns and trends that they’re seeing in climate change have them pretty convinced .443 2.68 I think that it’s generally pretty well accepted that climate change is occurring
.425 2.14 Gas and chemical emissions from our cars deplete the ozone and cause climate change
.782 2.11 Climate change is happening because we are depleting the ozone layer, and that lets in more heat from the sun .778 2.16 Greenhouse gases make the hole in the ozone layer worse
.724 2.15 Toxic pollution in the atmosphere causes climate change
.710 2.21 Climate change happens because we release chemicals from aerosol cans into the atmosphere
.681 2.36 I can help prevent climate change by not buying or using aerosol cans
.625 2.22 Nuclear power plants create pollution that contributes to climate change
.608 2.35 The government can reduce climate change by regulating toxic pollution
.444 .561 2.19 Climate change involves magnetic field and fluctuations in the sun, and other things beyond our control, and those things are bigger factors than greenhouse gas emissions .672 2.70 The climate has changed a lot in the past, so I think we might be making too big a deal about how it’s changing now .667 2.62 From my sources I’ve learned that too much emphasis is put on the human element of climate change, rather than the natural elements .654 2.9 I think that climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science supports
.637 2.69 I think that scientists are certain that the climate is changing, but not about who or what is responsible .616 2.20 Natural thing like volcanoes and water vapor have more of an impact on climate change than human actions .613 2.73 I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face today, and I think that it gets too much press .612 2.10 Scientists are highly certain that humans are definitely the cause of current, rapid climate change
-.535 2.12 Climate change is caused by the greenhouse effect
-.450 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
182 182
Knowledge Factor Subscores
Once the three knowledge factors were identified, student survey respondents
were given a score for each of the three factors. Knowledge Variables were divided into
the three factor groupings. The factor subscores were created by adding the raw variable
scores that loaded on each factor, then dividing by the number of variables, resulting in
subscores that have fractional values between 0 and 1, inclusive. For example, if a
student agrees with a statement that loads positively into a factor, or disagrees with a
statement that loads negatively into a factor, that student receives one “point” for each of
those statements, and the total “points” are divided by the number of variables in that
factor. Note that these subscores do not use the factor loadings of each variable, only the
positive or negative loading direction of that item. These calculated scores are called
“subscores” in this analysis to avoid confusion with the Knowledge Scores outlined in the
previous section. The three subscores generated are the KF1 Subscore for “Predominantly
Scientific Understanding,” the KF2 Subscore for “Issue Confusion” and the KF3
Subscore for “Natural Causes and Skepticism”. Students with a subscore close to 1 in
KF1 have a relatively high scientific understanding, those with a subscore close to 1 in
KF2 have high issue confusion and those with a subscore close to 1 in KF3 have
relatively high belief that climate change is a result of natural causes.
Scatterplots were created of these Knowledge Factor Subscores to examine the
relationships between the factors. When comparing “Predominantly Scientific
Understanding” and “Issue Confusion”, it was predicted that a negative correlation would
exist between these two subscores. This negative correlation would have meant that as
student scientific understanding increases, issue confusion decreases. No correlation was
found, however. Figure 4 shows the relationships between the “Predominantly Scientific
Understanding” (KF1) subscores and the “Issue Confusion” (KF2) subscores for each of
the four Sets.
183 183
Figure 4 Relationship between “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” and “Issue Confusion” Knowledge Factor Subscores, divided into the Four Student Sets Bubble sizes indicate the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates on the graphs. For the Sci/Env Set the smallest bubble size indicates 1 student and the largest t indicates 4 students. For the Sci/Non-Env Set the bubbles sizes range from 1 to 3 students. For the Non-Sci/Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 8 students and for the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 25 students.
184 184
In Figure 4, a perfectly negative correlation line would extend diagonally from the 1 on
the Y-axis to 1 on the X-axis, from the upper left to the lower right. If students perfectly
dispelled confusion as they increased knowledge, they would lie along this (undrawn)
line. As can be seen on the graphs for all four Sets, large majorities of the respondents lie
above this line. This means that as scientific understanding increases, the subscore for
issue confusion is not affected.
As described above, many cases are found in the upper-right quadrant of the
graphs. This indicates high subscores for scientific understanding but also a high level of
issue confusion. This pattern is evident in the graphs of all four Sets. These graphs give a
more detailed picture of student understanding and mental models than the knowledge
score alone. A student in the upper right quadrant of this graph would likely get an
average knowledge score, as their high score on the questions in the “Predominantly
Scientific Understanding” variables would be at least partially cancelled out by their low
knowledge score on the variables loading into the “Issue Confusion” factor.
In interpreting this lack of negative correlation, it is important to remember that
the measures in Figure 4 are a sum of the direct scores given by survey respondents, not
the factor analysis scores. The Principal Components analysis itself finds orthogonal
factors, so the factor loadings will not be correlated, neither positively nor negatively.
Here, however, agreement with the original questions was summed to create these
subscores, and these subscores are simple sums based only on the factor into which they
load, not the numerical factor loadings. Thus, these subscores could be indeed correlated
and it is a non-tautological empirical finding that they are not correlated.
Students in either the selected science majors or in environmental groups, or both,
have scores that generally fall in the upper half of the KF1 Subscore for “Predominantly
Scientific Understanding”. This is evident in the figures. The mean Knowledge Factor
Subscores (on a scale of 0-1) for each of the four Student Sets is shown in Table 88.
185 185
Table 88 Mean “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” Subscores for each of the Sets
Set N Mean Subscore Std. Dev. Sci /Env. 40 .75 .12 Sci/ Non-Env. 53 .66 .18 Non-Sci/Env. 52 .72 .13 Non-Sci/ Non-Env. 306 .64 .17
The mean Knowledge Factor Subscores for “Issue Confusion” are shown in Table
89. These are again very high, and on the graphs (Figure 4) these scores cluster to the
right, or the high end of the scale. In short, most students are both somewhat
knowledgeable and somewhat confused about the issues (e.g. global warming versus
ozone depletion).
Table 89 Mean “Issue Confusion” Subscores for each of the Sets
Set N Mean Subscore Std. Dev. Sci /Env. 40 .65 .32 Sci/ Non-Env. 53 .74 .25 Non-Sci/Env. 52 .80 .22 Non-Sci/ Non-Env. 306 .80 .25
These relationships are also shown graphically in Figure 4. From these tables and
graphs, it is clear that the Sci/Env Set has the highest mean subscore for “Predominantly
Scientific Understanding” and the lowest mean subscore for “Issue Confusion”. The
opposite holds true for the students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set. What is striking is that
majorities of students, across all four sets, who have high scores in “Predominantly
Scientific Understanding” and high scores in the “Issue Confusion” subscore.
Another subtlety observed in the factor subscores that was not clear from the
Knowledge Score is a difference in how the Knowledge Factor Subscores differ between
science majors and environmental group members. When looking at the “Predominantly
Scientific Understanding” subscore, the two Sets with the highest mean subscores are the
Sets that include environmental group members. In the “Issue Confusion” (KF2)
186 186
subscore, however, the two Sets with the lowest mean “Issue Confusion” subscores are
those including science majors. In summary, students in environmental groups score
higher in the understanding of the scientific model but science students have less issue
confusion.
When comparing KF2, “Issue Confusion”, with KF3, “Natural Causes and
Skepticism”, the scatterplots seen in Figure 5 do not show the same pattern of cluster in
the upper right corner as did KF1 and KF2 in Figure 4. The high number of students with
high issue confusion is well illustrated in these graphs, and is especially clear in the
Sci/Non-Env, Non-Sci/Env, and Non-Sci/Non-Env Sets.
Students with mental models of climate change closely matching the scientific
model would fall in the lower, left quadrant of this graph with low scores in both “Issue
Confusion” and “Natural Causes and Skepticism”. Only the graph for the Sci/Env Set,
shows a cluster of students in this quadrant. Students are more split in their subscores for
the “Natural Causes and Skepticism” factor than they are for either of the other two
Knowledge Factor Subscores. This is visible in Table 90, in which mean subscores are
listed. The “Natural Causes” model is present in around half of the students, across the
board. As would be expected, the Sets including environmental group members have a
lower mean subscore for “Natural Causes and Skepticism” than Sets including students
who do not belong to an environmental group.
Table 90 Mean “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Subscores for each of the Sets
Set N Mean Subscore Std. Dev. Sci /Env. 40 .47 .30 Sci/ Non-Env. 53 .54 .33 Non-Sci/Env. 52 .48 .29 Non-Sci/ Non-Env. 306 .58 .23
187 187
The last set of comparisons for the Knowledge Factor Subscores are between
“Predominantly Scientific Understanding” (KF1) and “Natural Causes and Skepticism”
(KF3). A negative correlation exists between these two variables (r=-.692, p<.01),
indicating that as scientific understanding increases, a student’s subscore for “Natural
Causes and Skepticism” decreases, and vice-versa. The scatterplots of students subscores
for these two factors can be seen in Figure 6.
188 188
Figure 5 Relationship Between “Issue Confusion” and “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Knowledge Factor Subscores, divided into the Four Student Sets Bubble sizes indicate the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates on the graphs. For the Sci/Env Set the smallest bubble size indicates 1 student and the largest t indicates 3 students. For the Sci/Non-Env Set the bubbles sizes range from 1 to 5 students. For the Non-Sci/Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 6 students and for the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 25 students.
189 189
Figure 6 Relationship Between “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” and “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Knowledge Factor Subscores, divided into the Four Student Sets Bubble sizes indicate the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates. For the Sci/Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 5 students. For the Sci/Non-Env Set the bubbles sizes range from 1 to 4 students. For the Non-Sci/Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 8 students and for the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 12 students. There is a strong negative correlation between these variables and the best-fit lines are displayed on the graphs.
190 190
Analysis of Opinion Variables
For the opinion variables there was no preconceived analog of “knowledge score”
with which to create a scale. Whereas scientific literature provided a reference point for
knowledge, there was no obvious or easily defensible a priori way to evaluate, cluster, or
rank the opinion variables. Rather, the opinion variables were derived from a diverse set
of statements in the semi-structured interviews, without reference to anything comparable
to the science literature. Thus, the opinion analysis is based entirely on the opinion
factors derived from factor analysis.
The Opinion Variables from the Survey of Student Understanding of Climate
Change were analyzed with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The resulting
factor scores of different groups of students were then compared.
Factor Analysis of Opinion Variables
An exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed for the 28
Opinion Variables in order to determine underlying relationships between these items.
The factorability of the items was once again examined using the KMO measure of
sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The KMO measure was .873, well
above the “adequate” value of .7, and the Bartlett’s test was found to be significant at
.000 (less than .05.) Based on eigenvalues and the slope of the scree plot, a three-factor
solution was preferred. These first three factors accounted for 19%, 13% and 11% of the
total variance, respectively. The following three items were eliminated because they did
not load into the three-factor solution at greater than .4: Q2.3 Sometimes environmental concerns are exaggerated, but I think the exaggeration is
justified because the environment is very important.
Q2.66 When I read an article about climate change, I trust it more if it quotes or
references a scientist.
191 191
Q2.72 There is a lot of conflicting information in the media about climate change.
The first of these statements will be discussed later, as it has two parts and may
have been difficult for students to answer. The second and third statements will be
examined later for their relationship to the Source Variables.
After eliminating the above three items, a second factor analysis of the remaining
26 Opinion Variables was performed using varimax rotation. Three factors explained
44% of the variance. The first of the three rotated factors can be interpreted as acceptance
of the existence and problem of climate change, with varying emphasis and rationales.
Some of the underlying variables are strongly worded, and others are based on the idea
that “it is better to be safe than sorry.” The grouping is here labeled “Acceptance,” noting
that some of the included statements are more definite while others are more careful or
conditional acceptance.
The second factor in the Opinion Variables can be summarized as
acknowledgment of ones own confusion and lack of overall knowledge and
understanding. This is here labeled as the “Self-Identified Ignorance” factor. The third
component includes statements that can be labeled as low environmental concern and
skepticism in the existence, severity and importance of climate change. This final factor
is here labeled “Skepticism.” Note that a similar label was used for this opinion factor as
was used for the third knowledge factor, but they are based on different underlying
statements. The full statements and question numbers for each of the 26 items, as well as
the factors into which they loaded, can be seen in Appendix F. The results of the varimax
rotated three-factor analysis of the Opinion Variables can be seen in Table 91.
192 192
Table 91 Factor Loadings of the Rotated Factors for Opinion Variables
Acceptance
Self-Identified Ignorance Skepticism
2.2 I believe that it is important to protect the environment .584 2.4 Environmental problems are not exaggerated, if anything they are understated .593 -.408
2.5 Sometimes when environmentalists are concerned about an issue, the exaggerate and stray from the facts -.484 .404
2.6 Protecting the environment is important, but I don’t know enough or do enough about it .656
2.9 I think that climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science supports -.641 .472
2.13 I know that changes in the atmosphere cause climate change, but I don’t know very much about the scientific processes that make it happen .736
2.17 Climate change is a very complicated issue, with many parts that we cannot fully understand, including the earth’s natural cycles .469
2.25 Even though it’s sometimes debated, I feel it’s pretty well documented that humans have released too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere .624
2.28 The government should better educate us about environmental problems .620
2.33 I would appreciate being given information about climate change that has less scientific jargon and is easier for me to understand .558
2.29 The government has too many other important issues to deal with right now to focus on climate change -.648
2.41 I am not sure how my personal actions specifically affect climate change .650
2.45 I think climate change is a serious issue, but I know that I don’t know enough or do enough about it .764
2.48 I tend to believe what I see or hear on major news networks because of their reputation .534
2.51 I hear people talk about climate change, but I don’t really look for information about it .648
2.56 I think a source is reliable if it shows both sides of the climate change debate .523
2.63 I don’t trust a source that sounds too certain about climate change because I know there is a lot of uncertainty .615
2.67 Most sources I see discuss the debate about whether or not climate change exists, but I think in general they agree that it does .539
2.68 I think that it’s generally pretty well accepted that climate change is occurring .526
2.69 I think that scientists are certain that the climate is changing, but not about who or what is responsible .606
2.71 I think the media is certain that climate change is happening and that humans are responsible .508
2.70 The climate has changed a lot in the past, so I think we might be making too big a deal about how it’s changing now -.579 .507
2.73 I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue that we face today, and I think that it gets too much press -.574 .469
2.74 Even if the science isn’t clear to me, I still think it’s better to act and be safe rather than sorry .618
2.75 It’s hard for scientists to be certain about anything, but I think the patterns and trends that they’re seeing in climate change have them pretty convinced
.613
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
193 193
Opinion Factor Subscores
The variables loading into the three factors for the opinion variables were used to
generate Opinion Factor Subscores, using the same process as was used for the
Knowledge Factor Subscores. A total score was calculated for each of the variable
groupings by adding all of the variables within each grouping, and then dividing by the
number of variables. This created three Opinion Factor Subscores on a scale of 0-1 for
“Acceptance” (OF1), “Self-Identified Ignorance” (OF2), and “Skepticism” (OF3).
Students with subscores close to 1 on OF1 have high acceptance of climate change, while
students with subscores close to 1 on OF2 show high self-identified ignorance and
students with a subscore close to 1 on OF3 have high skepticism. Scatterplots were again
created to examine the relationships between these factors.
When comparing the first two Opinion Factor Subscores, “Acceptance” and
“Self-Identified Ignorance,” it might be hypothesized that a negative correlation would
exist between these variables, meaning that as students feel they know more about
climate change (and “Self-Identified Ignorance” decreases) their acceptance of climate
change increases. However, there was no correlation (p>.01) between these first two
Opinion Factor Subscores. Figure 7 shows the relationships between the “Acceptance”
(OF1) Subscores and the “Self-Identified Ignorance” (OF2) Subscores for the four Sets.
As can be seen on these graphs, the students in Sets including science majors tend to
cluster in the upper left corner of the graphs, indicating high acceptance and low self-
identified ignorance. This phenomenon is most pronounced in the Sci/Env Set. The
students are slightly more spread out on the graph for the Non-Sci/Env Set. For the Non-
Sci/Non-Env Set the pattern appears quite different from those of Sets 1 and 2, with more
students indicating self-identified ignorance, and with those students also showing more
varied levels of acceptance.
194 194
Figure 7 Relationship Between “Acceptance” and “Self-Identified Ignorance” Opinion Factor Subscores, divided into the Four Student Sets. Bubble sizes indicate the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates on the graphs. For the Sci/Env Set the bubble sizes range from1 to 4 students. For the Sci/Non-Env Set the bubbles sizes range from 1 to 4 students. For the Non-Sci/Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 5 students and for the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 10 students.
195 195
When looking at the graphs in Figure 7, and particularly that of the Sci/Env Set, it
is visually apparent that slight majority of the students’ subscores for “Acceptance” fall
above the halfway point of .5. The mean Opinion Factor Subscores for “Acceptance” (On
a scale of 0-1) are shown in Table 92.
Table 92 Mean “Acceptance” Subscores for each of the Sets
Set N Mean Subscore Std. Dev. Sci /Env. 39 .78 .19 Sci/ Non-Env. 50 .61 .26 Non-Sci/Env. 52 .70 .22 Non-Sci/ Non-Env. 301 .62 .23 Table 93 shows the mean “Self-Identified Ignorance” subscores. The mean subscores for
this Opinion Factor are all below .5 or 50%, indicating that the respondents have low
self-identified ignorance.
Table 93 Mean “Self-Identified Ignorance” Subscores for each of the Sets
Set N Mean Subscore Std. Dev. Sci /Env. 37 .24 .23 Sci/ Non-Env. 51 .25 .24 Non-Sci/Env. 52 .32 .29 Non-Sci/ Non-Env. 303 .48 .28
Students in Sets including environmental group members and/or science majors
have the highest mean subscore for climate change acceptance, and the lowest mean
subscore for self-identified ignorance. Science major seems to contribute more to low
self-identified ignorance, whereas environmental group membership contributes most to
acceptance. Given both of these observations, it is logical that those students in both
science majors and environmental groups show the greatest percent with high acceptance
and the lowest self-identified ignorance.
Figure 8 shows the relationship between the Opinion Factor Subscores for “Self-
Identified Ignorance” (OF2) and “Skepticism” (OF3). There was again no correlation
196 196
between these two variables (p>.01). On the graphs in this figure, student scores tend to
cluster in the lower left corner of scatterplots. This position indicates both low skepticism
and low self-identified ignorance subscores. Table 94 shows the mean OF3 subscores for
“Skepticism.” These means are below .5 or 50% for all of the Student Sets. As would be
expected, the lowest mean subscores for skepticism are in the Sets including members of
environmental groups.
Table 94 Mean “Skepticism” Subscores above for each of the Sets
Set N Mean Subscore Std. Dev. Sci /Env. 39 .36 .24 Sci/ Non-Env. 51 .41 .26 Non-Sci/Env. 52 .40 .24 Non-Sci/ Non-Env. 296 .44 .24
The final Opinion Factor Subscore relationship to be examined is that of “Careful
Acceptance” (OF1) and “Skepticism” (OF3). A negative correlation between these
variables exists (r=-.550, p<.001), indicating that as student skepticism rises, student
acceptance declines, and vice versa. Figure 9 shows the relationships between these two
Opinion Factor Subscores for the four Sets. Best-fit trend lines are included on these
graphs to illustrate the negative correlation. Although there is a correlation, the
distribution of each of these variables is skewed towards one end of their range.
Specifically, a majority of the students, particularly in Sci/Env Set, the Sci/Non-Env Set
and the Non-Sci/Env set, are clustered in the upper left corner of the graph, meaning that
they have low “Skepticism” scores and higher scores for “Acceptance.”
197 197
Figure 8 Relationships between “Self-Identified Ignorance” and “Skepticism” Opinion Factor Subscores, divided into the four Sets Bubble sizes indicate the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates on the graphs. For the Sci/Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 5 students. For the Sci/Non-Env Set the bubbles sizes range froms1 to 4 students. For the Non-Sci/Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 5 students and for the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 12 students.
198 198
Figure 9 Relationships between “Acceptance” and “Skepticism” Opinion Factor Subscores, divided into the four Sets Bubble sizes indicate the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates on the graph. For the Sci/Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 5 students. For the Sci/Non-Env Set the bubbles sizes range from 1 to 4 students. For the Non-Sci/Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 5 students and for the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set the bubble sizes range from 1 to 12 students.
199
Comparison of Knowledge and Opinion Variable Factor Subscores
The creation of the Factor Subscores for both the Knowledge Variables and the
Opinion Variables allows for the relationships between students’ subscores for different
factors to be compared between the two types of variables. The ability to make these
comparisons gives greater depth to the intended understanding of student mental models. In
this section, all three Knowledge Factor Subscores will be compared with all three Opinion
Factor Subscores and any existing correlations will be explained. For comparisons in which
all four Sets show similar graphical patterns, one graph with all respondents will be
displayed. For several of the comparisons, however, different correlations appear in different
Sets and the graphs are displayed for each group to better illustrate the relationships. For ease
of reference, the table below shows the nine comparisons and the corresponding figure
numbers each comparison.
Table 95 Table of Figure Numbers for Knowledge and Opinion Factor Subscore Comparisons
Knowledge Factor Subscores
Predominantly Scientific Understanding (KF1)
Issue Confusion (KF2)
Natural Causes and Skepticism
(KF3)
Opi
nion
Fa
ctor
Su
bsco
res Acceptance (OF1) FIGURE10 FIGURE 13 FIGURE 16
Self-Identified Ignorance (OF2) FIGURE 11 FIGURE 14 FIGURE 17
Skepticism (OF3) FIGURE 12 FIGURE 15 FIGURE 18
The first two Factor Subscores examined were those for the Knowledge Factor
“Predominantly Scientific Understanding” (KF1) and the Opinion Factor “Careful
Acceptance” (OF1). A very strong positive correlation was seen between these two variables
(r=.707, p<.001). This positive correlation extends to all for Sets and one graph, Figure 10,
200
was used to display this data. The best-fit line displayed on this graph shows the positive
correlation, which indicates that as students’ scientific understanding of climate change
increases, so too does their acceptance of climate change. (The reverse direction of causality,
that acceptance of the problem makes them more scientifically knowledgeable, seems
improbable.) This is an important aspect of student mental models, and a strong indication of
the importance of scientific knowledge and understanding in garnering more complete
student acceptance, and perhaps societal acceptance.
Figure 10 Relationship between the “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” Knowledge Factor Subscore and the “Acceptance” Opinion Factor Subscore. All Four Student Sets. Bubbles size is determined by the number of students whose scores fall on a particular set of coordinates. On this figure the bubble sizes range from 1 to 25 students.
201
For the comparison of “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” (KF1) and “Self-
Identified Ignorance” (OF2) the graphs were again very similar in all four groups. There was no
significant correlation found between the two variables. This finding indicates that students’
knowledge, or lack thereof, has little to do with how much they believe they know. As can be
seen on Figure 11, a majority of the students hold a KF1 greater than .5, the halfway point on the
scale. However, those students have varying degrees of self-identified ignorance, and those with
low levels of scientific knowledge frequently have low levels of self-identified ignorance.
Figure 11 Relationship between “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Self-Identified Ignorance” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four student sets. Bubbles size is determined by the number of students whose scores fall on a particular set of coordinates. On this figure the bubble sizes range from 1 to 25 students.
A weak negative correlation was found in the comparison of the “Predominantly
Scientific Understanding” (KF1) Subscore and the “Skepticism” (OF3) Subscore across all four
Sets (r=-.224, p<.001). This correlation indicates that as student scientific understanding of
202
climate change increases, their skepticism increase, however this correlation is not strong.
Figure 12 shows the relationship between these two variables, with the best-fit line illustrating
the negative correlation.
Figure 12 Relationship between “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” Knowledge Factor and “Skepticism” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets Bubbles size is determined by the number of students whose scores fall on a particular set of coordinates. On this figure the bubble sizes range from 1 to 20 students. The best-fit line is included to illustrate the correlation between the two variables
The causal relationship of this finding cannot be proven with this correlation, but it seems
more likely that taking science courses would decrease skepticism than that being a
skeptic would inhibit learning science. There may be an unmeasured variable affecting
this relationship.
The Knowledge Factor Subscore for “Issue Confusion” (KF2) was then compared
to all three Opinion Factor Subscores. Figure 13 shows the relationship between the
203
“Issue Confusion” (KF2) Subscore and the “Careful Acceptance” (OF1) Subscore. When
the subscores for the entire set of respondents were compared, a significant correlation
was found between the two variables (r=.134, p<.01). This correlation in the Non-
Sci/Non-Env Set indicates that as issue confusion in this group of students increases, so
too does acceptance. Again, no causal relationship can be determined from this finding.
Figure 13 Relationships between “Issue Confusion” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Acceptance” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets Bubble sizes indicate the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates on the graphs. On this graph the bubble sizes range from 1 to 30 students. The best-fit line is included to illustrate the correlation between the two variables.
In the relationship between “Issue Confusion” (KF2) and “Self-Identified
Ignorance” (OF2), a positive correlation exists for the respondents overall (r=.233,
p<.001). This correlation means that as issue confusion increases in the overall population
204
of respondents, so does self-identified ignorance. Figure 14 shows the relationships
between KF2 and OF2 for the four Sets.
Figure 14 Relationships between “Issue Confusion” Knowledge Factor Subscores and “Self-Identified Ignorance” Opinion Factor Subscores. All four Student Sets Bubble sizes indicate the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates on the graphs. On the graph the bubble sizes range from 1 to 40 students. The best-fit line is included to illustrate the correlation between the two variables.
In the comparison of the “Issue Confusion” (KF2) Subscore and the “Skepticism”
(OF3) Subscore, a negative correlation exists for the respondents as a whole (r=-.232,
p<.001). This phenomenon, in which skepticism decreases as issue confusion increases,
can likely be seen as the opposite occurrence from that seen in the comparison of the KF2
and OF1 Subscores (Figure 13). As students display an increase in acceptance (and
decrease in skepticism) of climate change, that manifests itself in an increase in the
existence of flawed mental models of climate change, and this is particularly prevalent in
205
students not belonging to an environmental group and not enrolled in a science major.
Figure 15 shows the relationships between the “Issue Confusion” (KF2) and “Skepticism”
(OF3) Subscores for all four Sets, with a best-fit line present to illustrate the correlation in
the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set.
Figure 15 Relationships between “Issue Confusion” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Skepticism” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets Bubble size indicates the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates on the graphs. On this graph the bubble sizes range from 1 to 40 students. The best-fit line is included to illustrate the correlation between the two variables
The final Factor Subscore comparisons are those between the Knowledge Factor
Subscore for “Natural Causes and Skepticism” (KF3) and all three of the Opinion Factor
Subscores. Figure 16 shows the relationship between KF3 and the Opinion Factor
Subscore for “Careful Acceptance” (OF1) for all of the respondents. There was a very
strong negative correlation between these two variables (r= -.757, p<.001) and this
206
negative correlation held for all four Sets. This expected, negative correlation indicates
that as students’ acceptance of climate change increases, their belief in natural causes as
the drivers of climate change decreases.
Figure 16 Relationship between “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Acceptance” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets Bubble sizes indicate the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates. Bubble sizes for Figure 16 range from 1 student to 20 students. The best-fit line is included to illustrate the correlation between the two variables.
When looking at the relationship between the “Natural Causes and Skepticism”
(KF3) Subscore and the “Self-Identified Ignorance” (OF2) Subscore, there is a correlation
between the two variables (r=.156, p<.01). The correlation between the “Natural Causes
and Skepticism” and “Self-Identified Ignorance” subscores indicates that as self-identified
ignorance increases, so does the belief that the causes of climate change are natural.
Figure 17 shows the relationship between the Factor Subscores for “Natural Causes and
207
Skepticism” (KF3) and “Self-Identified Ignorance” (OF2) with a best-fit line included in
the graph of the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set to illustrate the correlation.
Figure 17 Relationships between “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Self-Identified Ignorance” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets Bubble sizes indicate the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates. On this graph the bubble sizes range from 1 to 14 students. The best-fit line is included to illustrate the correlation between the two variables.
The final comparison of Factor Subscores was made between Knowledge Factor
Subscore for “Natural Causes and Skepticism” (KF3) and the Opinion Factor Subscore
for “Skepticism” (OF3) (Figure 18). A strong positive correlation was seen between
these two variables (r=.594, p<.001) across all of the respondents, meaning that as
students’ skeptical opinions regarding the existence of climate change increase, so too
does their belief in natural causes as the primary factors in climate change. This is an
expected result that illustrates the link between skepticism and the assertion that current
208
climate change concerns can be attributed to nature in student mental models. Although
the natural causes model does exist, it is not seen as commonly in the surveyed students
as other models, as is shown the section for Knowledge Factor Subscores and the section
for Opinion Factor Subscores.
Figure 18 Relationship between “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Knowledge Factor Subscore and “Skepticism” Opinion Factor Subscore. All four Student Sets Bubble sizes indicate the number of students falling on a particular set of coordinates. In Figure 18, bubble sizes range from 1 to 15 students. The best-fit line is included to illustrate the correlation between the two variables
Analysis of Source Variables
The third category of variables concerns sources of information and how they are
used. The “Source Variables” were analyzed to elucidate where students acquire
information concerning climate change, how they determine the reliability of their
sources, and the amount of conflicting information they see in their sources. Like the
209
other survey items, items about Source Variables were included based directly from
statements made by students during the interview process. Survey respondents’ agreement
or disagreement with individual Source Variables was examined in order to clarify
student source usage. These variables have been categorized for the purpose of this
discussion. The questions are fairly distinct, and were not expected to fold into a few
factors, nor was it thought that such an analysis would be as revealing as examining the
individual variables, thus no factor analysis or other subscore combinations were used for
the information source items. For organization of this descriptive analysis, the survey
items are reported with percentage answers divided and the results from these analyses
were broken down into the following chapter subheadings: Overall Climate Change
Interest and Knowledge, Source Types, Source Reliability, Source Conflict, Campus as a
Source and Climate Skepticism in University Classes.
Overall Climate Change Interest and Knowledge
One initial question to be asked when looking at how students gather information
about climate change is whether or not they seek information for themselves. This is a
gauge of whether or not students are interested in or concerned about climate change
outside of their course work or what they see or hear passively in daily life without any
effort on their part. The Source Variables for interest and knowledge are in Table 96.
In the individual semi-structured interviews with students conducted for this
research, some students expressed that although they had heard about climate change,
they do not actively seek information on the subject. Statement 2.51 was included in the
survey, the results of which can be seen in Table 96. A majority of the respondents agreed
with this statement, although only by a slight margin.
210
Table 96 Interest and Knowledge Source Variables
Item Agree Disagree Neither N Q2.51 I hear people talk about climate change but I don’t really look for information about it
42.8% 39.9% 17.3% 481
Q2.24 No one has ever really explained to me how the greenhouse effect works, or if they have I can’t really remember
27.6% 60.8% 11.6% 476
Another statement made by interview subjects relating to their overall acquisition
of knowledge, but not specifically to a particular source type, was that although they had
heard of the issue of climate change or global warming, the process by which it happens,
or the greenhouse effect, had never specifically been explained to them. Item 2.24, shown
in Table 63, was included on the survey to represent this statement. A majority of the
students disagreed that no one has really explained to them the greenhouse effect. It
should also be noted that although a student may believe they correctly remember the
greenhouse effect as it was explained to them, this may not actually be the case, as has
been shown in previous research7.
Source Types
In the interviews, three main sources of climate change information were
volunteered: university classes, news and general media (including TV news
programming, Internet news sites, and newspapers), and non-news Internet sources.
Several statements were included in the survey for each source type in order to better
understand where students gather their information about climate change.
7 Durant and Legge in 2005 find that self-reported informedness does not correlate with objective measures of subject knowledge
211
University Classes
Table 97 shows student responses to statements about the use of university classes
as a resource for climate change information. In the semi-structured interviews, some
students indicated that they had learned about climate change in class. More than half of
the survey respondents agreed that they have had to research climate change for class (Q
2.57).
Table 97 University Class Source Items
Item Agree Disagree Neither N Q2.57 I have had to research climate change for a class before. 57.7% 37.9% 4.4% 478 Q2.60 In my classes I’ve learned about climate change and the greenhouse effect.
58.0% 30.3% 11.8% 476
Q2.8 I don’t know very much about the science behind climate change or other environmental problems because I don’t study them in my classes.
35.5% 50.4% 14.1% 707
A similar percentage indicated that climate change and its relationship to the
greenhouse effect has been covered, at least to some degree, in at least one class they
have taken (Q2.60). The term “greenhouse effect” was specifically employed in this
statement in hopes of identifying students who were instructed on the causes of climate
change, not just its existence as a current issue. Students who answered at least one of
these two statements were considered to use class as a primary resource for their
information on climate change. 68.8% of the students responding to the survey fell into
this category.
Some students in the semi-structured interviews said that they did not know much
about climate change specifically because they had not studied the subject in courses
(Q2.8). The results from this item were more evenly split, with a majority indicating that
they disagree. This statement is not so much an indicator of whether or not students have
212
studied climate change in class, but for those who have not studied climate change in
class and who feel they know very little, it shows the perceived importance of classroom
learning as a source of information.
News and Media
The news and media sources cited by the students participating in semi-structured
interviews included TV News programs, websites from news networks and newspapers
either in print or online. Statements for each of those sources were included on the survey
(Table 98).
Table 98 News and Media Source Items
Item Agree Disagree Neither N
Q2.46 Most of my information about climate change comes from the news shows on TV.
22.6% 61.0% 16.4% 482
Q2.47 I get a lot of information about the environment from news websites like CNN or MSNBC.
22.3% 59.7% 19.0% 479
Q2.54 I get my climate change information from newspapers, either in print or online.
29.0% 42.0% 28.0% 479
As the table shows, a quarter to a third of the survey respondents indicated that
they use each of the different types of news or media sources for their climate change
information. In order to get an idea of what percentage of the respondents use news and
media as a primary source of climate change information, a variable was created to
determine what percentage of the respondents agreed with Q2.46, Q2.47 or Q2.54. Of the
valid respondents, 48.2% agreed or strongly agreed with at least one of these three
statements. Thus, 48% of the respondents get information on climate change from one or
another mainstream news source.
213
Non-News Internet
In the semi-structured interviews, informants stated that they found information
about climate change on the Internet, but not from news websites. Two items were
included on the survey in relation to these interview statements (Table 99).
Table 99 Internet Source Items
Item Agree Disagree Neither N
Q2.52 Most of the information I get about climate change comes from surfing the Internet.
29.9% 42.8% 27.2% 481
Q2.64 I get information about climate change from environmental websites.
25.3% 42.9% 31.8% 471
Q2.52 asked students if “surfing the web” was a primary climate change information
source, and almost 30% agreed. In the semi-structured interviews, students named the
websites of environmental organizations as sources of information on climate change,
reflected in Q2.64. Again combining the two, 45.3% agreed to at least one of these
questions, indicating that this percentage gets climate change information from non-news
internet sources.
Source Type Distribution
In order to more fully analyze what source types were most popular among
students, a distribution of source type use was created. For this distribution, an additional
variable was created in which the source types they say they use grouped students. The
students were placed in a group if they agreed to one statement from that source type.
Groups were also created for those students using multiple types of sources. Those
students who did not agree that they used any of these sources were placed in an “Other”
group. A total of 336 students answered all of the source questions used in this analysis.
214
Students who did not answer all of these survey questions were not included in this
distribution. The frequencies and percentages of students using each source type are
shown in Table 100. Part of the intent of this study is to illuminate the degree to which
undergraduate education and classes influence a students’ understanding of climate
change, therefore it is important to highlight how many of the students claim their
university classes are a source of climate change information. As can be seen in Table
100, 68.84% of the students agreed that class was a source of their climate change
information, and 24.4% cited only class (and not news/media or the internet) as a source
for climate change information.
Table 100 Distribution of Source Type Use in Student Respondents
Source Type Frequency Percent Sum
Cla
ss Class 114 24.4%
Class and News 51 10.9%
Class and Internet 83 17.8%
All 72 15.4% 68.84%
Non
-Cla
ss News/Media 49 10.5%
Internet 28 6.0% News and Internet
29 6.2%
Other 41 8.8% 31.16%
Total 467 100%
Source Reliability
During the semi-structured interviews students were asked how they determine the
reliability of their sources. Several statements made by these interview participants were
included in the survey to gauge how common these procedures or beliefs are in other
students. The results of these statements are seen in Table 101.
215
Table 101 Student Response Frequencies to Source Reliability Variables
Item Agree Disagree Neither N
General Reliability
Q2.55 I trust the information I get about climate change if I see the same information in multiple sources.
50.9% 17.1% 32.0% 481
Inclusion of a Scientist
Q2.66 When I read an article about climate change, I trust it more if it quotes or references a scientist.
55.4% 16.2% 28.5% 471
News Reliability
Q2.48 I tend to believe what I see and hear on major news networks because of their reputation.
23.2% 55.7% 21.1% 479
Internet Reliability
Q2.49 I can tell if an Internet source is reliable by the last part of their URL. For example, sites that are .edu or .gov are the most trustworthy.
64.0% 13.3% 22.7% 481
Scientific Data
Q2.50 When I look for information about climate change, I try to find the original scientific studies and data backing up the things I see in the news.
51.1% 24.6% 24.3% 481
Balance in Journalism
Q2.56 I think a source is reliable if it shows both sides of the climate change debate.
54.4% 15.7% 29.9% 478
Q2.63 I don’t trust a source that sounds too certain about climate change because I know there is a lot of uncertainty.
37.6% 26.1% 36.3% 471
It can be seen from these results that students claim a source that references a scientist or
scientific data is more reliable. A majority of students believe showing both sides of the
issue is part of reliable journalism and students were split on their trust of a source that
sounds very certain about the occurrence of climate change.
Source Conflict
Students in the semi-structured interviews were asked if they saw or heard
conflicting information about climate change from their sources. The Source Variables
corresponding with those interview statements can be seen in Table 102. Many of the
students said that they had seen conflict in their sources, and the general version of that
question was turned into the item 2.53, seen below. A large majority of the student survey
respondents agreed with this item.
216
Table 102 Student Response Frequencies to Source Conflict Variables
Item Agree Disagree Neither N
Q2.53 I’ve seen and heard arguments both for and against the existence of climate change.
85.7% 6.4% 7.9% 482
Q2.71 I think the media is certain that climate change is happening and that humans are responsible
52.6% 18.4% 29% 466
Q2.72 There is a lot of conflicting information in the media about climate change
61.7% 11% 21.9% 465
When asked specifically about the media’s certainty on the subject, the interview
participants had mixed answers. A majority of the student survey respondents agreed with
item 2.71, although 29% indicated that the neither agreed nor disagree. Item 2.72 stated
specifically that there was conflicting information in the media 67.1% of survey
respondents agreed. Conflicting information in sources is further covered in the “Climate
Skepticism in University Classes” section.
Campus as a Source
In the semi-structured interviews students expressed that just being on campus is
sometimes in and of itself a source of information or awareness about climate change.
This may also be a topic of interest for the Universities in this study. Two statements
regarding information on campus were included in the survey, the first stating that
information is seen around campus, and the other stating that other environmental issues
are more commonly addressed on campus than climate change. These are both included
in Table 103 below.
Table 103 Student Response Frequencies to Campus as a Source Variables
Item Agree Disagree Neither N
217
Q2.58 I hear a lot about environmental issues just being on a college campus
60.1% 24.6% 15.3% 476
Q2.59 On campus I hear a lot more about other environmental issues than I do about climate change
39.8% 24.5% 35.6% 477
A majority of the student survey respondents agreed that they hear a great deal
about environmental issues on campus. Almost 40% of the respondents agreed that other
environmental issues are more commonly referenced on campus, however, than climate
change.
Climate Skepticism in University Classes
An interesting phenomenon was observed in the semi-structured interviews with
undergraduate students at the University of Delaware. Some students identified non-
human causes as more important to climate change than human causes, and stated that
they had learned this information in class. Three statements, seen in Table 104, were
included in the survey to gauge how common this observation is among the student
responders.
Table 104 Student Response Frequencies to Skepticism in Class Variables
Item Agree Disagree Neither N
Q2.62 From my sources I’ve learned that too much emphasis is put on the human element of climate change, rather than the natural elements
33.1% 34.3% 32.6% 472
Q2.61 My classes and information has focused more on the non-human causes of climate change
9.9% 53.1% 37.1% 475
Q2.65 I have a professor who doesn’t really “believe” in climate change
16.1% 60.8% 33.1% 471
The first of these statements focuses on all sources, not just class. 33.1% of the 472 valid
respondents agreed with this statement, and each of the other two categories held almost
218
equal percentages. When asked specifically about non-human focus in the classroom, a
majority of the respondents disagreed with item 2.61. The final statement on this subject
covered the skepticism of professors. Although a majority of the students disagreed with
statement 2.65, 16.1% of the respondents claim to have a professor who does not accept
climate change and who must have expressed as much in class for them to know this.
219
Chapter 7
DISCUSSION
This study was based in theory from cultural anthropology, education, climate
change communication and risk analysis. Previous research indicates that mental models
of complex issues like climate change shape the ways in which humans respond to and
attempt to solve related problems. This dissertation was designed to examine
undergraduate student understanding of climate change through the observation of student
mental models at the University of Delaware and the University of Maryland. Equally
important to this dissertation was the evaluation of the effectiveness of those models. This
research also examined the roles of environmental group membership and science
education on student mental models. Students’ sources of climate change information
were analyzed, as were student models of reliability and validity in their information
resources. The observed mental models were compared with pre-defined scientific models
of climate change and climate change action.
Student Environmental Values and Climate Change Concern
This research found that the vast majority of students (96.9% of the survey
respondents and all 26 interview informants) state that they believe that it is important to
protect the environment. Stated environmental concern has been well documented in the
general public since the 1960s (Dunlap and Van Liere; Gallup Poll 2007) and the students
this sample are no exception. When asked about the need for environmental protection, all
of the interview informants cited anthropocentric reasons for their concern. These reasons
220
frequently dealt with our survival as a species and our dependency on the environment.
Students also mentioned a responsibility to future generations and vaguely religious
statements of having been “given” this earth in the course of the interview process, but
these were less prominent sources of environmental value.
The sources of environmental value seen in this study are consistent with the
findings of Kempton, Boster and Hartley in Environmental Values in American Culture
(1995). The three main sources identified by the authors were religious values,
anthropocentric values and biocentric values. The students participating in this research
study were most commonly driven by anthropocentric values, but occasionally showed
some religious and biocentric tendencies in their environmental concern.
Although the public has repeatedly claimed to value the environment, this claim is
rarely a predictor of their actions or their true level of environmental concern (Kempton et
al 1995, Gallup Poll 2007). In the interest of further exploring students’ environmental
attitudes, the students were asked about exaggeration of environmental issues. In the
interview process, students were shown to believe that environmental issues are
occasionally exaggerated, but that exaggeration is justified to garner attention or public
support. Just over half of the students surveyed agreed with the survey item
corresponding with this line of reasoning. Believing in any exaggeration, no matter the
justification, may lead students to not take environmental issues or concerns as seriously
as is warranted.
Despite the students’ agreement with this survey statement, almost 40% of the
students surveyed stated on a separate item that environmental concerns are not
exaggerated at all. The rate of agreement with this survey item reveals an interesting
disconnect in the students’ stated environmental values and their models of climate
221
change. Logically, if 40% of students believe that environmental concerns are not
exaggerated, than this 40% would participate in a great deal of political and personal
action. Unfortunately, for reasons that must continue to be explored, this logic has not
played out. This is true historically in the case of public environmental concern, and is
true in the case of these undergraduate students.
The importance of individual environmental issues was examined in the
evaluation of student environmental values. Of particular interest in this study was the
ranking of climate change among students’ environmental concerns. A list of
environmental issues was compiled based on the responses of the interview informants
and this list was included on the survey. Water pollution was the top concern among
student survey respondents, followed by Climate change or “global warming.” Air
pollution was the third greatest concern, and these three issues far outranked other
environmental problems. Besides climate change or global warming, it appears that
pollution in general has played a significant role in students’ mental models of human
influence on the environment.
This research finds that climate change and ozone depletion are frequently
conflated issues in student mental models. Interestingly, students did not rank ozone
depletion as a highly concerning environmental issue. It is possible that students
frequently see ozone depletion and climate change as the same issue, and this confusion
has led to ozone depletion’s relative dismissal on this survey list. The hole in the ozone
layer is not a topic that is currently garnering much attention, and the United States,
publicly and politically, took major action on this issue in the 1970s. Undergraduate
students are likely to not frequently hear mention of this topic, which may also account
for its low ranking in importance on this list.
222
In summary, the students studied here hold strong environmental values and
attitudes. The students base these values on their appreciation of human dependency on
the environment. Many students believe that environmental issues are not exaggerated
and most of students who do see exaggeration believe that it is justified. This research
also finds that students consider climate change or global warming one of the most
pressing environmental issues.
Student Mental Models of Climate Change
This research finds that student mental models of climate change frequently
deviate from the scientific model and this deviation occurs in several different ways. The
scientific model of climate change was defined as having four distinct parts: 1) the
physical process by which climate change occurs, 2) the role of anthropogenic actions in
the current, rapid climatic change, 3) the scientific consensus regarding the occurrence of
climate change and 4) the urgency and severity of this issue. Students’ mental models as
observed through the semi-structured interview and survey process were found to match
none, some, or all of these components in varying combinations. The greatest variety of
mental model components seen was in student understanding of the physical processes
behind climate change. Student mental models of climate change action were also
studied.
Mental Models for the Physical Process of Climate Change
The students held four primary mental models explaining the physical processes
of climate change; the predominantly scientific model, the two models influenced by
issue confusion, the ozone depletion model and the pollution model, and the natural
causes model. The models observed in semi-structured interviews coincided with the
223
factors identified in the Knowledge Variables of the Survey of Student Understanding of
Climate Change. Each of these mental models is shown to exist in isolation, as well as in
combination in individual students. In addition, these models of the physical processes of
climate change often coexisted with several different models of the other defined
components of the scientific model.
Close to half the students interviewed for this research held mental models of the
physical processes of climate change that resembled the scientific model. These students
could identify carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, could describe how greenhouse
gases affect the climate, and understood how these greenhouse gases come to exist in the
atmosphere. Mental models were not nearly as clear for actions to address climate change.
Although more likely than their peers to articulate elements of the climate action model,
even students holding mental models of climate change similar to the scientific model
frequently gave vague answers regarding the actions that can be taken to combat climate
change. These students expressed an understanding of the severity of the issue, but their
stated actions to address the issue, or lack thereof, did not support the urgency inherent in
the scientific model.
A majority of the students in this study held mental models of climate change
displaying issue confusion. Several areas of issue confusion were seen throughout the
interview process, however the confusion of climate change with ozone depletion and
general pollution were those observed most frequently. Both of these mental models have
been seen in previous literature on the American public’s understanding of climate
change, some of which dates back to the early 1990s (Kempton et al 1995; Bostrom et al
1994; Reynolds et al 2010). The observation that these older mental models have
persisted over time, despite advances in climate research, news about that research,
224
widespread coverage in popular media, and advocacy by both pro- and anti-mitigation
action interests may seem surprising. However, persistence of older mental models in the
face of new evidence has been seen in previous research and theory on mental models
(D’Andrade 1995, Muddit 1996, Bly and Rumelhart 1999). In this case, unlike those cited
in the studies listed above, there is an additional deliberate and well-funded public
relations effort to confuse issues by legacy fuel interests (Hoggan 2009; Oreskes and
Conway 2011). This may have additionally confused the science model and the response
models.
The issue confusion in mental models is an overarching label used in this study to
encompass two main models; the ozone depletion model and the pollution model. In the
ozone depletion model of climate change held by students in this study, the physical
processes of climate change are confused with those of the separate atmospheric,
anthropogenic issue of ozone depletion. Generally in the ozone depletion model, students
believe that climate change or global warming occurs because a hole in the ozone layer is
allowing in more heat from the sun. Students holding this mental model would sometimes
name greenhouse gases as contributors to climate change, but then would explain that
these gases create a hole in the ozone layer. Other elements of the scientific model of
climate change were also occasionally incorporated into the ozone depletion model. For
example, students expressed that emissions from cars depleted the ozone layer and caused
climate change. The incorporation of this new information into the ozone depletion model
is a slight variation from the model seen in some of the previous research by Kempton et
al and Bostrom et al (1995; 1994). In some cases this updated version of the ozone
depletion model will lead students to correct actions for climate change prevention (i.e.
limiting the amount of car emissions being produced), however in other instances students
225
resorted to solutions for ozone depletion (i.e. avoiding aerosol cans) which are unrelated
or ineffective in dealing with climate change.
The pollution model of climate change was a less distinct or less clearly defined
mental model found in this study. Students held models in which pollution, waste or
dumping contributed to climate change. This model often incorporated elements of other
concepts. For example, confusion regarding pollution from nuclear power plants could be
considered part of the pollution model. Some students also included water pollution and
plastic waste in landfills in their understanding of the physical processes of climate
change, although none of these are actually a significant source of climate change.
Frequently the pollution model was related to the ozone depletion model and incorporated
the thought process that general air pollution or toxic “chemicals” cause a hole in the
ozone layer and contribute to climate change. In this case there may be a single confusing
model that combines pollution and ozone depletion, so for some students these models
may not be distinct. In many cases it appeared that students combined several different
environmental issues and “bad” environmental practices with climate change and held
models, or a single combined model, in which all of these concepts were connected. This
phenomenon supports findings from previous studies in which people resort to actions
they believe are “good environmental practice” in the absence of complete information
(Bostrom et al 1994, Reynolds et al 2010). The mechanisms, consequences, and
preventive actions for these environmental phenomena are so different, each must have its
own distinct model, not a single combined one, for people to effectively interpret them
and make appropriate decisions.
Mental models of climate change that involve issue confusion can lead students to
incorrect conclusions about the actions that can be taken to reduce climate change. In
226
most cases new information inserted into these mental models led the students to more
accurate conclusions, however the solutions posed were frequently unspecific and lacked
real usability. Generally the students holding these mental models could correctly name
energy conservation or reducing fuel consumption as ways to prevent climate change and
understood that gases from the car contribute to climate change, but they often thought of
it as “chemical pollution” or as a gas that destroys ozone, stemming from their mental
models that holes in the ozone layer cause climate change. The tendency to list both
effective and ineffective solutions to climate change, usually with equal frequency, has
been seen in other recent studies of the general public (Leiserowitz 2010, Reynolds 2010).
In this study it is important to try to show the underlying mental models that generate
these solutions.
The vagueness of student responses, for example “driving less”, and the choice of
some specific solutions over others, like “buying a hybrid”, do not accurately reflect real,
tangible individual action. In fact, there exists a long list of actions that an individual can
take, and hybrid cars are no better than, for example, non-hybrid cars with the same
mileage per gallon. Driving less is not a specific suggestion, as it does not address how an
individual should do the things they have been doing by using their car, such as getting to
work or class, yet vague solutions like “drive less” and “buying a hybrid” are among the
most commonly listed. Considering sectors, the power generation sector produces far
more CO2 per capita than personal transportation (IPCC 2007), so arguably even the
vague “use less electricity” would be quantitatively more on target than the automotive-
oriented ones. These results raise questions about why these few solutions get mentioned
more frequently than others, and why education and communication efforts have not
spent more time developing effective mental models of effective action.
227
The third mental model observed in this study was one in which “natural causes”
play an important role in climate change. This mental model was held in varying degrees
by several different interview informants and was also seen in responses to corresponding
survey items. Students holding this model stated a range of beliefs. The most benign
version of this model was the concept that the “earth’s cycles” or natural variations in
climate may play a small part in current climate change. At the other end of this spectrum,
a handful of students held mental models in which parts of the natural system, such as the
sun, the tilt of the earth, and volcanoes were larger factors in climate change than
anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases. Examination of the survey responses to these
statements shows that although a majority of students accept the anthropogenic causes of
climate change, a third of the students also believe that too much emphasis is placed on
the human contributions. These and other survey responses show that the “natural causes”
mental models articulated by a small number of interview informants (3 of 26
interviewed) are actually present in a much larger fraction (1/3). Obviously, if 1/3 of the
college-educated public believes that climate change is partially or entirely due to natural
causes, this would deflect corrective actions that would limit human causes (e.g. reducing
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels). This appears to be a new mental model in the last two
decades, as it was not reported in earlier studies from the 1990s (Kempton et al 1995,
Bostrom et al 1994).
There are several possible reasons for the appearance of this newer model of
skepticism, but a very plausible explanation is the politicization of this issue in the U.S in
the last two decades. Vested interests have acted to manufacture doubt in the existence
and scientific consensus regarding climate change (Hoggan 2009). The perception of
scientific consensus has been found in previous literature to play a critical role in a
228
person’s acceptance of anthropogenic climate change. This perception of consensus is
shown to be a more significant determinant of acceptance than a person’s worldview.
(Lewandowsky et al 2013). The political discourse and manufactured doubt surrounding
climate change in the U.S. are likely to therefore play a role in the observed mental
models of skepticism in seen in this dissertation.
Interaction of factors and mental model elements
In the analysis of the survey data, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses
were performed. Three factors were found for the Knowledge Variables, and three were
found for the Opinion Variables. A student’s mental model contains elements of
knowledge and opinion. The combination and interaction of the factors help to better
define and explain the student mental models. For the Knowledge Variables presented in
the survey, the three factors identified were “Predominantly Scientific Understanding”
(KF1), “Issue Confusion (KF2) and “Natural Causes and Skepticism” (KF3). These
factors match the three main mental model components of the physical processes that
were deduced from the interview data independently of the survey factor analysis. For the
survey Opinion Variables, the three factors identified were “Careful Acceptance” (OF1),
“Self-Identified Ignorance” (OF2) and “Skepticism” (OF3). Again, these factors relate
well to the mental model components observed in the semi-structured interviews. The
factors are not mutually exclusive in one individual. Some respondents possess elements
of more than one Knowledge factor, or more than one Opinion factor, in their overall
understanding of climate change.
In the Survey Results section of this dissertation, the students were given
subscores calculated from the Knowledge and Opinion factors. The factor subscores were
compared for the sample as a whole and for individual Sets. The interaction of these
229
factor subscores will be split by Set and discussed in a later section of this chapter. Here
the overall interactions of these factors and how they help to define the mental models
found in the sample will be examined.
For the first Knowledge Factor, “Predominantly Scientific Understanding”, almost
all of the survey items loading into this factor match the scientific model of climate
change. These survey items cover all three parts of the scientific model, including the
processes of climate change, the scientific consensus concerning the anthropogenic
sources of climate change, and the severity of the issue. For the most part, all these
aspects of the scientific model load on the same factor, thus indicating that students tend
to hold all three aspects together. There were, however, three individual statements that
loaded into this factor but do not match the scientific model, items 2.35, 2.39 and 2.44.
All three of these statements deal with waste and pollution as contributors to climate
change. If only one of these statements had loaded into this factor, it might be assumed
that an error existed in the creation of this survey item, making it confusing for test takers.
The fact that there are three items that loaded into this factor, all dealing with waste and
pollution, leads to a different conclusion: the pollution model has been thoroughly
incorporated into the respondents’ mental model of climate change. The pollution model
may exist independently, but these data show that it is now also an element within the
respondents’ version of the scientific model.
The mean “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” Factor Subscores of the
survey respondents fall between .64 and .75 on a scale of 0-1. When given statements
reflecting the scientific model of climate change, a large majority of the students could
identify them as correct. During the semi-structured interviews, far fewer students were
able to name all of the included elements of climate change when asked to list them
230
without being given a list from which to pick. Three incorrect statements, the pollution
factors explained above, were included in this factor and could contribute towards a
slightly skewed score. In the semi-structured interviews, those students who mentioned
correct elements of the climate change process frequently mentioned elements of other
environmental issues as well. This will be further explored in the interaction of this factor
subscore with the second Knowledge Factor Subscore.
The “Issue Confusion” Knowledge Factor indexes statements that attribute the
mechanisms and solutions of other environmental issues to climate change. The items
loading into this factor include statements regarding ozone depletion, nuclear power
production, and pollution. Two of the three statements regarding waste and pollution that
loaded into the first knowledge factor also loaded into this knowledge factor, again
showing the predominance of the pollution model. When the Knowledge Factor Subscore
was computed for this factor, the mean respondent scores were again in the upper half of
the scale, at .65 to .80.
If students absorbed different aspects of climate science uniformly, then the first
two Knowledge Factor Subscores would show a negative correlation. That is, subscores
for issue confusion decline as subscores for scientific understanding increase. However,
as can be seen in Figure 4, most students earned high subscores in both of these
Knowledge Factor Subscores. The interaction of these two subscores supports the
observation that people often hold mental models and incorporate as well aspects of other
environmental issues that a scientist would not include in climate change. The finding that
students can hold high subscores in both “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” and
“Issue Confusion” again supports findings that in the absence of information, students
231
resort to supporting all “good environmental practice” and rejecting all “bad
environmental practice.”
The fact that this issue confusion exists in students’ mental models is not
necessarily a new discovery, as it can be seen in the previous literature, but the extent to
which students hold both correct and incorrect information rather than just one or the
other is a finding new to this study. The issue is not that students don’t know or can’t
recognize the scientific causes of climate change, but rather that they also believe in
extraneous and unrelated causes. This can lead people to put efforts and energy into
ineffective actions and support into unrelated causes.
One implication of this finding is that in communicating to the public about
climate change, an effort should be made to specifically refute conflated environmental
issues rather than, rather than just adding new correct knowledge. This conclusion does
not capture the full picture of these findings. In semi-structured interviews, many students
were not able to spontaneously produce the statements falling into the “Predominantly
Scientific Understanding” factor, but may have been able to recognize them as correct on
the survey. If students cannot spontaneously produce scientific statements, they may not
be able to draw on them when they need to make a decision such as, “What actions
should I prioritize in order to most effectively prevent climate change?” It could be
argued, therefore, that the level of students’ understanding regarding the physical
processes of climate change is not complete enough for students to make informed
decisions or create viable solutions. This argument is supported by the observation that
students were only able to give vague responses regarding the ways in which individuals
and government can deal with climate change rather than being able to name any of the
specific, effective solutions that do exist. To address these findings in both education and
232
communication moving forward, it will be important to separate climate change from
other environmental issues in students’ mental models, and it will be equally important to
strengthen their models of the scientific processes and to outline how the scientific
models lead to deductions about actionable solutions.
The interactions between the first two knowledge factors and the third, “Natural
Causes and Skepticism”, were relatively unremarkable. Little noticeable interaction was
seen between “Issue Confusion” and “Natural Causes and Skepticism” and an expected
negative correlation existed between “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” and
“Natural Causes and Skepticism.” The most interesting result coming from the analysis of
the Knowledge Factor Subscore for “Natural Causes and Skepticism” was that the mean
subscores clustered around 50% on this scale (from .47 to .58). This is divergent from
published climate science, and for this present study, mental models in which natural
causes play a significant role in climate change were not expected to be found in ½ of the
student population. Previous literature indicates a variety of causes for climate change
skepticism, but the existence of this level of skepticism in these young, highly educated
individuals must be addressed to ensure future, decisive action on this issue.
The variables loading into the first opinion factor, “Acceptance”, generally
represented acceptance of climate change and its anthropogenic sources, to varying
degrees. Very few students in the semi-structured interviews showed complete, strong
acceptance of climate change, and the scale of the existence of this “acceptance” factor is
in keeping with those findings. The mean Opinion Factor Subscores for “Acceptance”
was .61 or above in all four Student Sets. In three of the Sets (excluding the Sci/Env Set),
levels of acceptance of climate change are not quite as high as the levels of understanding
or climate change knowledge. This finding is also supported by the observations made in
233
the semi-structured interviews. A students’ mental model can contain a relatively well-
developed understanding of the processes of climate change, but can still show little or
limited acceptance of climate change as an anthropogenic issue. To better convey the
message of climate change it will be necessary to not only address the mechanisms of its
occurrence but to also address the scientific community’s consensus and the
misconceptions and misinformation regarding humans’ role in the process.
The second opinion factor, “Self-Identified Ignorance” will be explored in greater
depth in a later section of this dissertation. Here it is discussed in its relationship with the
other opinion factors. Survey variables falling into this factor expressed a lack of
knowledge or understanding regarding climate change. The subscore results for this factor
were again variable between Sets, but mean subscores were in the lower half of the scale
for “Self-Identified Ignorance” (.24 to .48). As can be seen in the comparisons of the
subscores from this Opinion Factor and the subscores from the “Predominantly Scientific
Understanding” Knowledge Factor and the “Issue Confusion” Knowledge Factor,
perceived level of knowledge and actual level of knowledge are frequently not related and
no correlation was found between these subscores (Figure 11 and Figure 14). This finding
is consistent with that of Durant and Legge 2005, who found that self-reported
informedness does not correlate with objective measures of subject knowledge. For
example, the students may have high issue confusion and still believe that they are well-
informed regarding climate change (In fact, most did - Figure 14).
The third opinion factor includes statements of skepticism regarding climate
change. The mean subscores for this factor fall in the lower half of the “Skepticism” scale
(.36 to .44). This contrasts with the results seen in the Knowledge Factor Subscore for
“Natural Causes” in which the mean scores were higher (.47 to .58). This may reflect the
234
mental models seen in the interview process in which students express a belief that
climate change is occurring but that scientists are not sure if humanity or nature is
responsible. Although a mental model in which natural causes play a significant role in
climate change may not significantly increase a student’s skepticism about climate
change, it may affect the urgency with which they see the issue. A decreased sense of
urgency could lead a student to support a “wait and see” approach to solutions for climate
change. Despite the differences in the mean subscores between these two factor
subscores, a scatterplot, which can be seen in Figure 18, shows a positive correlation
between the Opinion Factor Subscore for “Skepticism” and the Knowledge Factor
Subscore for “Natural Causes and Skepticism.”
The examination of the interactions of Knowledge and Opinion Factor Subscores
allows for a greater understanding of the subtleties of student mental models. Although
many of these mental model variations are seen within the semi-structured interviews, the
reinforcement for these findings lent by the survey analysis gives more credibility to the
mental model observations made. The existence of these interactions within the survey
data shows that these observations are not unique to the interviewees, but are more
widespread throughout a large sample of students.
Uncertainty and Self-Identified Ignorance
As stated earlier, many student mental models displayed confusion about the
scientific consensus on climate change. In their survey responses, nearly 60% of the
students indicated that scientists aren’t sure whom or what is responsible for climate
change. Several students expressed this same belief in their semi-structured interviews.
Multiple students also expressed that they are confused about climate change, or that the
issue is too complex. Nearly half of the student survey respondents agreed with the survey
235
item “I know that changes in the atmosphere cause climate change, but I don’t know very
much about the scientific processes that make it happen.” Similarly, more than 75%
believed that climate change is a complicated issue with many parts that we cannot fully
understand.
In one interview informant’s answer to the question about public certainty
regarding climate change, she stated that uncertainty and confusion, including her own
lack of understanding, lead people to not take the threat very seriously:
Do you think the public is certain about climate change? No I don’t think they’re certain about it. I think they joke about it a lot and I sometimes do that too cause I hate cold weather so…sometimes I’ll joke like “Let it happen!” even though I don’t really mean it cause I know it is bad, but… I think it’s a problem that um I know about it and I know it’s bad, but I don’t know what causes it so I think there’s a gap in information. Like people know it’s a problem but they don’t know why or what they can do to help. Including myself. – Alice, (S4E, Hotel and Restaurant Management)
Alice’s statement is essentially echoed in literature on the topic. In their 2006 study
Lorenzoni and Pidgeon found that their informants were confused about the processes of
climate change and the severity of the issue. They assert that this confusion and
informants’ rating of climate change as a low priority issue make it unlikely that the
public will take action or support legislation regarding climate change. The mental model
of uncertainty regarding climate change can lead students to false hope that the issue will
disappear or will be disproven, and this type of model could conceivably lead to a lack of
action or a “wait and see” approach. This approach, which has been employed by the U.S.
government for many years, is dangerous to continue given the information we have
about climate change (IPCC 2007).
Students have, however, expressed a desire to better understand climate change
and their role in it, as can also be seen in Alice’s quotation above. The most common
236
response regarding governmental action given by the students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env
Set was that the government should increase education and awareness. This proposal
may have been a self-reflective policy suggestion, as six of the seven informants
volunteered that they felt they knew and understood very little about climate change and
several felt that the government should step in and help make the public more aware. The
students appreciate that they do not know enough about effective climate change action,
so when asked for suggestions on what the government should do, they ask that the
government educate people like themselves.
The desire for government to increase public awareness of climate change and
other environmental issues carries over to the survey responses. Greater than 80% of the
student survey respondents agreed with the statement “The government should better
educate us about environmental problems.” The complex scientific nature of climate
change can make the subject less accessible to members of the general public. Nearly
60% of the survey respondents agreed that they “would appreciate being given
information about climate change that has less scientific jargon.” The students’ desire to
better understand climate change clearly exists, but it might be argued that the onus of the
production of that information is misplaced. The government is not directly responsible
for the education of the public. By contrast, alternative ways students could have
responded to the need for better information would be to suggest that current or recent
educational institutions (their university or secondary schools) should provide education
on this topic, or to fill in this self-recognized gap in knowledge through independent study
of the problem.
Whether or not the students actually want to better understand climate change,
they express this desire in both interview and survey responses, and this study itself finds
237
gaps in the science and thus, the findings support the need for better designed
communicated information.
Student Set Mental Models
In the design of this dissertation, a research question was asked regarding the
mental models held by students in four Sets: 1. Students enrolled in a climate-related
science major and belonging to an environmental group, 2. Students enrolled in a climate-
related science major and not belonging to an environmental group, 3. Students not
enrolled in a climate-related science major and belonging to an environmental group and
4. Students neither enrolled in a climate-related science major, nor belonging to an
environmental group. Through the course of this research, the students’ mental models
were observed for members of each of these four Sets and these models, Knowledge
Scores, and Knowledge Factor Subscores, will be discussed and compared in this section.
Discussion of the Sci/Env Set: Students enrolled in climate-related science majors and belonging to an environmental group
Over the course of this study, the students in the Sci/Env Set were shown to have
the mental models of climate change most closely matching the scientific model in all
four defined parts, as well as the mental models of action most closely matching the
defined climate action model. This finding was supported by semi-structured interview
results, mixed method analysis, and the statistical analysis of the survey data. Even so,
the mental models of the students in this Set were not a perfect match to the scientific
model, and like the models of members of the other Sets, sometimes lacked specific,
viable solutions to climate change for both individual and governmental action.
The members of the Sci/Env Set interviewees were able to explain the
mechanisms of climate change and, for the most part, held little to no issue confusion
238
between climate change and other environmental issues. The students in this Set were
also the most likely to understand the scientific consensus regarding the anthropogenic
nature of climate change and the severity of the issue as characterized by a need to act.
Students identified energy conservation, reduction of carbon emissions, and limiting
fossil fuel use as ways in which the threat of climate change can be lessened. The Sci/Env
Set students were slightly more likely than their peers to produce the names of specific
governmental actions or policies and to name alternatives to individual car use rather than
just mentioning “driving less”, but their specificity regarding these solutions was still
limited. For example, government policies regarding cap and trade or carbon credits got
little attention, and none of the students in this Set mentioned the Kyoto Protocol or
similar international initiatives.
These findings from the mixed methods analysis are further supported by the
statistical analysis of the survey results. The students in the Sci/Env Set earned the highest
average Knowledge Score (21.53 out of 35) of the four Sets. This Knowledge Score was
statistically significant compared to the overall average score (17.84) as well as to the
Knowledge Scores of both Sets not containing environmental group members (18.36 for
the Sci/Non-Env Set and 17.13 for the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set). Analysis of the Knowledge
Factor Subscores shows that 98% of the students in the Sci/Env Set fell in the top half of
the subscore scale for “Predominantly Scientific Understanding,” and the Sci/Env Set
held the lowest scores for “Issue Confusion” compared to the other Sets. As is seen in the
interviews, however, issue confusion still plays a role in the mental models of the students
in the Sci/Env Set and although the Sci/Env Set percentage is the lowest, 70% of the
students still fall in the upper half of the scale for the “Issue Confusion” Factor Subscore.
239
Examination of the comparative Opinion Factor Subscores for the Sci/Env Set
show that students in this Set are the most accepting of climate change, the least likely to
identify themselves as ignorant about climate change, and the least likely to be skeptical
regarding the existence of climate change. As in the other Sets, there exists no correlation,
positive or negative, between the students in the Sci/Env Set’s self-identified ignorance
and their scientific understanding of climate change. This means their actual knowledge
of climate change is unrelated to their perceived knowledge. Comparatively, the students
in the Sci/Env Set hold the most complete and scientifically accurate mental models of
climate change, and are the students best equipped to deal with mitigation and adaptation.
Discussion of the Sci/Non-Env Set: Students enrolled in a climate-related science major and not belonging to an environmental group
The students in the Sci/Non-Env Set were observed to hold mental models of
climate change matching the scientific model’s physical processes. The students in this
group were less likely, however to hold mental models matching the scientific model on
the anthropogenic nature of climate change, scientific consensus and certainty, or the
urgency or severity of the issue. The findings of the semi-structured interviews and mixed
methods analysis were again consistent with the results of the statistical survey analysis
for this Set. Students in the Sci/Non-Env Set showed an understanding of the effective
actions for climate change reduction equal to that of the students in the Sci/Env Set, but at
times these students were less supportive of the implementation of those actions.
The = Sci/Non-Env Set semi-structured interviewees were able to properly explain
the mechanisms of climate change, although analysis of survey results did reveal more
issue confusion than was seen in the interview process. The students in this Set were less
likely, however, to hold mental models in which scientific consensus exists regarding
240
climate change. Students in this group expressed that although scientists agree that
climate change is occurring, scientists are less convinced about the reasons for that
change. Similarly, the students in the Sci/Non-Env Set were less likely to believe climate
change is as urgent of an issue as the science would suggest. Frequently these students
were more cautious in their acceptance of the immediacy of action needed or the severity
of the issue. This mental model was revealed not only in direct statements, but also in
statements regarding the role the government should take, their insistence that natural
factors play a large role in climate change, or their attitude towards the topic in general.
Students in this Set also specifically mentioned climate change as an environmental issue
that is sometimes exaggerated.
In the analysis of the survey results, the students in the Sci/Non-Env Set earned
the second lowest average Knowledge Score (18.36 out of 35). Analysis of the mixed
methods and the mental models reconstructed through the interview process lead to the
conclusion that this low score is due to lack of understanding of the scientific consensus,
the anthropogenic nature, and the urgency of climate change rather than a confusion
regarding the mechanisms of climate change. In general, examination of the Knowledge
and Opinion Factor Subscores supports this conclusion. Both the Sci/Env Set and the
Non-Sci/Env Set had higher mean scores in “Predominantly Scientific Understanding”
than the Sci/Non-Env Set. The Sci/Non-Env Set showed less issue confusion than the
Non-Sci/Env Set, but the Sci/Non-Env Set had considerably more belief in the natural
causes of climate change in the corresponding Knowledge Factor Subscores. The picture
remained much the same in the Opinion Factor Subscores, with the students in the
Sci/Non-Env Set showing considerably less acceptance of climate change than their peers
in the Sci/Env Set and more skepticism than the students of both Sets including
241
environmental group members. However, the students in the Sci/Non-Env Set rarely self-
identified as ignorant. Again no correlation existed between students’ understanding of
climate change and their perceived level of ignorance.
During the interview process, the students most skeptical about climate change
were arguably seen in the Sci/Non-Env Set. The analysis of survey results shows that the
skepticism of these students is about equal to that of the students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env
Set. The interview results were skewed towards skepticism by the two Geology students
interviewed, and this major was not as highly represented on the survey as would have
been desirable, in part because it is not a highly popular major. Still, both of the Sets not
including environmental group members showed a great deal more skepticism on the
survey than the two Sets containing environmental group members. These survey results
show that the skepticism observed in the interview process was not limited to the Geology
students. What has been brought to light is the need for further study of the mental models
and worldviews of geology students and the ways in which these students are taught to
perceive climate change in their course work.
Discussion of the Non-Sci/Env Set: Students not enrolled in a science major and belonging to an environmental group
The students in the Non-Sci/Env Set were observed to hold mental models of
climate change opposite to those in the Sci/Non-Env Set. Although the Non-Sci/Env Set
students’ models of the mechanisms of climate change frequently did not match the
scientific model, their models of the other three components, the anthropogenic nature of
the issue, the scientific consensus and the urgency of climate change, closely match the
scientific model. These findings were clear in both the mixed methods analysis and in the
statistical analysis of the survey results. The students in the Non-Sci/Env Set were able to
242
offer some solutions to climate change based in the climate action model, but were
frequently unable to offer specific actions.
The students in the Non-Sci/Env Set gave a wide range of answers regarding the
physical processes of climate change during the semi-structured interview process. Most
of these responses contained elements of the scientific model, but they regularly
contained elements of other environmental issues as well. The students in this Set were
the most likely to attribute any negative environmental effects to climate change, and
conflate all “bad environmental practice” with sources of anthropogenic climate change.
Unlike the two previous sets, however, members of the Non-Sci, Env Set admitted that
they might not have all of the information. The students in the Non-Sci/Env Set showed a
high level of concern for the issue, and were relatively convinced that human action is to
blame for its occurrence, but they were ill equipped to explain how or why climate
change happens.
Despite considerable confusion in their understanding of the processes of climate
change, the students in the Non-Sci/Env Set were able to name some effective actions that
can be taken by individuals and the government to reduce climate change. During the
interview process the solutions mentioned by students in this Set were some of the most
effective, but the analysis of survey results shows this group is not significantly more
knowledgeable regarding climate change solutions than their peers. The variety of
solutions posed in this group was unique, covering transportation, energy use, and
agriculture. The mention of specific fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases,
however, was quite limited and car emissions were attributed to causing a hole in the
ozone layer in both the interview and survey responses. In fact, 75% of the students in
243
this Set agreed with the statement “Gases and chemical emissions from our cars deplete
the ozone and cause climate change.”
In the analysis of the survey results, the students in the Non-Sci/Env Set earned
the second highest average Knowledge Score (19.5 out of 35) behind the Sci/Env Set.
Given the interview and survey responses, this high score is likely due to the students’
mental models of the anthropogenic nature of climate change, the scientific consensus and
the severity of the issue rather than to their understanding of the mechanisms of climate
change. This subtlety can be teased out by examination of the Knowledge Factor
Subscores. The Non-Sci/Env Set mean subscore for “Predominantly Scientific
Understanding” was .72, and their mean subscore “Issue Confusion” was .80. The
students in this Set were able to correctly identify climate change processes when given
them on the survey, but also frequently indicated that other environmental issues were the
causes of climate change as well. Although the vast majority of students taking the survey
held high scores for both of these Factor Subscores, the students in the Non-Sci/Env Set
were among the highest for both scientific understanding and issue confusion, as can be
seen in Tables 88 and 89.
The students in the Non-Sci/Env Set had the lowest mean subscore for “Natural
Causes and Skepticism.” These students also showed high acceptance and low skepticism
in the Opinion Factor Subscores, but had higher self identified ignorance than both of the
Sets that include science majors. These findings are again in keeping with those of the
mixed methods and interview analysis. The Non-Sci/Env Set is composed of students
with great climate change concern and acceptance, but mental models of the mechanisms
of climate change straying significantly from the scientific model.
244
Discussion of the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set: Students not enrolled in a science major and not belonging to an environmental group
The Non-Sci/Non-Env Set was by far the largest group of students studied, and
also represents the largest part of the overall student population at the University of
Delaware and the University of Maryland. It can be reasonably assumed that this set
would also be closest to the general educated US population. Setting aside the one outlier
(Carlos), who proved to be such not only in the interview process, but also in the survey
results, the students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set were the least equipped to handle the
issue of climate change both now and in the future. These students displayed a great deal
of issue confusion in their mental models of the processes of climate change. Although
fairly certain about the existence and anthropogenic nature of climate change, they were
more skeptical than their peers in the Sets including environmental group members, and
in some measures were more skeptical than the students of the Sci/Non-Env Set. The
students in this group held a great deal of confusion regarding the scientific consensus on
climate change and saw it as a contentious or conflict ridden issue. The students in the
Non-Sci/Non-Env Set showed limited understanding of the ways in which climate change
can be addressed, and although some of their proposed actions were based in effective
areas like energy conservation and changes in transportation, their mental models
contained little to no specifics regarding the actions that can be taken by individuals or the
government.
As has been seen in recent research of the general public’s understanding of
climate change, the students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set can identify and recognize some
of the causes and processes of climate change when they are presented to them on a
survey, but also identify several other environmental issues as related to climate change
(Reynolds et al 2010, Leiserowitz et al 2010). In addition, this research finds that students
245
are less able to spontaneously produce the scientific causes of climate change without
prompting in an interview setting. The students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set were able to
mention some solutions to climate change matching the climate action model, but the
related answers were often ineffective in their vagueness. Also common was the mention
of unrelated or otherwise ineffective actions such as recycling and the reduction of
aerosol can use.
The students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set had the lowest average Knowledge
Score on the Survey of Student Understanding of Climate Change (17.13 out of 35) and
this Knowledge Score was close to the mean score of all of the students surveyed (17.84).
In the Knowledge Factor Subscores the students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set were shown
to have the least scientific understanding, the most issue confusion, and the greatest belief
in the natural causes of climate change. The levels of acceptance in this group were
similar to those of the Sci/Non-Env Set, and this group also had the highest self-identified
ignorance.
Overall the students in the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set hold the mental models of
climate change least similar to the scientific model and climate action model as compared
to the other three Sets in this study. It is also likely that these mental models are not well-
developed enough to make informed decisions about climate change action and policy
and the gaps and misinformation in these students’ mental models need to be addressed
through education and better climate change communication. These findings are
especially discouraging given that the Non-Sci/Non-Env. Set is expected to be the most
representative of the majority of college students and, as soon-to-be college graduates, the
better-educated portions of the United States public.
246
The Influence of Science Major and Environmental Group Membership
Through the analysis of the four Sets and their mental models of climate change, it
becomes possible to separate and examine the influences of science major and
environmental group membership on student mental models. Each of these factors is
observed to have a distinct impact on a student’s mental model and on its similarity to the
scientific model. It was hypothesized for this dissertation that the combination of a
climate-related science major and environmental group membership would produce the
students most capable of addressing climate change, and the findings of this research
support this hypothesis. In discussing the mental models observed in the four Sets, it
becomes apparent that enrollment in a science related major increases a student’s
understanding of the physical processes involved in climate change, but does not
necessarily influence a student’s concern for climate change, understanding of the
scientific consensus, or belief in the anthropogenic nature of climate change. Membership
in an environmental group, on the other hand, was shown to have an inverse effect,
increasing a students concern and conviction regarding humanity’s role in climate change,
but not necessarily influencing a student’s understanding of the mechanisms.
It was also hypothesized that enrollment in a climate-related science major would
have a stronger influence on a student’s understanding of climate change than belonging
to an environmental group. By the measure created for this study, the Knowledge Score,
which included all four elements of the predefined climate science model as well as the
climate action model, this hypothesis was disproven. Statistical analysis of the
Knowledge Score results show that environmental group membership is a stronger
indicator of high Knowledge Score than is enrollment in a science major. The hypothesis
was based on the assumption that climate-related science majors would hold mental
247
models of climate change matching more parts of the scientific model than just the
physical processes. As this dissertation shows results show, this is not the case.
The implications of these findings are numerous and should be of interest to,
among others, both science educators and environmental groups. Within science
education, these results indicate that too little emphasis is placed on the scientific
consensus regarding the anthropogenic nature of current, rapid climate change. Within
environmental groups, and perhaps student environmental groups in particular, more
information is necessary regarding the scientific processes of climate change. It is
possible that these groups, and others attempting to disseminate information about climate
change, are assuming a level of understanding regarding the science of climate change
that does not exist in their target audience. These and other implications of this research
will be further discussed in the Conclusions chapter.
Source Types and Source Evaluation
Source Use
As was hypothesized in the Research Design and Methodology chapter of this
dissertation, students cited class and the Internet as their main sources of information
about climate change. Class was the most frequently cited source, with nearly 70% of the
students surveyed naming it as one of their sources. Class was often used in combination
with the Internet or news media, as well as on its own. Few students cited only the
Internet or only the news as sources of information in the survey results. Interestingly, the
students who participated in the semi-structured interviews were less likely to name class
as a source of information, particularly in Sets 3 and 4. During the interview process a
handful of students mentioned other sources of climate change information, including
248
campus events and scientific journals. In general these were not considered important or
regularly used sources in amongst the survey respondents.
Students stated that they do not often see coverage of climate change in the news
and many indicated that they do not take the initiative to find information about climate
change if research is not assigned to them for a class. This observation may account for
students’ citation of class as a source of climate change information; they simply do not
look for information if it is not presented to them. The citation of class for incorrect
information, as is analyzed at the end of the Results chapter, is a disturbing trend. This
observation is likely related to the previously documented tenacity of preexisting mental
and cultural models and the tendencies of students and people in general to revert back to
their original mental models over time (D’Andrade 1992, Bly and Rummelhard 1999,
Mohan et al 2009). Despite the inherent difficulty in altering the incorrect mental models
of students regarding climate change, the fact that students infrequently look for
information on their own and cite class as their primary source of information further
highlights the need for universities and university educators to more effectively and more
directly tackle this issue.
Reliability Evaluation
The student participants in this study used a variety of methods to determine the
reliability of their climate change information resources and the material they receive
from those sources. Although a few of the semi-structured interview informants claimed
to trust the information they see in major news organizations because of their reputation, a
majority of the students had some further criteria by which they judged the information
they receive. Some of the methods students employ to evaluate the validity of information
249
are adequate, while others are less so. The most common issue in students’ information
gathering regarding climate change, however, is the lack thereof.
Frequently students perceive the inclusion of data and numbers, or a citation of a
scientist as a mark of validity in an article or resource. It can be argued that this is an
inadequate way to evaluate the reliability of information, given that the data or scientists
included may or may not represent the majority of the data or scientific opinion in the
field. Students also mentioned, and indicated on the survey, that seeing the same
information in multiple sources increases their trust in the validity of that information.
This is again a theoretically good practice, but it depends on the quality of the sources in
which they see this information repeated.
In evaluating Internet resources, students commonly use the website URL as an
indicator of reliability. Students specifically cited that websites ending in “.gov” and
“.edu” are more reliable sources of information. In some cases this list also included
“.org.” The Internet is a massive and important resource, but is also a mixed bag in terms
of quality of information. It is encouraging to see that students understand that not every
piece of information on the Internet is true, and that they apply some filtration to the
information they consider reliable. The use of “.edu” and “.gov” as reliability indicators is
a good start in this process, although certainly not perfect, and 64% of the survey
respondents agreed that websites including these domains are the most trustworthy. The
“.edu” site does not necessarily mean that the writer is an expert in the field about which
they are writing. The “.org” domain is far less trustworthy, however, as it stands for
“organization” and any organization can acquire a “.org” domain, regardless of validity or
reliability.
250
Several students participating in the interviews discussed more rigorous methods
of determining source reliability. These students mentioned scientific journal research,
examining the methodology by which a study is conducted, and looking at the raw data of
a particular cited study. Unfortunately, these students also stated with frequency that
although they are aware of the ways in which they can check the validity of their climate
change information, they rarely if ever do so. On the survey, a majority of students agreed
that they look for the scientific studies supporting what they see or hear on the news when
they look for information about climate change. A majority of the students also indicated
that they’ve heard about climate change, but they don’t look for further information. In
the interview process, many students admitted that they only research climate change if
they are assigned to do so for a class.
One further statement regarding source reliability, more commonly mentioned in
the Sets not including environmental group members, is that a source is more trustworthy
if it “shows both sides” of the conflict over climate change. On the survey a majority of
the students agreed with the corresponding item to this interview observation. Balance in
reporting, a tenant in journalism, is frequently seen as a hallmark of reliability due to its
longstanding implementation (Hoggan 2009). The mention of balance in student
responses indicates that conflict over climate change is something they see as valid, and is
an indicator of mental models in which this conflict plays a significant role. For most
topics with scientific consensus among relevant, leading scientists, the exclusion of a
conflicting opinion in media coverage would not be questioned. This balance in reporting
is therefore considered by some to actually be bias (Hoggan 2009). The environment in
which students have learned about climate change, as if it were a controversial political
251
issue rather than a scientific finding, has created mental models in which the issue is seen
to be justifiably contentious, despite scientific evidence to the contrary.
In summary, students most frequently cite class as their main source of
information regarding climate change. Students are more likely to see climate change
information on the Internet than in other media sources, and commonly state that their
information comes from a combination of sources. The students in this study use a variety
of methods to judge the validity of the information they receive about climate change, but
infrequently perform further research or fact check the information they receive, whether
or not they perceive the initial source as reliable.
252
Chapter 8
CONCLUSIONS
Global climate change is likely the greatest environmental issue humanity has ever
faced. Excessive anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have increased the
atmospheric absorption of outgoing radiation, leading to an increase in the mean global
temperatures and a change in the global climate. The consequences of climate change will
affect every aspect of human civilization, as well as creating massive imbalances and
shifts in the natural systems. The effects of climate change will fall excessively upon the
poor, and will be a burden on today’s young and future generations. Per Capita, the
United States contributes a disproportionately large portion of anthropogenic emissions.
The participation of the American public, politically, culturally and personally, will be
essential for affecting the future outcome of climate change, and the young, highly
educated individuals currently enrolled in colleges and universities are an invaluable part
of that American public.
Student understanding and mental models of climate change will play a vital role
in their ability to effectively address the issue, as both voters and consumers. This
dissertation suggests that the undergraduate students at the University of Delaware and
the University of Maryland hold mental models of climate change sufficiently different
from the scientific models of climate change and climate action as to render these
students ill prepared to tackle the root causes and inevitable effects. Although students
enrolled in a climate science related major and belonging to an environmental group may
have mental models complete enough to effectively act on the issue, these students are in
253
the minority. The vast majority of students display gaps or misinformation in their climate
change models ranging from confusion of climate change with other environmental issues
to misunderstanding of the scientific consensus and the need to act.
These findings all point to the need to reevaluate current education and
communication methods. Addressing these students’ flawed mental models will require
the application of the best knowledge available on cultural models and science education
given existing incorrect mental models. Literature specifically addressing climate change
understanding and communication exists in mental model theory, and continued research
is likely necessary. Mental models are notoriously elastic in their ability to rebound to the
starting position after intervention, and a myriad of factors are shown to contribute to the
formation of these mental models. Methods of teaching despite these resilient
preconceptions must be developed and tested.
The findings of this dissertation should be used to inform climate change
communication and education through an interdisciplinary approach, including cultural
anthropology, risk analysis, and communication. Mental model research shows that
students need to be made aware of the misconceptions in their mental model in order to
address them (Gautier et al 2006). This research outlines those misconceptions so that
they can be more effectively addressed. This study also finds that students are relatively
unaware of the local consequences of climate change, and previous literature in climate
change communication indicates that understanding the consequences they will
personally see will heighten their concern and personal action (Lorenzoni and Pidgeon
2006) Increasing student will to act and take personal responsibility will also require an
understanding of the effectiveness of their actions (Kellstedt et al 2008), and this
254
dissertation suggests that students are only vaguely aware of how their personal actions
relate to climate change.
Reconstructing student mental models so that they more closely match the
scientific model will require the application of research in increasing scientific literacy
and teaching socio-scientific issues. Current work in risk analysis and communication can
also play an important role in this process. Communication work by Bostrom and Lashof
suggests a totally new approach to the terminology of climate change in an attempt to
move away from the confusion in public mental models associated with the “greenhouse
effect.” The issue confusion in student mental models seen in this dissertation leads to a
similar conclusion that the current terminology is too ingrained with other atmospheric
environmental processes like air pollution and ozone depletion, and that a new approach
is needed. These are only a few examples of the ways in which the inaccuracies and faulty
logic of student mental models observed in this dissertation can be addressed. The current
literature in education, communication, cultural anthropology and risk analysis all contain
pieces to the puzzle that can be applied to increase climate change literacy in
undergraduate students and help them to become effective advocates for the future of the
global climate.
In addition to increasing the literacy of current undergraduate students, it is also
important to ensure that future undergraduates reach a higher level of understanding prior
to entering the universities. When examining the tenacity of flawed mental models, both
in this dissertation and in prior literature, it is apparent that addressing the gaps and
misconceptions effectively will take a great deal of effort. It may be better to invest this
effort at an earlier stage of students’ education. Increasing climate change literacy in
grade school students will not only be helpful in producing undergraduates more capable
255
of dealing with climate change, but could also help to solidify correct mental models in
students who do not choose to go to college.
The findings of this dissertation illuminate the need for a great deal of further
research. This study covers only two universities. Although there is no reason to think
these to be outliers from the general US student population, a broader sample of
university students would provide more certainty that these findings are in fact more
broadly applicable. Similarly, it would be useful to see if the general US population
shares these views and how these results compare across countries. For such studies, it
would be helpful to develop a standardized and validated test of climate change science
literacy could be included in future iterations of this research to more accurately measure
and compare scientific understanding of climate change in undergraduate students.
Examination of the information covered in classes and gained from environmental group
participation could be used to more specifically evaluate the effect these variables have on
mental models.
Finally, it would be a great practical value to test two interventions based on the
findings of this research. The first of these would test college educational materials that
could be used to reduce faulty mental models, and broaden the number of students with
models similar to the scientific model. Once developed, these educational approaches
could be studied in a classroom setting with a learning intervention experiment or a
specifically designed climate change communication course. The second intervention
might be done in climate communication by an environmental organization, either for its
members or in public communication. Again, materials could be prepared based on
findings of this dissertation along with public messaging theory. These materials could be
256
tested in focus groups initially, then by survey both before and after public information
campaigns.
The findings of this dissertation indicate that although environmental values and
climate change concern are strong in the undergraduate students studied here, and
potentially more general in many United States universities, significant improvement is
needed in students’ understanding of the various parts of climate change science and
action for students’ mental models to match the scientific models of climate change and
of effective action. Climate change policy will require substantial changes in policy, and
in democratic countries it will require citizens with mental models more similar to the
scientific model. Universities prepare current and future citizens, professionals, leaders
and decision makers. Educational improvements in the area of climate change are
required for these important individuals be able to address humanity’s and this country’s
role in this issue and to move towards successful mitigation and adaptation in the future.
257
REFERENCES
Acar, Omer, Lutfullah Turkmen, and Anita Roychoudhury. 2010. “Student Difficulties in
Socioscientific Argumentation and Decision Making Research Findings: Crossing
the borders of two research lines.” International Journal of Science Education
32(9): 1191-1206.
Agar, Michael H. 1980. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to
Ethnography. Academic Press. New York, NY.
Bernard, Russell H. 2002. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. Third Edition. Altamira Press. Lanham, MD.
Bly, Benjamin Martin and David E. Rumelhart. Eds. 1999. Cognitive Science. Academic
Press. San Diego, CA.
Bostrom, Ann et al. 1994. What Do People Know About Climate Change? 1. Mental
Models, 2. Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople. Risk Analysis 14(6):959-982.
Carvalho, Anabela. 2007. Ideological Cultures and Media Discourses on Scientific
Knowledge: Re-reading News on Climate Change. Public Understanding of
Science 16: 223-243.
Corbin, Juliet and Anselm Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research. Third Edition.
Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Corcoran, T.B., Mosher, F.A., & Rogat, A.D. 2009. “Learning progressions in science:
An evidence-based approach to reform.” CPRE Report. Philadelphia, PA:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Crowley, Thomas J. 2000. Causes of Climate Change Over the Last 1000 Years. Science
289: 270-277.
Crumley, Carole L. Ed. with A. Elizabeth vanDeventer and Joseph J. Fletcher. 2001. New
Directions in Anthropology and the Environment. Altamira Press. Lanham, MD.
258
D’Andrade, Roy. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge
University Press. New York, NY.
D’Andrade, Roy and Claudia Strauss. Eds. 1992. Human Motives and Cultural Models.
Cambridge University Press. New York, NY.
“Schemas and Motivation” D’Andrade. 23-44.
Dow, Kristin and Thomas E. Downing. 2006. The Atlas of Climate Change: Mapping the
World’s Greatest Challenge. University of California Press, Los Angeles.
Duncan, Ravit Golan and Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver. 2009. Editorial: “Learning Progressions
Aligning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment.” Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 46(6): 606-609. Dunlap, Riley and Kent D. Van Liere. 1978. “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’: A
Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results.” Journal of
Environmental Education 9:10-19.
Dunlap, Riley E. 2006. “Show Us the Data: The questionable Empirical Foundations of
‘The Death of Environmentalism’ Thesis.” Organization & Environment, Vol.
19(1): 88-102.
Durant, John R., Geoffrey A. Evans and Geoffrey P. Thomas. 1989. Public Understanding
of Science. Nature 340: 11-14.
Durant R. F. and J. S. Legge Jr. 2005. Public opinion, risk perceptions, and genetically
modified food regulatory policy. European Union Politics, 6(2), 181-200.
Feierabend, Timo and Ingo Eilks. 2010. “Raising students’ perception of the relevance of
science teaching and promoting communication and evaluation authentic and
controversial socioscientific issues in the Framework of climate change.” Science
Education International 21(3): 176-196.
Field, Christopher B. and Michael R. Raupach. Eds. 2004. The Global Carbon Cycle:
Integrating Humans, Climate and the Natural World. Island Press. Washington,
DC.
Gallup Poll. 2007. “Gallup’s Pulse of Democracy: Environment.” Gallup Poll News
Service. Washington, DC.
259
Gelbspan, Ross. 1997. The Heat is On: The High Stakes Battle over Earth’s Threatened
Climate. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, MA.
Gautier, Catherine, Katie Deutsch, and Stacy Rebich. 2006. Misconceptions About the
Greenhouse Effect. Journal of Geoscience Education 54(3): 386-395. Hoggan, James with Richard Littlemore. 2009. Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny
Global Warming. Greystone Books. Vancouver, BC.
Holland, Dorothy and Naomi Quinn. Eds. 1987. Cultural Models in Language and
Thought. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY.
Holland, Dorothy and Naomi Quinn. 1987. “Culture and Cognition.” Cultural Models in
Language and Thought. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY. p. 3-40.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.
Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.
Isakson, I.S.A. et al. 2009. Atmosphere Composition Change: Climate-Chemistry
Interactions. Atmospheric Environment 43: 5138-5192.
Jeffries, Helen, Martin Stanisstreet and Edward Boyes. 2001. Knowledge about the
Greenhouse Effect: Have College Students Improved? Research in Science and
Technological Education 19(2): 205-221.
Joos, Fortunate and I. Colin Prentice. 2004. “A Paleo-Perspective on Changes in
Atmospheric CO2 and Climate.” The Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Humans,
Climate and the Natural World. Island Press. Washington, DC. p. 165-186.
Kellstedt, Paul M., Sammy Zahran, and Arnold Vedlitz. 2008. Personal Efficacy, the
Information Environment, and Attitudes toward Global Warming and Climate
Change in the United States. Risk Analysis 28(1): 113-126.
Kempton, Willett. 1987. “Two Theories of Home Heat Control.” Kempton. Cultural
Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY.
p. 222-242.
260
Kempton, Willett, James S. Boster and Jennifer A. Hartley. 1995. Environmental Values
in American Culture. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
Kempton, Willett. 1991. “Public Understanding of Global Warming.” Society and
Natural Resources 4:331-345.
Kempton, Willett. 1993. “Will Public Environmental Concern Lead to Action on Global
Warming?” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 18:217-245.
Klosterman, Michelle L. and Troy D. Sadler. 2009. “Multi-level Assessment of Scientific
Content Knowledge Gains Associated with Socioscientific Issues-based
Instruction.” International Journal of Science Education, Research Report.
Knight, David. 2006. Public Understanding of Science: A History of Communicating
Scientific Ideas. Routledge. New York, NY.
Kolsto, Stein D. 2000. “Scientific Literacy for Citizenship: Tools for Dealing with the
Science Dimension of Controversial Socioscientific Issues” Science Education
85(3): 291-310.
LeCompte, Margaret D. and Jean J. Schensul. 1999. Designing and Conducting
Ethnographic Research. Altamira Press. Walnut Creek, CA.
Leiserovitz, Anthony A. 2005. American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change
Dangerous? Risk Analysis 25(6): 1433-1442.
Leiserovitz, Anothony. 2006. Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences:
The Role of Affect, Imagery and Values. Climatic Change 77: 45-72.
Leiserovitz, Anthony. 2007. “Communicating the risks of global warming: American risk
perceptions, affective images, and interpretive communities” Creating a Climate
for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change.
Cambridge University Press, New York. p. 44-63
Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N. & Marlon, J.R. 2010. Americans’ Knowledge of Climate
Change. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change
Communication.
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateChangeKnowledge2010.pdf
261
Lewandowsky et al. 2013. The Pivotal Role of Perceived Scientific Consensus in the
Acceptance of Science. Nature Climate Change 3: 399-404.
Lorenzoni, Irene and Nick F. Pidgeon. 2006. Public Views on Climate Change: European
and USA Perspectives. Climatic Change 77: 73-95.
Lynas, Mark. 2008. Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. National Geographic
Society, Washington D.C.
Manly B. F. J. ed. 1994. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer. Chapman & Hall,
London, UK.
McCaffrey, Mark S. and Susan M. Buhr. 2008. Clarifying Climate Confusion: Addressing
Systematic Holes, Cognitive Gaps, and Misconceptions Through Climate
Literacy. Physical Geography 29(6): 512-528.
McCarthy, James J. et al eds. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptations and
Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, W.A. 2009. Developing a multi-year learning
progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 46: 675–698.
Monbiot, George. 2007. Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. South End Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Moser, Susanne C. and Lisa Dilling eds. 2007. Creating a Climate for Change:
Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Mudditt, Allison. 1996. Cognitive Science: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers.
Cambridge, MA.
Olsen et al. 1992. Viewing the World Ecologically. Westview Press. Boulder, CO.
Oreskes, Naomi. 2004. Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate
Change. Science 306 (5702): 1686.
Oreskes, Naomi and Erik Conway, 2011. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of
Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.
Bloomsbury: London.
262
Pearce, Fred. 2007. With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in
Climate Change. Beacon Press, Boston.
Reynolds, Travis et al. 2010. Now What Do People Know About Climate Change?
Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople. Risk Analysis 30(10): 1520-1538.
Rogers, Yvonne, Andrew Rutherford and Peter A. Bibby. Eds. 1992. Models in the Mind:
Theory Perspective and Application. Academic Press. San Diego, CA.
Rosenberg, Stacy et al. 2010. Climate Change: A Profile of US Climate Perspectives.
Climatic Change 101: 311-329.
Sabine, Christopher L. et al. 2004. “Current Status and Past Trends of the Global Carbon
Cycle.” The Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Humans, Climate and the Natural
World. Island Press. Washington, DC. p. 17-44
Sadler, Troy D. 2009. “Situated Learning in Science Education: socioscientific issues as
contexts for practice.” Studies in Science Education 45(1): 1-42
Shellenberger, M. and T. Nordhaus. 2004. “The Death of Environmentalism.” Retrieved
from http://www.thebreakthrough.org. March 2010
Shepardson, Daniel P. et al. 2011. Students’ Conceptions about the Greenhouse Effect,
Global Warming and Climate Change. Climatic Change 104: 481-507.
Silverman, David and Amir Marvasti. 2008. Doing Qualitative Research: A
Comprehensive Guide. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sterman, John D. and Linda Booth Sweeney. 2007. Understanding!public!complacency!
about!climate!change:!adults’!mental!models!of!climate!change!violate!
conservation!of!matter.!Climatic(Change!80:!213N238.!
Sterman,!John!D.!2011.!Communicating!Climate!Change!Risks!in!a!Skeptical!World.!
Climatic(Change!108:!811N826.!
Theissen, Keven M. 2008. The Earth’s Record of Climate: A Focused-Topic Introductory
Course. Journal of Geoscience Education 56(4): 342-353.
Theissen, Kevin M. 2011. What to US Students Know About Climate Change? EOS 29
(51): 477-488.
263
Weingart, Peter, Anita Engels and Petra Pansegrau. 2000. Risks of Communication:
Discourses on Climate Change in Science, Politics, and the Mass Media. Public
Understanding of Science 9: 261-283.
Warner, Lucy. 2007. “Einstein, Roosevelt and the atom bomb: lessons learned for
scientists communicating climate change” Creating a Climate for Change:
Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge
University Press, New York. p. 167-179
White, Lynn. 1967. “The historical roots of our ecologic crisis” Science 155(3767): 1203-
1207.
Zeidler, Dana L. and Matthew Keefer. 2003. “The Role of Moral Reasoning and the
Status of Socioscientific Issues in Science Education.” The Role of Moral
Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education. Kluwer
Academic Publishers. Norwell, MA. p. 7-33.
Zia, Asim and Anne Marie Todd. 2010. Evaluating the Effects of Ideology on Public
Understanding of Climate Change Science: How to Improve Communication
Across Ideological Divides? Public Understanding of Science 19(6): 743-761.
264
Appendix A
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW BASE QUESTIONS
Intro: I am a graduate student here at UD and I am doing a study on students’ opinions on
the environment. Would you be willing to be interviewed? It takes about 15 minutes, but
you are free to elaborate on your answers and we can take as much time as you would
like. Your name will not be used in my report, so your answers are anonymous, and you
may stop the interview at any time.
The interview goes faster if I record it so that I don’t have to write down your answers as
we go. Do you mind if I record this interview?
1. When'someone'talks'about'“environmental'problems”'what'do'you'usually'
think'of?'
2. Do'you'think'it'is'important'to'protect'the'environment?'(Why'or'why'not)'
a. Do'you'think'environmental'concerns'are'ever'exaggerated?'Can'you'
give'an'example?'
3. Have'you'heard'of'‘climate'change’'or'the'‘greenhouse'effect’'and'if'so,'what'
have'you'heard'about'it?'(If'no,'“Have'you'heard'of'global'warming?”'If'no,'
skip'to'5'and'end'interview)'
a. Probes'if'needed:'Can'you'remember'any'specifics'about'how'climate'
change'works,'or'what'causes'climate'change?'
4. What'kinds'of'things'can'individuals'do'about'climate'change?''
a. What'about'governments?'
b. What'kinds'of'effects'will'these'actions'have?'
5. Where'do'you'get'most'of'your'information'about'climate'change?''(If'no'to'
number'3:'Where'do'you'get'most'of'your'information'about'environmental'
problems?'End'interview.')'
265
a. What'kind'of'information'does'this'source'give'you?''
b. How'do'you'decide'if'a'source'is'reliable?'
6. Do'any'of'the'sources'you'mentioned'conflict'with'one'another'in'what'they'
say'about'climate'change?'
a. If'you'ever'hear'conflicting'information'about'climate'change,'how'do'
you'decide'what'to'believe?'
7. Do'you'think'that'scientists'are'certain'about'climate'change?'
a. Do'you'get'a'sense'of'certainty'about'climate'change'from'the'media?'
b. What'about'the'public?'
c. What'do'you'believe?'
Is there anything else you’d like to discuss about climate change or other environmental
issues? Any other opinions you’d like to share or anything we haven’t covered? Thank
you so much for your time.
266
Appendix B
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SAMPLING TABLE
the Sci/Env Set: Science Majors and Environmental Group Members Pseudonym Major Env. Group
Lindsay Environmental Studies S4E8 May Environmental Engineering S4E Denise Biology and Wildlife
Conservation S4E
Susan Biology and Psychology Greenpeace Charlie Biology and History S4E Jasmine Chemistry S4E Gaston Chemistry S4E
the Sci/Non-Env Set: Science Majors and Non- Environmental Group Members Pseudonym Major Env. Group
Ben Geology None Consuela Geology None Eileen Environmental Science with
Ecology Concentration None
Jackie Energy and Environmental Policy
None
Dan Biology None Kyle Biochemistry None
the Non-Sci/Env Set: Non- Science Majors and Environmental Group Members 8 S4E is the abbreviation for Students for the Environment
267
Pseudonym Major Env. Group Alice Hotel and Restaurant
Management S4E
Renee Nursing S4E Lucille English High School Environmental
Group Joan Diatetics with Biology
Concentration S4E, New York Public Interest Research Group
Ariel Human Services S4E, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund
the Non-Sci/Non-Env Set: Non- Science Majors and Non- Environmental Group Members
Pseudonym Major Env. Group Zoe Studio Art None Terri English None Patrick Political Science None Anastasia Nursing None Michael Computer Science None Carlos Electrical Engineering None Elizabeth Early Childhood
Development None
Janet Geography None
268
Appendix C
SURVEY INVITATION EMAIL
Dear Student, My name is Jo Huxster and I am a graduate student here at the University of Delaware in the School of Marine Policy. For my thesis research, I am conducting surveys of undergraduate students and you have been selected to participate in my study. Your selection was based on your year in school and your major. The survey is conducted online and should take about 15 minutes to complete. It is about student opinions on environmental problems. Your answers will remain anonymous unless you choose to identify yourself at the end of the survey. If you do identify yourself, you your answers will still be anonymous in research report. Your response to this survey is extremely important and will not only be essential for my research and thesis, but may also help your university to better itself and its educational programs for current and future students. Please click on the link below to take the survey: Again, your response is extremely important to the success of my research. Thank you so much for your valuable time. Jo Huxster [email protected] School of Marine Policy College of Earth, Ocean and Environment University of Delaware
269
Appendix D
SURVEY OF STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Student Opinions on the Environment Q1.1 The following survey is about student opinions on the environment. The survey should take 10 or 15 minutes. The results will be used for thesis research and to advise the University about environmental concerns and education. Your answers will be kept anonymous. You can stop this survey at any time. If you have any questions about this survey, you can contact me, Joanna Huxster at [email protected]. If my answers are insufficient, you can contact my academic advisor, Willett Kempton, at [email protected]. Please proceed with the survey by clicking the "Next Question" button at the bottom right of this screen. After answering each question, click the "Next Question" button to move on. There are three sections in this survey and you will be given further directions at the beginning of each section. There is no "Back" button, so please be sure you have answered the question before you move on. Click "Next Question" to proceed with Section 1: Environmental Concerns Q1.2 Which environmental problem or problems are you most concerned about? Please select up to 3 answers. ! Water'pollution'(1)'! Dumping'and'littering'(2)'! Climate'change'or'global'warming'(3)'! Deforestation'(4)'! Desertification'(5)'! Ocean'acidification'(6)'! Air'pollution'(7)'! Habitat'destruction'(8)'! Overfilled'landfills'and'seepage'(9)'! Endangered'species'extinction'(10)'! Ozone'depletion'(11)'
Q2.1 Section 2: Your Opinions on the Environment and Science. For this section, please read each statement carefully and decide how much you agree or disagree with that statement. If you agree with the statement, or believe that it is correct, select either
270
"Strongly Agree" or "Agree." If you disagree with the statement, or believe that it is incorrect, select either "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree." If you do not agree or disagree with the statement, or do not know if a statement is correct, select "Neither Agree nor Disagree." This is not a test, these statements are about your personal opinions. Q2.2 I believe that it is important to protect the environment. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.3 Sometimes environmental concerns are exaggerated, but I think the exaggeration is justified because the environment is very important. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.4 Environmental problems are not exaggerated, if anything they are understated. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.5 Sometimes when environmentalists are concerned about an issue, they exaggerate and stray from the facts " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
271
Q2.6 Protecting the environment is important, but I don't know enough or do enough about it. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.7 In some of the following questions, the words "climate change" will be used. These words are used in place of the phrase "global warming" and are meant to represent the same thing. Please continue by clicking the "Next Question" button. Q2.8 I don’t know very much about the science behind climate change or other environmental problems because I don’t study them in my classes. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.9 I think that climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science supports. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.10 Scientists are highly certain that humans are definitely the cause of the current, rapid climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
272
Q2.11 Climate change is happening because we are depleting the ozone layer, and that lets in more heat from the sun. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.12 Climate change is caused by the greenhouse effect. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.13 I know that changes in the atmosphere cause climate change, but I don’t know very much about the scientific processes that make it happen. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.14 Gas and chemical emissions from our cars deplete the ozone and cause climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
273
Q2.15 Toxic pollution in the atmosphere causes climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.16 Greenhouse gases make the hole in the ozone layer worse. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.17 Climate change is a very complicated issue, with many parts that we cannot fully understand, including the earth’s natural cycles. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.18 Climate change is caused by an increased amount of gases like carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
274
Q2.19 Climate change involves magnetic field and fluctuations in the sun, and other things beyond our control, and those things are bigger factors than greenhouse gas emissions. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.20 Natural things like volcanoes and water vapor have more of an impact on climate change than human actions. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.21 Climate change happens because we release chemicals from aerosol cans into the atmosphere. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.22 Nuclear power plants create pollution that contributes to climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
275
Q2.23 Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps heat and causes climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.24 No one has ever really explained to me how the greenhouse effect works, or if they have I can’t really remember " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.25 Even though it’s sometimes debated, I feel that its pretty well documented that humans have released too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.26 What kinds of physical environmental effects do you think climate change will have? Please list as many as you can think of: Q2.27 I’ve heard that driving less and using bicycles and public transportation are ways to reduce climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
276
Q2.28 The government should better educate us about environmental problems " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.29 The government has too many other important issues to deal with right now to focus on climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.30 The best way to deal with climate change would be to reduce or eliminate carbon-based fuel sources " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.31 Individuals can give political support to clean energy initiatives to help deal with climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
277
Q2.32 The government could tax carbon emissions or introduce a system of cap and trade in an effort to reduce climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.33 I would appreciate being given information about climate change that has less scientific jargon and is easier for me to understand. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.34 As a college student, my actions don’t affect the environment or climate change that much, but when I am doing bigger things, like owning a home, that’s when my decisions will matter. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.35 The government can reduce climate change by regulating toxic pollution. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
278
Q2.36 I can help prevent climate change by not buying or using aerosol cans. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.37 Individuals can reduce climate change by not buying gas-guzzling cars and instead maybe owning a more fuel-efficient car or a hybrid. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.38 The U.S. government could start dealing with climate change by signing the Kyoto Protocol. " Strongly'Disagree'(1)'" Disagree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Agree'(4)'" Strongly'Agree'(5)'
Q2.39 Cutting down on waste and pollution will help stop the melting of the ice caps. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
279
Q2.40 We need to change our transportation system, like creating more public transportation, in order to make a big impact on reducing climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.41 I am not sure how my personal actions specifically affect climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.42 I’ve heard that using efficient light bulbs, turning off electric appliances and insulating my house are all ways I can reduce my contribution to climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.43 The government could put more resources into developing alternative and renewable sources of energy in order to reduce climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
280
Q2.44 Recycling is essential to reducing climate change because it keeps plastics out of landfills and reduces production. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.45 I think climate change is a serious issue, but I know that I don’t know enough or do enough about it. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.46 Most of my information about climate change comes from the news shows on TV. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.47 I get a lot of information about the environment from news websites like CNN or MSNBC. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
281
Q2.48 I tend to believe what I see and hear on major news networks because of their reputation. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.49 I can tell if an Internet source is reliable by the last part of their URL. For example, sites that are .edu or .gov are the most trustworthy. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.50 When I look for information about climate change, I try to find the original scientific studies and data backing up the things I see in the news. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.51 I hear people talk about climate change but I don’t really look for information about it. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
282
Q2.52 Most of the information I get about climate change comes from surfing the internet. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.53 I’ve seen and heard arguments both for and against the existence of climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.54 I get my climate change information from newspapers, either in print or online. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.55 I trust the information I get about climate change if I see the same information in multiple sources. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
283
Q2.56 I think a source is reliable if it shows both sides of the climate change debate. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.57 I have had to research climate change for a class before. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.58 I hear a lot about environmental issues just being on a college campus. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.59 On campus I hear a lot more about other environmental issues than I do about climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
284
Q2.60 In my classes I’ve learned about climate change and the greenhouse effect. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.61 My classes and information has focused more on the non-human causes of climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.62 From my sources I’ve learned that too much emphasis is put on the human element of climate change, rather than the natural elements. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.63 I don’t trust a source that sounds too certain about climate change because I know there is a lot of uncertainty. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
285
Q2.64 I get information about climate change from environmental websites. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.65 I have a professor who doesn’t really “believe” in climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.66 When I read an article about climate change, I trust it more if it quotes or references a scientist. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.67 Most sources I see discuss the debate about whether or not climate change exists, but I think in general they agree that it does. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
286
Q2.68 I think that it’s generally pretty well accepted that climate change is occurring " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.69 I think that scientists are certain that the climate is changing, but not about who or what is responsible. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.70 The climate has changed a lot in the past, so I think we might be making too big of a deal about how it’s changing now. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.71 I think the media is certain that climate change is happening and that humans are responsible. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
287
Q2.72 There is a lot of conflicting information in the media about climate change. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.73 I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face today, and I think that it gets too much press. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.74 Even if the science isn’t clear to me, I still think it’s better to act and be safe rather than sorry. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q2.75 It’s hard for scientists to be certain about anything, but I think the patterns and trends that they’re seeing in climate change have them pretty convinced. " Strongly'Agree'(1)'" Agree'(2)'" Neither'Agree'nor'Disagree'(3)'" Disagree'(4)'" Strongly'Disagree'(5)'
Q3.1 The following questions are designed to get a little more information about who has taken this survey. If you are uncomfortable answering any of the questions in this section, you may skip them.
288
Q3.2 Please select your major, or the major you in which you have the most course work, from the pull down menu below. " Please'select'a'major'or'area'of'study'(1)'" Accounting'(2)'" Agricultural'Education'(3)'" Agriculture'&'Natural'Rsrcs'(4)'" Animal'and'Food'Sciences'(5)'" Animal'Science'(6)'" Anthropology'(7)'" Anthropology'Education'(8)'" Apparel'Design'(9)'" Applied'Music'^'Instrumental'(10)'" Applied'Music'^'Piano'(11)'" Applied'Music'^'Voice'(12)'" Applied'Nutrition'(13)'" Art'(14)'" Art'Conservation'(15)'" Art'History'(16)'" Athletic'Training'(17)'" Biochemistry'(18)'" Biological'Science'Education'(19)'" Biological'Sciences'(20)'" Biomedical'Engineering'(21)'" Black'American'Studies'(22)'" Chemical'Engineering'(23)'" Chemistry'(24)'" Chemistry'Education'(25)'" Civil'Engineering'(26)'" Cognitive'Science'(27)'" Communication'(28)'" Computer'Engineering'(29)'" Computer'Science'(30)'" Continental'European'Studies'(31)'" Criminal'Justice'(32)'" Dietetics'(33)'" Early'Childhood'Education'(34)'" Earth'Science'Education'(35)'
289
" East'Asian'Studies'(36)'" Economics'(37)'" Electrical'Engineering'(38)'" Elementary'Teacher'Education'(39)'" Energy'&'Environmental'Policy'(40)'" Engineering'Technology'(41)'" English'(42)'" English'Education'(43)'" Entomology'(44)'" Environmental'Engineering'(45)'" Environmental'Science'(46)'" Environmental'Soil'Science'(47)'" Environmental'Studies'(48)'" European'Studies'(49)'" Exercise'Science'(50)'" Fashion'Merchandising'(51)'" Finance'(52)'" Fine'Arts'(53)'" Food'&'Agribusiness'Mktg'&'Mgt'(54)'" Food'Science'(55)'" Food'Science'and'Technology'(56)'" Foreign'Languages'&Literatures'(57)'" French'Education'(58)'" French/Political'Science'(59)'" Geography'(60)'" Geology'(61)'" German/Political'Science'(62)'" Health'and'Physical'Education'(63)'" Health'Behavior'Science'(64)'" Health'Studies'(65)'" History'(66)'" History'and'Foreign'Languages'(67)'" History'Education'(68)'" HRIM'(69)'" Human'Services'(70)'" Human'Srvcs,'Educ'&'Pub'Policy'(71)'" Information'Systems'(72)'
290
" International'Business'Studies'(73)'" International'Relations'(74)'" Italian'Education'(75)'" Landscape'Horticulture'(76)'" Landscape'Horticulture'&Design'(77)'" Latin'American'Studies'(78)'" Leadership'(79)'" Liberal'Studies'(80)'" Management'(81)'" Management'Information'Systems'(82)'" Marine'Science'(83)'" Marketing'(84)'" Material'Culture'Preservation'(85)'" Mathematics'(86)'" Mathematics'and'Economics'(87)'" Mathematics'Education'(88)'" Mechanical'Engineering'(89)'" Medical'Technology'(90)'" Music'(91)'" Music'Educ'^'General/Choral'(92)'" Music'Education'^'Instrumental'(93)'" Music'Theory'and'Composition'(94)'" Natural'Resource'Management'(95)'" Neuroscience'(96)'" Nursing'(97)'" Nutritional'Sciences'(98)'" Operations'Management'(99)'" Org'&'Comm'Leadership'(100)'" Pharmacy'Interest'(101)'" Philosophy'(102)'" Physics'(103)'" Physics'Education'(104)'" Plant'Science'(105)'" Political'Science'(106)'" Political'Science'Education'(107)'" Pre^Vet'Medicine'&'Anml'Biosc'(108)'" Psychology'(109)'
291
" Psychology'Education'(110)'" Public'Policy'(111)'" Quantitative'Biology'(112)'" Resource'Economics'(113)'" Sociology'(114)'" Sociology'Education'(115)'" Spanish'Education'(116)'" Spanish/Political'Science'(117)'" Sport'Management'(118)'" Statistics'(119)'" Theatre'Production'(120)'" University'Studies'(121)'" Visual'Communication'(122)'" Wildlife'Conservation'(123)'" Women's'Studies'(124)'
Q3.3 Do you belong to, or have you ever belonged to, an environmental group? " Yes'(1)'" No'(2)'
Q3.4 Do you belong to a student environmental group? " Yes'(1)'" No'(2)'
Q3.5 When you were growing up did your parents belong to an environmental group? " Yes'(1)'" No'(2)'
Q3.6 What is your gender? " Male'(1)'" Female'(2)'" Trans/Other'(3)'
292
Q3.7 With what race or ethnicity do you most identify? " African'American'or'Black'(1)'" American'Indian'or'Alaska'Native'(2)'" Asian'(3)'" Caucasian'or'White,'Non'Hispanic'(4)'" Hispanic'(5)'" Native'Hawaiian'or'other'Pacific'Islander'(6)'" Other'(7)'____________________'
Q3.8 Will you be graduating in either spring or summer 2011? " Yes'(1)'" No'(2)'
Q3.9 Would you be interested in being interviewed for this study? If so, please enter your email address in the space below. Your answers to this survey will not be associated or reported with the email address you provide. Q4.1 Please enter any further comments you would like to make about environmental issues or this study below.
293
Appendix E
SURVEY VARIABLE GROUPINGS
Some survey statements fit into more than one category and are therefore listed
under multiple headings. Opinion Variables Q2.2 I believe that it is important to protect the environment
Q2.3 Sometimes environmental concerns are exaggerated, but I think the exaggeration is
justified because the environment is very important.
Q2.4 Environmental problems are not exaggerated, if anything they are understated.
Q2.5 Sometimes when environmentalists are concerned about an issue, they exaggerate
and stray from the facts
Q2.6 Protecting the environment is important, but I don't know enough or do enough
about it.
Q2.9 I think that climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science
supports.
Q2.13 I know that changes in the atmosphere cause climate change, but I don’t know very
much about the scientific processes that make it happen.
Q2.17 Climate change is a very complicated issue, with many parts that we cannot fully
understand, including the earth’s natural cycles.
Q2.25 Even though it’s sometimes debated, I feel that its pretty well documented that
humans have released too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Q2.28 The government should better educate us about environmental problems.
Q2.29 The government has too many other important issues to deal with right now to
focus on climate change.
294
Q2.33 I would appreciate being given information about climate change that has less
scientific jargon and is easier for me to understand.
Q2.41 I am not sure how my personal actions specifically affect climate change.
Q2.45 I think climate change is a serious issue, but I know that I don’t know enough or
do enough about it.
Q2.48 I tend to believe what I see and hear on major news networks because of their
reputation.
Q2.51 I hear people talk about climate change but I don’t really look for information
about it.
Q2.56 I think a source is reliable if it shows both sides of the climate change debate.
Q2.63 I don’t trust a source that sounds too certain about climate change because I know
there is a lot of uncertainty.
Q2.66 When I read an article about climate change, I trust it more if it quotes or
references a scientist.
Q2.67 Most sources I see discuss the debate about whether or not climate change exists,
but I think in general they agree that it does.
Q2.68 I think that it’s generally pretty well accepted that climate change is occurring.
Q2.69 I think that scientists are certain that the climate is changing, but not about who or
what is responsible.
Q2.70 The climate has changed a lot in the past, so I think we might be making too big of
a deal about how it’s changing now.
Q2.71 I think the media is certain that climate change is happening and that humans are
responsible.
Q2.72 There is a lot of conflicting information in the media about climate change.
Q2.73 I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face
today, and I think that it gets too much press.
Q2.74 Even if the science isn’t clear to me, I still think it’s better to act and be safe rather
than sorry.
295
Q2.75 It’s hard for scientists to be certain about anything, but I think the patterns and
trends that they’re seeing in climate change have them pretty convinced.
Knowledge Variables
Correct Statements
Q2.10 Scientists are highly certain that humans are definitely the cause of the current,
rapid climate change.
Q2.12 Climate change is caused by the greenhouse effect.
Q2.18 Climate change is caused by an increased amount of gases like carbon dioxide and
methane in the atmosphere.
Q2.23 Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps heat
and causes climate change.
Q2.25 Even though it’s sometimes debated, I feel that its pretty well documented that
humans have released too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Q2.27 I’ve heard that driving less and using bicycles and public transportation are ways to
reduce climate change.
Q2.30 The best way to deal with climate change would be to reduce or eliminate carbon-
based fuel sources.
Q2.31 Individuals can give political support to clean energy initiatives to help deal with
climate change.
Q2.32 The government could tax carbon emissions or introduce a system of cap and trade
in an effort to reduce climate change.
Q2.37 Individuals can reduce climate change by not buying gas-guzzling cars and instead
maybe owning a more fuel-efficient car or a hybrid.
Q2.38 The U.S. government could start dealing with climate change by signing the Kyoto
Protocol.
Q2.40 We need to change our transportation system, like creating more public
transportation, in order to make a big impact on reducing climate change.
296
Q2.42 I’ve heard that using efficient light bulbs, turning off electric appliances and
insulating my house are all ways I can reduce my contribution to climate change.
Q2.43 The government could put more resources into developing alternative and
renewable sources of energy in order to reduce climate change.
Q2.68 I think that it’s generally pretty well accepted that climate change is occurring.
Q2.74 Even if the science isn’t clear to me, I still think it’s better to act and be safe rather
than sorry.
Q2.75 It’s hard for scientists to be certain about anything, but I think the patterns and
trends that they’re seeing in climate change have them pretty convinced.
Incorrect Statements
Q2.9 I think that climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science supports.
Q2.11 Climate change is happening because we are depleting the ozone layer, and that
lets in more heat from the sun.
Q2.14 Gas and chemical emissions from our cars deplete the ozone and cause climate
change.
Q2.15 Toxic pollution in the atmosphere causes climate change.
Q2.16 Greenhouse gases make the hole in the ozone layer worse.
Q2.19 Climate change involves magnetic field and fluctuations in the sun, and other
things beyond our control, and those things are bigger factors than greenhouse gas
emissions.
Q2.20 Natural things like volcanoes and water vapor have more of an impact on climate
change than human actions.
Q2.21 Climate change happens because we release chemicals from aerosol cans into the
atmosphere.
Q2.22 Nuclear power plants create pollution that contributes to climate change.
297
Q2.34 As a college student, my actions don’t affect the environment or climate change
that much, but when I am doing bigger things, like owning a home, that’s when my
decisions will matter.
Q2.35 The government can reduce climate change by regulating toxic pollution.
Q2.36 I can help prevent climate change by not buying or using aerosol cans.
Q2.39 Cutting down on waste and pollution will help stop the melting of the ice caps.
Q2.44 Recycling is essential to reducing climate change because it keeps plastics out of
landfills and reduces production.
Q2.62 From my sources I’ve learned that too much emphasis is put on the human element
of climate change, rather than the natural elements.
Q2.69 I think that scientists are certain that the climate is changing, but not about who or
what is responsible.
Q2.70 The climate has changed a lot in the past, so I think we might be making too big of
a deal about how it’s changing now.
Q2.73 I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face
today, and I think that it gets too much press.
Source Variables
Q2.8 I don’t know very much about the science behind climate change or other
environmental problems because I don’t study them in my classes.
Q2.24 No one has ever really explained to me how the greenhouse effect works, or if they
have I can’t really remember
Q2.46 Most of my information about climate change comes from the news shows on TV.
Q2.47 I get a lot of information about the environment from news websites like CNN or
MSNBC.
Q2.48 I tend to believe what I see and hear on major news networks because of their
reputation.
Q2.49 I can tell if an Internet source is reliable by the last part of their URL. For example,
sites that are .edu or .gov are the most trustworthy.
298
Q2.50 When I look for information about climate change, I try to find the original
scientific studies and data backing up the things I see in the news.
Q2.51 I hear people talk about climate change but I don’t really look for information
about it.
Q2.52 Most of the information I get about climate change comes from surfing the
internet.
Q2.53 I’ve seen and heard arguments both for and against the existence of climate
change.
Q2.54 I get my climate change information from newspapers, either in print or online.
Q2.55 I trust the information I get about climate change if I see the same information in
multiple sources.
Q2.56 I think a source is reliable if it shows both sides of the climate change debate.
Q2.57 I have had to research climate change for a class before.
Q2.58 I hear a lot about environmental issues just being on a college campus.
Q2.59 On campus I hear a lot more about other environmental issues than I do about
climate change.
Q2.60 In my classes I’ve learned about climate change and the greenhouse effect.
Q2.61 My classes and information has focused more on the non-human causes of climate
change.
Q2.62 From my sources I’ve learned that too much emphasis is put on the human element
of climate change, rather than the natural elements.
Q2.63 I don’t trust a source that sounds too certain about climate change because I know
there is a lot of uncertainty.
Q2.64 I get information about climate change from environmental websites.
Q2.65 I have a professor who doesn’t really “believe” in climate change.
Q2.66 When I read an article about climate change, I trust it more if it quotes or
references a scientist.
Q2.67 Most sources I see discuss the debate about whether or not climate change exists,
but I think in general they agree that it does.
299
Q2.71 I think the media is certain that climate change is happening and that humans are
responsible.
Q2.72 There is a lot of conflicting information in the media about climate change.
300
Appendix F
SURVEY VARIABLE FACTOR GROUPINGS
Knowledge Variable Statements in Factor Groupings
Knowledge Factor 1: “Predominantly Scientific Understanding” Statement Number from Survey
Loading Direction
Full Statement from Survey
2.37 Positive Individuals can reduce climate change by not buying gas-guzzling cars and instead maybe owning a more fuel-efficient car or hybrid
2.40 Positive We need to change our transportation system, like creating more public transportation, in order to make a big impact on reducing climate change
2.43 Positive The government could put more resources into developing alternative and renewable sources of energy in order to reduce climate change
2.25 Positive Even though it’s sometimes debated, I feel that it’s pretty well documented that humans have released too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
2.30 Positive The best way to deal with climate change would be to reduce or eliminate carbon-based fuel sources
2.32 Positive The government could tax carbon emissions or introduce a system of cap and trade in an effort to reduce climate change
2.23 Positive Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps heat and causes climate change
2.42 Positive I’ve heard that using efficient light bulbs, turning off electric appliances and insulating my house are all ways I can reduce my contribution to climate change
2.31 Positive Individuals can give political support to clean energy initiatives to help deal with climate change
2.74 Positive Even if the science isn’t clear to me, I think it’s better to act and be safe rather than sorry
2.27 Positive I’ve heard that driving less and using bicycles and public transportation are ways to reduce climate change
2.44 Positive Recycling is essential to reducing climate change because it keeps plastics out of landfills and reduces production
2.18 Positive Climate change is caused by an increased amount of gases like carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere
2.39 Positive Cutting down on waste and pollution will help stop the melting of the ice caps 2.75 Positive It’s hard for scientists to be certain about anything, but I think the patterns and
trends that they’re seeing in climate change have them pretty convinced 2.68 Positive I think that it’s generally pretty well accepted that climate change is occurring 2.35 Positive The government can reduce climate change by regulating toxic pollution
301
Knowledge Factor 2: “Issue Confusion” Statement Numbers from Survey
Loading Direction
Full Statement from Survey
2.11 Positive Climate change is happening because we are depleting the ozone layer, and that lets in more heat from the sun
2.14 Positive Gas and chemical emissions from our cars deplete the ozone and cause climate change
2.15 Positive Toxic pollution in the atmosphere causes climate change 2.16 Positive Greenhouse gases make the hole in the ozone layer worse 2.21 Positive Climate change happens because we release chemicals from aerosol cans
into the atmosphere 2.36 Positive I can help prevent climate change by not buying or using aerosol cans 2.22 Positive Nuclear power plants create pollution that contributes to climate change 2.35 Positive The government can reduce climate change by regulating toxic pollution
Knowledge Factor 3: “Natural Causes and Skepticism” Statement Number from Survey
Loading Direction
Full Statement from Survey
2.70 Positive The climate has changed a lot in the past, so I think we might be making too big a deal about how it’s changing now
2.19 Positive Climate change involves magnetic field and fluctuations in the sun, and other things beyond our control, and those things are bigger factors than greenhouse gas emissions
2.62 Positive From my sources I’ve learned that too much emphasis is put on the human element of climate change, rather than the natural elements
2.9 Positive I think that climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science supports
2.69 Positive I think that scientists are certain that the climate is changing, but not about who or what is responsible
2.73 Positive I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face today, and I think that it gets too much press
2.20 Positive Natural thing like volcanoes and water vapor have more of an impact on climate change than human actions
2.10 Negative Scientists are highly certain that humans are definitely the cause of current, rapid climate change
2.12 Negative Climate change is caused by the greenhouse effect
302
Opinion Variable Statements in Factor Groupings
Opinion Factor 1: “Careful Acceptance” Statement Number from Survey
Loading Direction
Full Statement from Survey
2.74 Positive Even if the science isn’t clear to me, I still think it’s better to act and be safe rather than sorry
2.25 Positive Even though it’s sometimes debated, I feel it’s pretty well documented that humans have released too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
2.75 Positive It’s hard for scientists to be certain about anything, but I think the patterns and trends that they’re seeing in climate change have them pretty convinced
2.9 Negative I think that climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science supports
2.29 Negative The government has too many other important issues to deal with right now to focus on climate change
2.28 Positive The government should better educate us about environmental problems 2.67 Positive Most sources I see discuss the debate about whether or not climate change
exists, but I think in general they agree that it does 2.2 Positive I believe that it is important to protect the environment 2.68 Positive I think that it’s generally pretty well accepted that climate change is
occurring 2.73 Negative I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue
that we face today, and I think that it gets too much press 2.4 Positive Environmental problems are not exaggerated, if anything they are
understated 2.3 Positive Sometimes environmental concerns are exaggerated, but I think the
exaggeration is justified because the environment is very important 2.70 Negative The climate has changed a lot in the past, so I think we might be making too
big a deal about how it’s changing now 2.5 Negative Sometimes when environmentalists are concerned about an issue, the
exaggerate and stray from the facts
303
Opinion Factor 2: “Self-Identified Ignorance” Statement Number from Survey
Loading Direction
Full Statement from Survey
2.45 Positive I think climate change is a serious issue, but I know that I don’t know enough or do enough about it
2.13 Positive I know that changes in the atmosphere cause climate change, but I don’t know very much about the scientific processes that make it happen
2.51 Positive I hear people talk about climate change, but I don’t really look for information about it
2.6 Positive Protecting the environment is important, but I don’t know enough or do enough about it
2.41 Positive I am not sure how my personal actions specifically affect climate change 2.48 Positive I tend to believe what I see or hear on major news networks because of
their reputation 2.33 Positive I would appreciate being given information about climate change that has
less scientific jargon and is easier for me to understand
Opinion Factor 3 “Skepticism” Statement Number from Survey
Loading Direction
Full Statement from Survey
2.9 Positive I think that climate change concerns are exaggerated more than the science supports
2.29 Positive The government has too many other important issues to deal with right now to focus on climate change
2.73 Positive I don’t think that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face today, and I think it gets too much press
2.4 Negative Environmental problems are not exaggerated, if anything they are understated
2.69 Positive I think that scientists are certain that the climate is changing, but not about who or what is responsible
2.63 Positive I don’t trust a source that sounds too certain about climate change because I know there is a lot of uncertainty
2.70 Positive The climate has changed a lot in the past, so I think we might be making too big a deal about how it’s changing now
2.56 Positive I think a source is reliable if it shows both sides of the climate change debate
2.17 Positive Climate change is a very complicated issue, with many parts that we cannot fully understand, including the earth’s natural cycles
2.5 Positive Sometimes when environmentalists are concerned about an issue, they exaggerate and stray from the facts
2.71 Positive I think the media is certain that climate change is happening and that humans are responsible
- 1 - Generated on IRBNet
!
RESEARCH OFFICE
!
210 Hullihen Hall
University of Delaware
! ! ! Newark, Delaware 19716-1551
Ph: 302/831-2136
Fax: 302/831-2828
!
"#$%& '()*+!,-.!/0,,
! !
! !
$1& 23(44(!56789:).!;#
<=1'& >4?@:)8?9A!3B!":C(D():!E=;
! !
F$>"G!$E$H%& I//J0-0K,L!F96M:49!>4M:)89(4M?4N!3B!OC?P(9:!O+(4N:&!E4BC6:4*:8!3B!*3CC:N:
P(Q3).!:4@?)34P:49(C!N)36R!P:PS:)8+?R.!(4M!*6C96)(C!P3M:C8
! !
F>;'EFFE1T!$GU%& T:D!U)3Q:*9
! !
#O$E1T& "%$%='ET#$E1T!1<!%V%'U$!F$#$>F
"%OEFE1T!"#$%& '()*+!,-.!/0,,
! !
=%WE%X!O#$%Y1=G& %7:PR9?34!*(9:N3)A!Z!/
$+(4[!A36!B3)!A36)!86SP?88?34!3B!T:D!U)3Q:*9!P(9:)?(C8!B3)!9+?8!):8:()*+!896MA\!$+:!>4?@:)8?9A!3B
":C(D():!E=;!+(8!M:9:)P?4:M!9+?8!R)3Q:*9!?8!%V%'U$!<=1'!E=;!=%WE%X!(**3)M?4N!93!B:M:)(C
):N6C(9?348\
X:!D?CC!R69!(!*3RA!3B!9+?8!*3)):8R34M:4*:!34!B?C:!?4!36)!3BB?*:\!UC:(8:!):P:PS:)!93!439?BA!68!?B!A36!P([:
(4A!86S89(49?(C!*+(4N:8!93!9+:!R)3Q:*9\
EB!A36!+(@:!(4A!]6:89?348.!RC:(8:!*349(*9!23MAKHA44!;:)N!(9!^J0/_!`J,K,,,a!3)!QCS:)Nb6M:C\:M6\!UC:(8:
?4*C6M:!A36)!896MA!9?9C:!(4M!):B:):4*:!46PS:)!?4!(CC!*3)):8R34M:4*:!D?9+!9+?8!3BB?*:\
!
