Search

Strategic communication requires the identification and understanding of target audiences for tailored communication. The Global Warming’s Six Americas analysis segments the U.S. public into six distinct, but internally consistent audiences, who each respond differently to the issue of climate change. The segments include the Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive. The framework was first developed in 2008 and has been tracked twice a year using nationally representative surveys for over a decade. This research has helped advance communication theory and practice and the Six Americas framework has informed the decision making of stakeholders ranging from scientists to government officials, journalists, educators, and advocates. The framework has also been extended to assess specialized audiences (e.g. broadcast meteorologists) and other countries (e.g. India, Australia, and Germany). Future research should further develop and investigate the Six Americas within the United States, while also developing tailored segmentations and related tools for other countries.

Advantageous new ideas and practices have a vexing track record of taking root slowly, if at all. Identifying or creating, and then supporting, communities of practice is a promising approach to enhancing the likelihood that science-based environmental science knowledge will be applied to solve societal problems. A community of practice, simply put, is a group of individuals who have shared interests and problems related to a specific topic. This article provides a brief overview of what communities of practice are, and how they might be embraced as a strategy to accelerate the development of climate change solutions. The approach is illustrated with a brief case study of Climate Matters, a highly successful program designed to support TV weathercasters as local climate change educators. It concludes with a heuristic to guide future efforts at supporting communities of practice.

Ideologically motivated rejection of scientific evidence can be harmful to individuals and society, especially regarding consequential issues like climate change. A growing base of evidence suggests a cognitive style known as Actively Open-Minded Thinking (AOT) may reduce ideological rejection of scientific findings. In this article, we test the association between AOT and Americans' beliefs that global warming is mostly human-caused, a position supported by scientific consensus. We hypothesized that political conservatives with high AOT would be more likely than those with low AOT to acknowledge human-caused global warming. We predicted no such effect for liberals. Contrary to expectations, there was an unmoderated relationship between AOT and human causation belief. Higher levels of AOT were associated with increased likelihood of belief in human-caused global warming, regardless of participants' political ideology, scientific knowledge, or scientific media use. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

National polls reveal stark and growing political divisions on the issue of climate change within the United States. However, few studies have explored whether these trends generalize to communities of color, who experience disproportionate environmental risks. Synthesizing over a decade of nationally representative survey data (2008–2019; N = 23,707), we conducted a conceptual replication and extension of previous research on the “racial/ethnic gap” in U.S. climate change opinion. Consistent with prior work, we find that African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos show less political polarization—including both weaker ideological and partisan divides—across a diverse range of belief, risk perception, and policy-support measures. Further, we find that this differential polarization has remained largely stable over time and is robust to effects of other sociodemographic variables, such as education and income. Notably, across the political spectrum, people of color were more likely to report that global warming poses a danger to themselves. Racial/ethnic differences were generally more pronounced among the political Right than the political Left, are generally larger for beliefs and risk perceptions (vs. policy support) and are only partially accounted for by racial/ethnic differences in ideology or party sorting. These results offer comprehensive evidence that climate change is less polarized among people of color in the U.S. Increasing diversity in the environmental sector and conducting more research on socio-cultural differences in environmental responses (including other racial/ethnic groups and indigenous populations) is important to promoting equity in decision-making, addressing environmental disparities, and potentially bridging growing political divides in the U.S.

Health professionals are in a unique position to accelerate the creation of policies to mitigate and adapt to the public health emergency that is the climate crisis. At the forefront of the burgeoning climate and health movement are state and national health professional networks that are educating their colleagues and the lay public about the gravity of this threat and advocating for equitable solutions. Here we present a case of one such group, Wisconsin Health Professionals for Climate Action (WHPCA), highlighting its organizational structure and path to success. We also present a logic map to help understand the primary leverage points for health professional advocacy.

Previous research has shown that providing information about the health consequences of climate change can increase climate change issue engagement and support for mitigation policies. Here, we extend that research by testing the motivational value of three categories of climate information (termed information categories): health consequences of climate change; health benefits of climate solutions; and calls-to-action intended to motivate people to engage in political advocacy for climate solutions. The use of choice-based conjoint analysis enabled us to determine the effectiveness of each information category, as well the effectiveness of specific types of information within each category. Research participants were adults quota-sampled to represent the U.S. population (n=7,596). We found that each of these categories–consequences, solutions, and a call-to-action–enhanced the overall motivational value of the message, with solution information being the most influential. Of the 360 message combinations tested, the most compelling first described the negative impacts of climate change on air quality, then explained how transitioning to clean energy will benefit people's health, and ended by explaining that most Americans support this solution, and many are taking action to advocate for it. These findings are consistent with a large body of risk communication theory, and provide practical insights to health professionals and others seeking to build public and political will for actions that reduce the health threats posed by climate change.

The Gateway Belief Model describes a process of attitudinal change where a shift in people's perception of the scientific consensus on an issue leads to subsequent changes in their attitudes which in turn predict changes in support for public action. In the current study, we present the first large-scale confirmatory replication of the GBM. Specifically, we conducted a consensus message experiment on a national quota sample of the US population (N = 6,301). Results support the mediational hypotheses of the GBM: an experimentally induced change in perceived scientific consensus causes subsequent changes in cognitive (belief) and affective (worry) judgments about climate change, which in turn are associated with changes in support for public action. The scientific consensus message also had a direct effect on support for public action. We further found an interaction with both political ideology and prior attitudes such that conservatives and climate change disbelievers were more likely to update their beliefs toward the consensus. We discuss the model's theoretical and practical implications, including why conveying scientific consensus can help reduce politically motivated reasoning.

Public perceptions of climate change in the United States are deeply rooted in cultural values and political identities. Yet, as the public experiences extreme weather and other climate change-related impacts, their perceptions of the issue may shift. Here, we explore whether, when, and where local climate trends have already influenced opinions about global warming in the United States. Using a large national survey dataset (n=13,607), we compare Americans' climate views with corresponding trends in seven different high-resolution climate indicators for the period 2008 to 2015. We find that increases in hot dry day exposure significantly increases individuals' perceptions that they have personally experienced global warming. We do not find robust evidence that other precipitation and temperature anomalies have had a similar effect. We also use multilevel modeling to explore county-level patterns of perceived experiences with climate change. Whereas the individual-level analysis describes the causal relationship between a changing climate and individuals' perceived experience, the multilevel model depicts county-level changes in perceived experience resulting from particular climate trends. Overall, we find that exposure to extreme weather, specifically hot dry days, has a modest influence on perceived experience, independent of the political and socio-demographic factors that dominate U.S. climate opinions today.

Public perceptions of climate change in the United States are deeply rooted in cultural values and political identities. Yet, as the public experiences extreme weather and other climate change-related impacts, their perceptions of the issue may shift. Here, we explore whether, when, and where local climate trends have already influenced perceived experiences of global warming in the United States. Using a large national survey dataset (n = 13,607), we compare Americans’ experiences of climate with corresponding trends in seven different high-resolution climate indicators for the period 2008 to 2015. We find that increases in hot dry day exposure significantly increases individuals’ perceptions that they have personally experienced global warming. We do not find robust evidence that other precipitation and temperature anomalies have had a similar effect. We also use multilevel modeling to explore county-level patterns of perceived experiences with climate change. Whereas the individual-level analysis describes a likely causal relationship between a changing climate and individuals’ perceived experience, the multilevel model depicts county-level changes in perceived experience resulting from particular climate trends. Overall, we find that exposure to hot dry days, has a modest influence on perceived experience, independent of the political and socio-demographic factors that dominate U.S. climate opinions today.

A stable climate is the most fundamental determinant of human health. Therefore, the goal of the Paris Agreement—limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius—is arguably humanity's most important public health goal. To accomplish this goal, nearly all nations must greatly increase the ambition of their Nationally Determined Contributions at the upcoming United Nations COP26 meeting in 2021. We argue that health professionals and health organizations can and must join the growing global community of science-based advocates working to achieve the goal of the Paris Agreement. Doing so can be our greatest contribution to the health and wellbeing of all people, especially the world's most vulnerable, marginalized and disempowered people who tend to be harmed first and worst.

People often misperceive other people's beliefs about global warming—for instance, underestimating the percentage of people who think global warming is happening. In the U.S., perceptions of others vary across political lines and interact with the extent to which partisans align or deviate from the views of their political ingroup. With an online sample of U.S. adults (N = 1214), we conduct a partial replication and extension of prior research on the relationship between global warming “opinion deviance” (i.e., taking a stance that conflicts with the prototypical views of one's ingroup) and perceptions of other people's views, using a different methodological approach. We found that, compared with partisans who align with the prototypical views of their ingroup (i.e., political party), opinion-deviant partisans consistently perceive a narrower partisan divide across several views (e.g., belief that global warming is happening, belief that it is human-caused, and support for climate policies), even when statistically controlling for self-reported opinion extremity. Additionally, opinion-deviant Republicans, more than opinion-aligned Republicans, perceive that more Republicans hold pro-climate views. Further, among both Republicans and Democrats, perceptions of pro-climate ingroup consensus correlates with both increased activism intentions and frequency of discussing global warming with family and friends. Our results support theoretical perspectives and research on opinion deviance showing that misperceptions of public opinion about global warming vary based on an interaction between an individual's party affiliation and their individual climate beliefs.

Americans strongly support policies aimed at increasing the use of renewable energy. Prior research has found that, overall, support for renewable energy tends to be motivated primarily by people's perceptions that it creates economic benefits and reduces environmental harms. However, the extant research has not established how these motivations vary across political segments. Here we investigate (a) if and how Republicans and Democrats differ in their stated motivations for supporting a transition to renewable energy, and (b) what demographic and attitudinal variables best predict Republicans' and Democrats' support for renewable energy policies. Using a nationally representative sample of American registered voters, we found a consistent pattern across multiple methods of analysis: Republicans' (compared to Democrats') support for renewable energy is driven more by considerations of economic costs/benefits, whereas Democrats' (compared to Republicans') support is driven more by concern about global warming. These partisan differences hold significant implications for those who seek to effectively tailor policy and strategic communication to these political segments.

In a recent study, Kerr and Wilson (2018) claim to provide a failed test of the Gateway Belief Model (GBM) using a cross-lagged panel analysis with 356 college students. Although we applaud the authors’ effort to extend scholarly work on the GBM, we point out several mischaracterizations of our work and present evidence that contradicts their findings.

Background: Global warming has significant negative consequences for human health, with some groups at greater risk than others. The extent to which the public is aware of these risks is unclear; the limited extant research has yielded discrepant findings. Objectives: This paper describes Americans' awareness of the health effects of global warming, levels of support for government funding and action on the issue, and trust in information sources. We also investigate the discrepancy in previous research findings between assessments based on open- versus closed-ended questions. Methods: A nationally representative survey of US adults (N = 1275) was conducted online in October 2014. Measures included general attitudes and beliefs about global warming, affective assessment of health effects, vulnerable populations and specific health conditions (open- and closed-ended), perceived risk, trust in sources, and support for government response. Findings: Most respondents (61%) reported that, before taking the survey, they had given little or no thought to how global warming might affect people's health. In response to a closed-ended question, many respondents (64%) indicated global warming is harmful to health, yet in response to an open-ended question, few (27%) accurately named one or more specific type of harm. In response to a closed-ended question, 33% indicated some groups are more affected than others, yet on an open-ended question only 25% were able to identify any disproportionately affected populations. Perhaps not surprising given these findings, respondents demonstrated only limited support for a government response: less than 50% of respondents said government should be doing more to protect against health harms from global warming, and about 33% supported increased funding to public health agencies for this purpose. Respondents said their primary care physician is their most trusted source of information on this topic, followed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and their local public health department. Conclusions: Most Americans report a general sense that global warming can be harmful to health, but relatively few understand the types of harm it causes or who is most likely to be affected. Perhaps as a result, there is only moderate support for an expanded public health response. Primary care physicians and public health officials appear well positioned to educate the public about the health relevance of climate change

In this paper, we respond to the critiques presented by [Kahan, 2017]. Contrary to claims that the scientific consensus message did not significantly influence the key mediator and outcome variables in our model, we show that the experiment in [van der Linden et al., 2015] did in fact directly influence key beliefs about climate change. We also clarify that the Gateway Belief Model (GBM) is theoretically well-specified, empirically sound, and as hypothesized, the consensus message exerts a significant indirect influence on support for public action through the mediating variables. We support our conclusions with a large-scale replication.

The recent push to develop unconventional sources of oil and gas both in the U.S. and abroad via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) has generated a great deal of controversy. Effectively engaging stakeholders and setting appropriate policies requires insights into current public perceptions of this issue. Using a nationally representative U.S. sample (N¼1061), we examine public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing including: “top of mind” associations; familiarity with the issue; levels of support/ opposition; and predictors of such judgments. Similar to findings on other emerging technologies, our results suggest limited familiarity with the process and its potential impacts and considerable uncertainty about whether to support it. Multiple regression analysis (r 2 ¼ .49) finds that women, those holding egalitarian worldviews, those who read newspapers more than once a week, those more familiar with hydraulic fracturing, and those who associate the process with environmental impacts are more likely to oppose fracking. In contrast, people more likely to support fracking tend to be older, hold a bachelor's degree or higher, politically conservative, watch TV news more than once a week, and associate the process with positive economic or energy supply outcomes. Based on these findings, we discuss recommendations for future research, risk communication, and energy policy.

Editors’ Note: We invited a sample of AJPM’s Editorial Board, supplement guest editors, and longtime colleagues and contributors to share their experiences and impressions of the impact of AJPM on their respective domains. We were particularly fond of Ken Powell’s analogy to being “tenders of the planted seed”—as planters, weeders, and harvesters—watching and nurturing the growth of AJPM, and have elected to lead with his commentary. In the mid-1940s my brothers and I helped our father tend our victory garden. We were suburbanites and our small garden shared a vacant lot with the concrete foundation of a home abandoned in mid-construction during the Depression. We helped plant, weed, and harvest the crops. I especially liked the tall stalks of sweet corn that grew taller than I was. Many years later, in the mid-1990s, I met a couple of other gardeners: Kevin Patrick and Doug Scutchfield visited the Centers for Disease Control (now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to discuss their plans as the editors of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. I was working in a Branch that was trying to understand the public health importance of regular physical activity, and they had the foresight to know we were planting some seeds in an important new area. I’m not sure that I had even heard of AJPM before their visit. A few years later, while the field of physical activity and public health continued to grow, I shifted my focus to violence and injury prevention. Once again, the team of Patrick and Scutchfield recognized the importance of this topic to the field of preventive medicine. By the turn of the century my work had shifted from the national to the state level. I tried to keep up with the literature by reading or scanning articles as I rode the subway to and from work. The Georgia Division of Public Health had no access to a library so I circulated my personal copy of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine to my team in the Chronic Disease and Injury Epidemiology Section because it contained by far the most articles of interest and practical application for us. Isn’t it interesting to watch things grow. Gardens, journals, and the fields of public health and preventive medicine.

For most people, the direct and personally observable signals of climate change should be difficult to detect amid the variability of everyday weather. Yet, previous research has shown that some people believe they have personally experienced global warming. Through four related studies, our paper sheds light on what signals of global warming some people believe they are detecting, why, and whether or not it matters. These studies were conducted using population survey and climatic data from a single county in Michigan. Study 1 found that 27% of the county's adult residents felt that they had personally experienced global warming. Study 2 – based on content analysis of people's open-ended responses – found that the most frequently described personal experiences of global warming were changes in seasons (36%), weather (25%), lake levels (24%), animals and plants (20%), and snowfall (19%). Study 3 – based on NOAA climatic data – found that most, but not all, of these detected signals are borne out in the climatic record. Study 4 – using the survey data – found that personal experience of global warming matters in that it predicts perceptions of local risk of global warming, controlling for demographics, political affiliation, and cultural beliefs about national policy outcomes. We conclude that perceived personal experience of global warming appears to heighten people's perception of the risks, likely through some combination of direct experience, vicarious experience (e.g., news media stories), and social construction.

This experimental study evaluated whether communicating the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is likely to be effective with the American public. Drawing on a large national sample (N = 6,301), we set out to replicate and extend the findings of van der Linden et al. (2015). Consistent with the original study, we find robust and replicated evidence that communicating the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change leads to significant and substantial changes in perceived scientific agreement among conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike. These findings prove robust, even among those predisposed to receive counter-attitudinal information (e.g., Fox-news watchers, global warming skeptics). Further, among conservatives, we find the greatest change in perceived consensus among the subset whose own friends and family are least likely to believe in human-caused global warming. In short, we find little evidence of identity-protective cognition and no evidence of belief polarization across these groups. We further find that communicating the scientific consensus has (positive) direct effects (across the political spectrum) on belief that climate change is happening, human-caused, and a serious threat that requires societal action. We also find that these direct effects are mediated by changes in perceived scientific consensus. In other words, public perception of the scientific consensus is an important gateway cognition. Results also show that belief in the scientific consensus is more influential in driving public engagement than perceived consensus among other groups (e.g., Americans). Lastly, although public understanding of the scientific consensus is low, we find that conservatives and moderates are significantly less aware of the scientific consensus than liberals.

The understanding that global climate change represents a profound threat to the health and well-being of human and nonhuman species worldwide is growing. This article examines the potential of communication and marketing interventions to influence population behavior in ways consistent with climate change prevention and adaptation objectives. Specifically, using a framework based on an ecologic model of public health, the paper examines: (1) the potential of communication and marketing interventions to influence population behaviors of concern, including support for appropriate public policies; (2) potential target audiences for such programs; and (3) the attributes of effective climate change messages. Communication and marketing interventions appear to have considerable potential to promote important population behavior change objectives, but there is an urgent need for additional translational research to effectively harvest this potential to combat climate change.

Key Findings: From Spring to Fall of 2015 (before the Pope’s encyclical to after his visit to the U.S.)...Americans Developed a More Positive View of the Pope: More Americans ( 7 percentage points), especially Catholics ( 13 points), have a very positive opinion of the Pope. Trust in the Pope as a source of information about global warming increased by among Americans overall ( 11 points), and among Catholics ( 6 points). Global Warming Became a More Salient Issue. More Americans ( 4 points) and more Catholics ( 10 points) say they now hear about global warming in the media at least once a month or more frequently. Almost half (45%) of all Americans, and over half of Catholics (56%) say they have seen, read or heard media coverage about the Pope’s views on global warming in the past few months. Awareness of the Pope’s encyclical increased among all Americans ( 14 points) and among Catholics ( 16 points). Nearly 1 in 10 Americans (9%) and nearly 2 in 10 Catholics (18%) said that the Pope’s views on global warming were discussed in their place of worship. Americans overall ( 6 points), and Catholics ( 5 points), become more likely to discuss global warming with their friends and family often or occasionally.Many Americans Say the Pope’s Views on Global Warming Influenced Their Own Views. Many Americans (17%) and Catholics (35%) say the Pope’s position on global warming has influenced their views about the issue. Of those Americans who say they've been influenced, half (50%) say the Pope’s position on global warming made them more concerned about global warming, while fewer than 1 in 10 (8%) say they became less concerned. Among Catholics, the proportions are 53 percent, and 8 percent, respectively.Americans Became More Concerned About Global Warming. More Americans overall ( 4 points), and more Catholics ( 8 points), had thought a lot or some about global warming. More Americans overall ( 6 points), and more Catholics ( 13 points), became very or extremely sure that global warming is happening. There was no change, however, in the number of Americans who believe human activity is causing global warming. More Americans overall and American Catholics think that people in developing countries ( 15 and 17 points, respectively) and the world’s poor ( 12 and 20 points, respectively) will be harmed by global warming a great deal or a moderate amount. More Americans ( 9 points), and more Catholics ( 13 points), think global warming will harm people in the United States a great deal or a moderate amount. More Americans overall, and more Catholics, have come to believe that Americans will be harmed by global warming sooner rather than later. More Americans ( 8 points) and more Catholics ( 11 points) have become worried about global warming. More Americans ( 7 points) and more Catholics ( 8 points) say that the issue of global warming has become very or extremely important to them personally. More Americans ( 5 points) and more Catholics ( 7 points) say they have personally experienced the effects of global warming.More Americans Came to See Global Warming as a Moral Issue. More Americans and more Catholics came to see global warming as a moral issue ( 6 and 8 points, respectively) or a religious issue ( 4 and 7 points, respectively). More Americans overall also came to see global warming as a social justice/fairness issue ( 8 points), and a poverty issue ( 5 points).Support for an American Response to Global Warming May Have Increased, But Only Slightly. More Americans ( 7 points) feel that America should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do. Slightly more Americans ( 2 points) support funding research into renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, although fewer Americans (-3 points) support setting strict carbon dioxide emission limits on coal-fired power plants.Conclusion: Between spring and fall of 2015, Americans – especially Catholic Americans – have become modestly more engaged in and concerned about global warming. Our panel survey findings suggest that the Pope’s teachings about global warming contributed to greater public engagement in the issue.

Mass media campaigns are an important first step in raising awareness about physical activity and health in the general community. The US Surgeon General in 1996 released a report outlining the evidence base for the half-hour a day moderate intensity physical activity message for health. This message needs to be understood and accepted by the community and by stakeholders. Efforts to promote this message start with coordinated public education mass media communications campaigns, to inform and persuade the population to think about and trial physical activity behaviors. The evaluation of such interventions follows good practice for media campaigns in general, with careful attention to formative, process and impact levels of evaluation. Most important, and most often neglected, is the formative stage of developing effective communications messages that are relevant for the proposed target populations. Monitoring the implementation of the mass media campaign, known as process evaluation, is also important. The effectiveness of mass media campaigns (impact evaluation) is assessed through measures of proximal effects in populations; these measures include campaign and message awareness and understanding and attitudes towards the new physical activity message. New designs and statistical techniques add to the research armamentarium to ascertain the effects of these campaigns.

Background More than 460,000 preterm babies are born annually in the United States, with rates varying depending on the mother’s race/ethnicity. Preliminary evidence suggests that the general public may have a lack of knowledge and misconceptions about preterm birth. Methods A national telephone survey of U.S. adults, over-sampling for black and Hispanic women, was conducted in 2002 to assess people’s knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs related to preterm birth (N=1967). Analyses included racial/ethnic differences among women’s responses and comparisons to men’s responses. Results Prematurity was named by Conclusions Although nearly one in eight babies is born prematurely, most U.S. adults do not consider prematurity to be a serious public health problem. While the etiology can be identified in only half of spontaneous preterm births, the public largely blames the mother’s prenatal behavior. Misperceptions are prevalent and may impede future research and prevention efforts if not corrected.

Objective To examine the self-reported importance of taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control on personal dietary choices and whether these factors vary across demographic groups, are associated with lifestyle choices related to health (termed health lifestyle), and actually predict eating behavior. Design Data are based on responses to 2 self-administered cross-sectional surveys. The main outcomes measured were consumption of fruits and vegetables, fast foods, cheese, and breakfast cereals, which were determined on the basis of responses to questions about usual and recent consumption and a food diary. Subjects/setting Respondents were a national sample of 2,967 adults. Response rates were 71% to the first survey and 77% to the second survey (which was sent to people who completed the first survey). Statistical analyses Univariate analyses were used to describe importance ratings, bivariate analyses (correlations and t tests) were used to examine demographic and lifestyle differences on importance measures, and multivariate analyses (general linear models) were used to predict lifestyle cluster membership and food consumption. Results Respondents reported that taste is the most important influence on their food choices, followed by cost. Demographic and health lifestyle differences were evident across all 5 importance measures. The importance of nutrition and the importance of weight control were predicted best by subject's membership in a particular health lifestyle cluster. When eating behaviors were examined, demographic measures and membership in a health lifestyle cluster predicted consumption of fruits and vegetables, fast foods, cheese, and breakfast cereal. The importance placed on taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control also predicted types of foods consumed. Applications Our results suggest that nutritional concerns, per se, are of less relevance to most people than taste and cost. One implication is that nutrition education programs should attempt to design and promote nutritious diets as being tasty and inexpensive. J Am Diet Assoc. 1998;98:1118-1126 .

This report contains results from a nationally representative survey of American adults conducted in April and May 2012. The survey examined public beliefs about federal agencies that are engaged in climate change research, and assessed which agencies the public looks to for answers to their questions on the issue. Furthermore, participants visited NASA’s climate change website.

This report is based on findings from a nationally representative survey – Climate Change in the American Mind – conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. Interview dates: April 8 - 15, 2013. Interviews: 1,045 Adults (18+) Total average margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level; regional margins of error are +/- 7 percentage points for the Northeast and West; +/- 6 percentage points for the Midwest; and +/- 5 percentage points for the South.Key findings include:• About six in ten Americans (58%) say “global warming is affecting weather in the United States.”• Many Americans believe global warming made recent extreme weather and climatic events “more severe,” specifically: 2012 as the warmest year on record in the United States (50%); the ongoing drought in the Midwest and the Great Plains (49%); Superstorm Sandy (46%); and Superstorm Nemo (42%).• About two out of three Americans say weather in the U.S. has been worse over the past several years, up 12 percentage points since Spring 2012. By contrast, fewer Americans say weather has been getting better over the past several years – only one in ten (11%), down 16 points compared to a year ago.• Many Americans (51%) also say weather in their local area has been worse over the past several years.• Overall, 85 percent of Americans report that they experienced one or more types of extremeweather in the past year, most often citing extreme high winds (60%) and extreme heat (51%).• Of those Americans who experienced extreme weather events in the past year, many (37%) say they were significantly harmed. Moreover, the number who have been harmed appears to be growing (up 5 percentage points since Fall 2012 and 4 points since Spring 2012). For example, about one in five Americans today say they suffered a moderate or great deal of harm from extreme high winds (18%, up 8 points since Fall 2012) or extreme cold weather (10%, up 5 points). More also say they were harmed by a hurricane (6%, up 3 points).• Most Americans (80%) have close friends or family members (not living with them) who experienced extreme weather events in the past year, including extreme high winds (47%), an extreme heat wave (46%), an extreme snowstorm (39%), extreme cold temperatures (39%), an extreme rainstorm (37%), or a drought (35%).• Over half of Americans (54%) believe it is “very” or “somewhat likely” that extreme weather will cause a natural disaster in their community in the coming year.• Americans who experienced an extreme weather event are most likely to have communicated about it person-to-person – either in person (89%) or on the phone (84%) – although some used social media, such as writing about the experience on Facebook (23%) or sharing a photo of the event or its aftermath using Facebook, Tumblr, or Instagram (19%).

This report contains results from a nationally representative survey of American adults conducted in April and May 2012. The survey examined public beliefs about federal agencies that are engaged in climate change research, and assessed which agencies the public looks to for answers to their questions on the issue. Furthermore, participants visited NASA’s climate change website.

Climate change is increasingly polarized within American politics. Yet, political orientation and climate change views are not synonymous, and research identifying the characteristics of counter-normative groups — such as Republicans concerned about climate change — is key to communication strategies to encourage wider acceptance of science-based views about climate change across the political spectrum. The evidence presented here demonstrates that there are distinct and reliable predictors of which Republicans are more likely to believe that climate change is occurring and express support for mitigation policies. While some of these variables (such as religiosity) are relatively inaccessible to climate change communication campaigns, others (such as correctly understanding the scientific consensus that climate change is happening) should likely form the cornerstone of communication efforts. The current study provides strong guidance on where to begin, and where more research is needed to better understand these phenomena.

Prior research on the political effects of late-night comedy programs has demonstrated that by piggy-backing political content on entertainment fare, such programs provide a, "gateway," to increased audience attention to news and public affairs, particularly among less politically engaged audiences. Given the heightened coverage of science and environmental topics on Comedy Central’s satirical news programs, "The Daily Show," and, "The Colbert Report," this paper considers whether a similar process could be at work relative to public attention to science and the environment. An analysis of nationally representative survey data finds that audience exposure to, "The Daily Show," and, "The Colbert Report," goes hand-in-hand with attention paid to science and environmental issues, specifically global warming. Moreover, the relationship between satirical news use and attentiveness is most pronounced among those with the least amount of formal education, who might otherwise lack the resources and motivation to pay attention to scientific and environmental issues. In this way, satirical news is an attention equalizer, reducing traditional gaps in attentiveness between those with low and high levels of education.

We surveyed office-based preventive procedures among a random sample of primary-care physicians. The completed response rate was 60%, with no discernible bias between respondents and nonrespondents. Of the ten preventive procedures inquired about, seven were offered by more than 70% of the respondents. Further detail was obtained for a "tracer" procedure, smoking-cessation counseling. While 73.5% of respondents reported offering this, the majority desired additional support in their counseling efforts in the form of patient materials, physician guides, or continuing medical education workshops. Additionally, 79% felt that feedback provided to them concerning their patients' cessation efforts would improve their ability to help patients stop smoking.