Supplementary Information to: ‘Development and validation of a climate change

perceptions scale’

Literature search

A literature search was conducted in PsycINFO using the queries ‘climate change

perception’ and ‘climate change belief’, returning a total of 192 papers. After inspecting the

titles and abstracts, the full texts of 110 papers were examined to extract relevant items.

A database of 234 items from 54 papers was created (see Appendix A). Items from the other

56 papers were not included because the items were duplicates of items previously extracted.

The number of items was further reduced by removing highly similar items and items that did

not match the definition of at least one of the dimensions outlined in the introduction.

Some items were edited according to the following criteria. First, items that referred to

specific locations or groups of people were adjusted such that they would be applicable to any

participant. Second, items that were formatted as a question were rephrased into a statement.

Third, items that referred to ‘global warming’ were changed to ‘climate change’. Finally,

some novel items were added when not enough items had been found; this was particularly

the case for spatial and temporal distance. In total, 67 items were included in the final item

pool that was rated by the experts (Reality: 16 items; Causes: 21 items; Valence of the

consequences: 14 items; Spatial distance: 8 items; Temporal distance: 8 items). An overview

of all included items is provided in Table 1.

Expert review

Participants

We invited 26 prominent researchers that published multiple peer-reviewed research

papers on climate change perceptions to participate in the expert review session. Of the

invited researchers, 14 participated in the study, a response rate of 54%.

Procedure and measures

The experts were invited to participate via email. The email contained a link to the

online questionnaire which was completed in Qualtrics. After a week, the experts received a

reminder e-mail. The experts were first given a description of the aims of the research and our

definition of each type of climate change perception as described in the introduction. After

providing their informed consent, the experts rated the 67 items of the item pool, split up into

four blocks1 that each presented all items associated with one type of climate change

perception. Experts rated each item on two aspects, namely its relevance to the construct it is

supposed to assess, and its clarity. Both ratings were completed using a 5-point Likert scale (1

= ‘terrible’, 2 = ‘poor’, 3 = ‘average’, 4 = ‘good’, 5 = ‘excellent’) (Latner, Mond, Kelly,

Haynes, & Hay, 2014). Finally, experts could provide written comments at the end of each

block of items.

Data analysis

We took the following steps to select the five best items for each type of climate

change perception. Items were ordered by their mean ratings of the experts for both clarity

and relevance. The similarity of the items was also taken into consideration to avoid the

inclusion of highly similar items. Additionally, we decided that each dimension should

include two to three reverse-coded items in order to increase the coverage of each dimension

and to capture it from multiple angles (Weijters & Baumgartner, 2012). There were highly

rated reverse-coded items available for each dimension and the quality of the selected items

therefore did not suffer due to this criterion.

Results

1
At this point, we still considered psychological distance as one dimension, and items for spatial and temporal
distance were presented simultaneously. Later, it was decided to split this dimension into two separate
dimensions.
 The mean expert ratings for the relevance of the items ranged from 2.57 to 4.57 out of

5 (see Table 1). The mean expert ratings for the clarity of the items ranged from 2.21 to 4.50

out of 5. The following considerations were made in selecting the final items. Firstly, we

decided that the item ‘I am sceptical about the existence of climate change’ should not be

included despite its high scores, as some experts indicated that scepticism refers to a distinct

construct. Secondly, the items ‘People will suffer as a result of the consequences of climate

change’ and ‘The consequences of climate change will overall benefit humankind’ were not

included as these items specifically referred to consequences of climate change for people,

and these items therefore more closely relate to our definition of risk perception of climate

change as described in the introduction.

The final selected items and their mean scores for both relevance and clarity are

reported in Table 1. The mean scores for relevance of the selected items ranged from 3.93 to

4.57 out of 5 (Mrelevance = 4.22, SDrelevance = 0.20). The mean scores for clarity of the selected

items ranged from 3.43 to 4.50 out of 5 (Mclarity = 3.97, SDclarity = 0.26). All selected items were

therefore rated by the experts as better than average on both clarity and relevance, and most

items were on average rated as ‘good’ on both aspects.

For perceived reality, causes, valence of the consequences, and temporal distance,

items were selected without any further editing. For the spatial distance items, we found that

some of the items implied that the consequences of climate change are negative, which

represents potential overlap with the valence of the consequences items (e.g., ‘The region

where I live is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change’). Therefore, words that implied

that the consequences of climate change are negative were changed to words with a more

neutral connotation.
 References
Latner, J. D., Mond, J. M., Kelly, M. C., Haynes, S. N., & Hay, P. J. (2014). The loss of

control over eating scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. International

Journal of Eating Disorders, 47(6), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22296

Weijters, B., & Baumgartner, H. (2012). Misresponse to reversed and negated items in

surveys: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 737–747.

https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0368

Table S1
Overview of total item pool and results from the expert review session
Mean Mean
Relevance Clarity
Reality
1. Our climate has been changing in the last decades. 4.00 3.00
2. Climate change is not occurring.* 4.36 4.00
3. The evidence for climate change is weak and unconvincing.* 3.86 3.71
4. Climate change is occurring now. 3.71 3.79
5. Climate change is a proven fact. 3.36 3.43
6. I do not believe that climate change is real.* 4.07 3.86
7. Climate change is happening. 4.14 3.93
8. Climate change is a theory that has not yet been proven.* 3.50 2.79
9. Climate change is already underway. 4.00 3.50
10. I believe that climate change is real. 4.29 4.36
11. I have already noticed some signs of climate change. 3.64 4.00
12. Climate change is real. 4.07 3.93
13. The issue of climate change is believable. 2.57 2.21
14. Climate change is a hoax.* 3.64 3.79
15. The world’s climate is changing. 4.29 4.00
16. I am skeptical about the existence of climate change.* 4.14 4.07

Causes
1. Human activities are a major cause of climate change. 4.50 4.50
2. Climate change is mainly due to natural causes.* 4.21 4.14
3. The main causes of climate change are human activities. 4.57 4.21
4. Climate change is caused mostly by natural changes in the 4.29 3.93
environment.*
5. Climate change is mostly caused by human activity. 4.57 4.29
6. Climate change is mostly because of natural changes in the Earth’s 3.50 2.86
environment.*
7. Any warming on earth is the result of natural trends.* 3.64 2.86
8. The climate is always changing and what we are currently observing 3.93 3.64
is just natural fluctuation.*
9. Human carbon dioxide emissions cause climate change. 3.79 3.43
10. Humans are too insignificant to have an appreciable impact on the 3.71 3.29
earth’s climate.*
11. Human activities are accelerating climate change. 3.43 3.64
12. I believe climate change is primarily caused by humans. 4.36 4.21
13. Human activities are to be blamed for climate change. 3.43 2.86
14. Climate change is caused entirely by natural processes.* 4.07 4.14
15. Humans have little control over the forces of nature such as climate 3.36 2.93
change.*
16. I believe that human activity is a substantial cause of climate change. 4.14 3.79
17. Climate change is caused entirely by humans. 3.29 3.21
18. Humans have very little effect on climate change.* 3.93 3.93
19. It is arrogant to assume that humans can influence the earth’s 2.86 3.21
climate.*
20. Any changes in the global climate simply reflect naturally occurring 4.21 3.86
variation.*
21. Climate change is just a natural fluctuation.* 3.71 3.00

Consequences
1. There will be mostly positive consequences of climate change.* 4.07 3.64
2. Climate change will bring about serious negative consequences. 4.21 3.79
3. The seriousness of the consequences of climate change has been 3.93 3.57
exaggerated.*
4. The consequences of climate change will be very serious. 4.07 3.79
5. Climate change will do more harm than good. 3.93 3.86
6. The consequences of climate change will be bad for people across the 3.57 3.71
world.
7. The consequences of climate change will be negative. 3.43 3.07
8. Climate change will have negative consequences for the world. 4.00 3.71
9. The consequences of climate change will be good.* 3.57 3.36
10. Climate change will mostly have positive consequences.* 4.14 4.14
11. Overall, climate change will bring more negative than positive 4.36 4.07
consequences to the world.
12. People will suffer as a result of the consequences of climate change 4.14 4.21
13. The consequences of climate change will be harmful for nature. 4.07 3.64
14. The consequences of climate change will overall benefit 4.21 3.64
humankind.*

Spatial distance
1. My local area will be affected by climate change. 4.50 4.21
2. The region where I live is vulnerable to the impacts of climate 4.29 3.79
change.
3. The consequences of climate change will also take place near me. 3.71 3.07
4. The effects of climate change will be visible close to me. 3.64 3.00
5. The effects of climate change will affect the nearby environment. 3.57 3.00
6. Climate change will only impact locations far away from me.* 4.21 3.79
7. The consequences of climate change will only take place in 3.93 3.57
distant locations.*
8. Climate change will also affect the place where I live. 3.93 3.64

Temporal distance
 1. Climate change will not happen in the near future.* 3.57 3.21
2. The effects of climate change will be felt very soon. 3.93 3.43
3. The consequences of climate change will soon be experienced. 3.64 3.14
4. The consequences of climate change will only be experienced in 4.00 3.93
the far future.*
5. The consequences of climate change will not be felt during the next 3.93 3.43
decades.*
6. The consequences of climate change are visible now. 4.43 4.21
7. It will be a long time before the consequences of climate change 4.07 3.93
are felt.*
8. Only future generations will experience the consequences of 4.21 3.79
climate change.*
Note: items in bold are items that were selected for inclusion in Study 1. * = reverse-coded
items.
Table S2
Item pool of 234 items from 54 papers
First author and Item Answering scale Potential subscale
year of
publication
Alcock 2017 Thinking about the Climate change will Valence of the
effects of climate have an impact on consequences
change, which of the other countries, but
following best not on the UK (0);
describes your Climate change is not
views? happening/will not
have an impact on the
UK or other countries
(0); Climate change
will have less of an
impact on the UK
than on other
countries (1); Climate
change will have as
much of an impact on
the UK as on other
countries (2)
Alcock 2017 Thinking about the Climate change will Valence of the
effects of climate not have a real impact consequences
change, which of the in my lifetime, but
following best will have a real
describes your impact on future
views? generations (0);
Climate change is not
happening/will never
have a real impact (0);
Climate change is not
yet having a real
impact, but will do in
my lifetime (1);
Climate change is
already having a real
impact (2)
Alcock 2017 How concerned are Very unconcerned Valence of the
you about climate (0); Fairly consequences
change? unconcerned (0);
Neither concerned nor
unconcerned (0);
Fairly concerned (1);
Very concerned (2)
Alcock 2017 Do you personally ‘Extensive and long- Valence of the
believe: lasting flooding consequences
caused by climate
change is likely to
take place in the UK -
 No’ & ‘Extensive and
long-lasting flooding
caused by climate
change is likely to
take place in low-
lying countries like
Bangladesh or the
Netherlands - No’ (0);
‘Extensive and long-
lasting flooding
caused by climate
change is likely to
take place in the UK -
No’ & ‘Extensive and
long-lasting flooding
caused by climate
change is likely to
take place in low-
lying countries like
Bangladesh or the
Netherlands - Yes’
(1); ‘Extensive and
long-lasting flooding
caused by climate
change is likely to
take place in the UK -
Yes’ (2)
Alcock 2017 Do you personally Climate change is Valence of the
believe likely to cause severe consequences
food shortages in the
UK - No’ & ‘Climate
change is likely to
cause severe food
shortages in places
like Africa and India -
No’ (0); ‘Climate
change is likely to
cause severe food
shortages in the UK -
No’ & ‘Climate
change is likely to
cause severe food
shortages in places
like Africa and India -
Yes’(1); ‘Climate
change is likely to
cause severe food
shortages in the UK -
Yes’ (2)
Alcock 2017 Do you personally People in the UK will Temporal distance
 believe: be affected by climate
change in the next 30
years - No’ & ‘People
in the UK will be
affected by climate
change in the next
200 years - No’ (0);
‘People in the UK
will be affected by
climate change in the
next 30 years - No’ &
‘People in the UK
will be affected by
climate change in the
next 200 years - Yes’
(1); ‘People in the UK
will be affected by
climate change in the
next 30 years -Yes’
(2)
Arbuckle 2015 There is increasing Climate change is not Reality and causes
discussion about occurring. There is
climate change and not sufficient
its potential impacts. evidence to know
Please select the with certainty whether
statement that best climate change is
reflects your beliefs occurring.
about climate Climate change is
change. occurring and it is
caused mostly by
natural changes in the
environment. Climate
change is occurring
and it is caused
equally by natural
changes in the
environment and
human activities.
Climate change is
occurring, and I is
caused mostly by
human activities.
Arbuckle 2015 I am concerned Strongly disagree, Valence of the
about the potential disagree, uncertain, consequences
impacts of climate agree, strongly agree.
change on Iowa’s
agriculture.
Arbuckle 2015 I am concerned Strongly disagree, Valence of the
about the potential disagree, uncertain, consequences
impacts of climate agree, strongly agree.
 change on my farm
operation.
Arbuckle 2015 I believe that Strongly disagree, Valence of the
extreme weather disagree, uncertain, consequences
events will happen agree, strongly agree.
more frequently in
the future.
Arbuckle 2015 Climate change is Strongly disagree, Valence of the
not a big issue disagree, uncertain, consequences
because human agree, strongly agree.
ingenuity will enable
us to adapt to
changes.
Benjamin 2017 [GW/CC] is Strongly disagree, Temporal distance
occurring now mildly disagree,
unsure, mildly agree,
strongly agree.
Benjamin 2017 I am quite sure that Strongly disagree, Temporal distance
[GW/CC] is mildly disagree,
occurring now unsure, mildly agree,
strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 I do not believe that Strongly disagree, Reality
[GW/CC] is real.* mildly disagree,
unsure, mildly agree,
strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 The evidence for Strongly disagree, Reality
[GW/CC] is weak mildly disagree,
and unconvincing.* unsure, mildly agree,
strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 I have already Strongly disagree, Temporal distance
noticed some signs mildly disagree,
of [GW/CC]. unsure, mildly agree,
strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 It seems to me that Strongly disagree, Valence of the
temperature is mildly disagree, consequences
warmer now than in unsure, mildly agree,
years before strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 It seems to me that Strongly disagree, Temporal distance
weather patterns mildly disagree,
have changed unsure, mildly agree,
compared to when I strongly agree
was a child
Benjamin 2017 Changes in the Strongly disagree, Temporal distance
climate have mildly disagree,
impacted my life unsure, mildly agree,
already strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 [GW/CC] is mainly Strongly disagree, Causes
due to natural mildly disagree,
causes, not human unsure, mildly agree,
activity.* strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 The main causes of Strongly disagree, Causes
[GW/CC] are human mildly disagree,
activities. unsure, mildly agree,
strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 [GW/CC] is merely Strongly disagree, Causes
a natural fluctuation, mildly disagree,
not caused by unsure, mildly agree,
human activity. strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 I am quite sure that Strongly disagree, Causes
human activities are mildly disagree,
responsible for unsure, mildly agree,
[GW/CC]. strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 There will be some Strongly disagree, Valence of the
positive mildly disagree, consequence
consequences of unsure, mildly agree,
[GW/CC] for the strongly agree
environment.*
Benjamin 2017 The consequences of Strongly disagree, Valence of the
[GW/CC] will be mildly disagree, consequence
harmful for the unsure, mildly agree,
environment. strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 [GW/CC] will bring Strongly disagree, Valence of the
about some serious mildly disagree, consequence
negative unsure, mildly agree,
consequences strongly agree
Benjamin 2017 The consequences of Strongly disagree, Valence of the
[GW/CC] will be mildly disagree, consequence
more positive than unsure, mildly agree,
negative overall.* strongly agree
Blennow 2016 Do you believe that Yes, definitely. Valence of the
the climate is Yes, probably. Do not consequence
changing to such an know. Probably not.
extent that it will Definitely not.
substantially affect
your forest?
Blennow 2016 Have you Yes, definitely. Valence of the
experienced any Yes, probably. Do not consequence
extreme weather know. Probably not.
conditions or change Definitely not.
in climate that you
interpret as caused
by long-term, global
climate change?
Bloodhart 2015 Is climate change Yes, no, don’t know. Reality
happening?
Bloodhart 2015 Assuming climate mostly caused by Causes
change humans, caused by
is happening, do you both humans and
think it is... changes in the
environment, mostly
 caused by natural
changes in the
environment, caused
by other things, or
none of the above
because climate
change isn’t
happening
Bloodhart 2015 when, if ever, do “now”, “in 10 years”, Temporal distance
you think climate “in 25 years”, “in 50
change will harm years”, “in 100
people in Virginia? years”,or “never”
Bloodhart 2015 Will climate change Not at all – Great Valence of the
harm you deal. consequence/Spatial
personally? distance
Borick 2010 From what you’ve Yes, No, Not sure Reality
read and heard, is
there solid evidence
that the average
temperature on Earth
has been getting
warmer over the past
four decades?
Borick 2010 Is the Earth getting Human causes, Causes
warmer because of natural causes, about
human activity such equal, not sure
as burning fossil
fuels or mostly
because of natural
patterns in the
Earth’s
environment?
Borick 2010 There is not enough Strongly agree, Reality
scientific evidence somewhat agree,
to support claims somewhat disagree,
that the Earth is strongly disagree, not
getting warmer. sure
Borick 2010 Scientists are Strongly agree, Reality
overstating evidence somewhat agree,
about global somewhat disagree,
warming for their strongly disagree, not
own interests sure
Borick 2010 The Earth’s Strongly agree, Causes
atmosphere is too somewhat agree,
large for man’s somewhat disagree,
activity to change strongly disagree, not
the climate. sure
Borick 2010 Any recent warming Strongly agree, Causes
on Earth is the result somewhat agree,
of natural trends and somewhat disagree,
 not the activities of strongly disagree, not
man sure
Borick 2010 The media is Strongly agree, Reality
overstating the somewhat agree,
evidence about somewhat disagree,
global warming strongly disagree, not
sure
Bostrom 2012 ‘‘How likely do you ‘extremely unlikely’’ Causes
think it is that to ‘‘extremely likely.
human actions have
changed global
climate?
Bradley 2017 I am certain that Unknown Reality
climate change is
happening.
Bradley 2017 Climate change will Unknown Valence of the
have notable consequence/Spatial
negative impacts on distance
my health (over the
next 25 years).
Bradley 2017 How concerned are Unknown Valence of the
you, if at all, about consequence
climate change?
Brenkert-Smith Climate change has Strongly agree to Valence of the
2015 increased the risk of strongly disagree consequences/Spatial
wildifres in Boulder distance
and Larimer
Counties
Brenkert-Smith I am sceptical about Strongly agree to Reality
2015 the existence of strongly disagree
climate change
Brenkert-Smith Climate change and Strongly agree to Valence of the
2015 wildfire risk are not strongly disagree consequences
related
Brody 2017 GW and CC will Strongly agree – Valence of the
have a negative Strongly disagree consequence/Spatial
impact on my distance
health/financial
situation/local
environment in the
next 25 years.
Carrico 2015 How likely do you (1 = extremely Temporal distance
think it is that the unlikely, 7 =
climate in the U.S. extremely likely)
will change
significantly over
the next 50 years?
Carrico 2015 If the climate in the (1 = extremely Valence of the
U.S. changed positive, 4 = neutral, 7 consequence
significantly over = extremely negative)
 the next 50 years,
how positive or
negative would the
impacts be?
Chang 2016 How risky do you 1 = not at all risky, 7 Valence of the
perceive the = very risky consequence
consequences of
climate change to
yourself/others/the
next generation.
Clayton 2014 How much do you Unknown Valence of the
think global consequence/Spatial
warming will harm distance
you personally?
Clayton 2014 Do you think that Unknown Reality
global warming is
happening?
Cook 2016 The climate is Strongly disagree – Causes
always changing and Strongly agree
what we are
currently observing
is just natural
fluctuation.
Cook 2016 Most of the warming Strongly disagree – Causes
over the last 50 Strongly agree
years is due to the
increase in
greenhouse gas
concentrations
Cook 2016 The burning of fossil Strongly disagree – Causes
fuels over the last 50 Strongly agree
years has caused
serious damage to
the planet’s climate
Cook 2016 Human CO2 Strongly disagree – Causes
emissions cause Strongly agree
climate change.

Cook 2016 Humans are too Strongly disagree – Causes

insignificant to have Strongly agree
an appreciable
impact on global
temperature
Davidson 2012 Do you believe that Unknown Reality
our climate has been
changing in recent
history?
Davidson 2012 Do you believe that Unknown Causes
human activities are
a major cause of this
 change?
Davidson 2012 Climate change will Unknown Valence of the
have a significant consequences
impact on Alberta?
Davidson 2012 Climate change will Unknown Valence of the
have a significant consequences
impact on me and
my family?
De Boer 2016 “Assuming climate Caused mostly by Reality and causes
change is happening, human activities
do you think it is (recoded to 5), caused
about equally by
human activities and
natural changes
(recoded to 4), caused
mostly by natural
changes in the
environment (recoded
to 2), none of the
above because climate
change isn't
happening” (recoded
to 1), don´t know.
De Boer 2014 The seriousness of Completely disagree - Valence of the
climate change has completely agree consequence
been exaggerated.”
De Boer 2014 I am optimistic and Completely disagree - Valence of the
expect that sea level completely agree consequence
rise due to climate
change will not be
more than 10
centimeters during
the next 20 years.
De Boer 2014 I am pessimistic and Completely disagree - Valence of the
expect that sea level completely agree consequence
rise due to climate
change will be more
than 10 centimeters
during the next 20
years
De Boer 2014 Due to climate Completely disagree - Valence of the
change and flood completely agree consequence
risks, the value of
the dwellings
outside the dikes
will decrease in the
future.
De Boer 2014 Because of climate Completely disagree - Valence of the
change harbor areas completely agree consequence
outside the dikes
 will be flooded more
frequently and at
greater depth
Debono 2012 ‘World wide’, many Very unlikely, Valence of the
people’s ‘standard of somewhat unlikely, consequence
living’ will decrease somewhat likely, very
due to climate likely, don’t know.
change.
Debono 2012 World wide’, ‘water Very unlikely, Valence of the
shortages’ will occur somewhat unlikely, consequence
due to climate somewhat likely, very
change likely, don’t know.
Debono 2012 Increased rates of Very unlikely, Valence of the
‘serious disease’ somewhat unlikely, consequence
‘world wide’ due to somewhat likely, very
climate change. (d) likely, don’t know.
Debono 2012 You or your Very unlikely, Valence of the
family’s’ ‘standard somewhat unlikely, consequence/Spatial
of living’ will somewhat likely, very distance
decrease due to likely, don’t know.
climate change
Debono 2012 ‘Water shortages’ Very unlikely, Valence of the
will occur ‘in Malta’ somewhat unlikely, consequence/Spatial
due to climate somewhat likely, very distance
change. likely, don’t know.
Debono 2012 The chance of ‘you Very unlikely, Valence of the
or your family’ somewhat unlikely, consequence/Spatial
getting a ‘serious somewhat likely, very distance
disease’ will likely, don’t know.
increase due to
climate change.
Deng 2017 Do you think the Five-point scale (not Reality
issue of climate at all believable to
change is strongly believable
believable?
Deng 2017 How connected do Five-point scale (not Valence of the
you think drought is at all connected to consequences
to climate change? strongly connected)
Deryugina 2016 In your opinion, 0%-100% Reality, causes
what is the
probability that each
of the following is
true, out of 100%?
Global warming is a
process that is
already underway
Human activities are
accelerating global
warming
There is enough
 scientific uncertainty
about the rate and
extent of global
warming and climate
change that there is
no need for
immediate policy
decisions.
Deryugina 2016 By how many -15 to +15 Temporal distance
degrees Fahrenheit
do you expect
temperatures on
earth to rise or fall
by the year 2050, on
average?
Deryugina 2016 What do you think is 0-100 Temporal distance
the probability that
the temperature will
increase/decrease by
at least 2.5/5 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2050
Dickinson 2016 Do you believe that Yes. No. Don’t Reality
climate change is Know.
happening?

Ekholm 2017 Do you think ready,” “In 10 years,” Temporal distance

climate change will “In 10–20 years,” “In
affect you person- 20–50 years,” “In the
ally? future,” to “Never”
Ekholm 2017 Do you think that Yes, abso- lutely” to Valence of the
climate change is “No, not at all”; consequence/Spatial
something that now distance
or in the future will
affect those living in
J¨
amtland?
Ekholm 2017 How risky will life “Much more,” Valence of the
be for the next gen- “More,” “Similar,” consequence
eration, compared to “Less,” to “Much less
today?
Ekholm 2017 Are you worried that Very worried” (5) to Valence of the
climate change “Not at all worried” consequence/Spatial
might affect you? (1 distance
Ekholm 2017 Are you worried that Very worried” (5) to Valence of the
climate change will “Not at all worried” consequence
affect the next (1
generation?
Ekholm 2017 Do you have a bad Yes, often” (5) to Valence of the
conscience when “No, never” (1). consequence
you do things you
 think will affect the
climate for the
worse?
European Social Do you think the Definitely changing, Reality
Survey 2016 world’s climate is probably changing,
changing? probably not
changing, definitely
not changing.
European Social Do you think that Entirely by natural Causes
Survey 2016 climate change is processes
caused by natural Mainly by natural
processes, processes
human activity, or About equally by
both? natural processes and
human activity
Mainly by human
activity
Entirely by human
activity
European Social How good or bad do Extremely Consequences
Survey 2016 you think the impact Bad – Extremely
of good
climate change will
be on people across
the world?
Fusco 2012 I believe GCC is real (1-disagree strongly Reality
to 5-agree strongly.)
Fusco 2012 I believe GCC is (1-disagree strongly Causes
primarily caused by to 5-agree strongly.)
humans
Greenberg 2014 Global climate Agree, disagree Valence of the
change is a risk to consequence/Spatial
me,my family, and distance
my friends
Greenberg 2014 Global climate Agree, disagree Valence of the
change is a risk to consequence/Spatial
New Jersey distance
Greenberg 2014 I believe global Agree, disagree Reality
climate change is
occurring, and
recent hurricanes
have strengthened
that belief
Greenberg 2014 Global climate Agree, disagree Causes
change is caused by
humans
Greenberg 2014 Global climate Agree, disagree Reality
change not occurring
Heath 2006 How likely do you Very unlikely, Reality
think it is that global unlikely, unsure,
 warming is likely, very likely
occurring now?
Heath 2006 I have already Strongly disagree, Reality
noticed some signs disagree, unsure,
of global warming agree, strongly agree
Heath 2006 It seems to me that Strongly disagree, Reality
temperature is disagree, unsure,
warmer now than in agree, strongly agree
years before.
Heath 2006 It seems to me that Strongly disagree, Reality
weather patterns disagree, unsure,
have changed agree, strongly agree
compared to when I
was a child.
Heath 2006 I am quite sure that Strongly disagree, Reality
global warming is disagree, unsure,
occurring now agree, strongly agree
Heath 2006 Global warming is Strongly disagree, Causes
mainly due to disagree, unsure,
natural causes, not agree, strongly agree
human activity.
Heath 2006 The main causes of Strongly disagree, Causes
global warming are disagree, unsure,
human activities agree, strongly agree
Heath 2006 Global warming is Strongly disagree, Causes
merely a natural disagree, unsure,
fluctuation, not agree, strongly agree
caused by human
activity
Heath 2006 I am quite sure that Strongly disagree, Causes
human activities are disagree, unsure,
to be blamed for agree, strongly agree
global warming.
Heath 2006 Unlike what most Strongly disagree, Valence of the
scientists say, there disagree, unsure, consequence
will be some agree, strongly agree
positive
consequences of
global warming for
the environment
Heath 2006 The consequences of Strongly disagree, Valence of the
global warming will disagree, unsure, consequence
be harmful for the agree, strongly agree
environment.
Heath 2006 Global warming will Strongly disagree, Valence of the
bring about some disagree, unsure, consequence
serious negative agree, strongly agree
consequences.
Heath 2006 The consequences of Strongly disagree, Valence of the
global warming will disagree, unsure, consequence
 be more positive agree, strongly agree
than negative overall
Hennes 2016 Do you believe that Definitely not - Causes
global warming is Definitely
anthropogenic
Hennes 2016 Do you believe that Definitely not - Reality
global warming is Definitely
occurring?
Hennes 2016 Do you believe that Definitely not - Reality
global warming is a Definitely
hoax?
Hennes 2016 How likely do you Not likely at all – Valence of the
think it is that, in extremely likely consequence
your lifetime, the
effects of global
warming will be
noticeable (species
extinction, glacial
melting, severe
weather such as
hurricanes, increased
temperatures?
Hennes 2016 How likely do you Not likely at all – Reality
think it is that global extremely likely
warming is
occurring?
Hennes 2016 How likely do you Not likely at all – Reality
think it is that extremely likely
scientists will
eventually discover
that global warming
is NOT man-made
after all?
Hennes 2016 How likely do you Not likely at all – Reality
think it is that global extremely likely
warming is a hoax?
Hine 2013 My local area is 1 (strongly disagree) Spatial distance
likely to be affected to 5 (strongly agree)
by climate change”
Hine 2013 How vulnerable do 1 (not vulnerable) to 6 Spatial distance
you think the region (very vulnerable)
where you live is to
the impacts of
climate change?”
Hine 2013 As far as you know, Yes, no, don’t know. Reality
do you personally
think the world’s
climate is change or
not?
Hine 2013 Thinking about the Climate change is Causes
 causes of climate entirely causes by
change, which, if natural processes.
any, of the following Climate change is
best describes your mainly caused by
opinion? natural processes.
Climate change is
partly caused by
natural processes and
partly caused by
human activity.
Climate change is
mainly caused by
human activity.
Climate change is
entirely caused by
human activity. There
is no such thing as
climate change.
Hine 2013 Of nothing is done Very serious, Valence of the
to reduce climate somewhat serious, not consequence
change in the future, so serious, not serious
how serious a at all.
problem do you
think it will be for
Australia/the world?
Hine 2013 I am certain that Strongly agree, tend Reality
climate change is to agree, neither agree
really happening. nor disagree, tend to
disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 There are risks to Strongly agree, tend Valence of the
people in Australia to agree, neither agree consequence/Spatial
from climate change nor disagree, tend to distance
disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 There are benefits to Strongly agree, tend Valence of the
people in Australia to agree, neither agree consequence/Spatial
from climate change nor disagree, tend to distance
disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 The seriousness of Strongly agree, tend Valence of the
climate change is to agree, neither agree consequence
exaggerated nor disagree, tend to
disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 Most scientists agree Strongly agree, tend Causes
 that humans are to agree, neither agree
causing climate nor disagree, tend to
change disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 It is uncertain what Strongly agree, tend Valence of the
the effects of climate to agree, neither agree consequence
change will be nor disagree, tend to
disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 When, if at all, do We are already Temporal distance
you think feeling the effects. In
Australia/Britain the next 10 years, in
will start feeling the the next 25 years, in
effects of climate the next 50 years, in
change? the next 100 years,
beyond the next 100
years, never, don’t
know, no opinion
Hine 2013 Climate change will Strongly agree, tend Spatial distance
mostly affect areas to agree, neither agree
that are far away nor disagree, tend to
from here disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 My local area is Strongly agree, tend Spatial distance
likely to be affected to agree, neither agree
by climate change nor disagree, tend to
disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 Climate change will Strongly agree, tend Spatial distance
mostly affect to agree, neither agree
developing countries nor disagree, tend to
disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 Climate change is Strongly agree, tend Spatial distance
likely to have a big to agree, neither agree
impact on people nor disagree, tend to
like me disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 Human beings are Strongly agree, tend Causes
responsible for to agree, neither agree
global warming and nor disagree, tend to
climate change disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 Humans have little Strongly agree, tend Causes
control over the to agree, neither agree
forces of nature such nor disagree, tend to
as climate change disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 I believe that climate Strongly agree, tend Temporal distance
change is inevitable, to agree, neither agree
no matter what we nor disagree, tend to
try and do to stop it disagree, strongly
disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 Climate change will Strongly agree, tend Valence of the
have a noticeable to agree, neither agree consequences/Spatial
negative impact on nor disagree, tend to distance
my health (over the disagree, strongly
next 25 years) disagree, no opinion,
don’t know.
Hine 2013 Climate change will Strongly agree, tend Valence of the
have a noticeable to agree, neither agree consequences/Spatial
negative impact on nor disagree, tend to distance
my economic and disagree, strongly
financial situation disagree, no opinion,
(over the next 25 don’t know.
years)
Hine 2013 Climate change will Strongly agree, tend Valence of the
have a noticeable to agree, neither agree consequences/Spatial
negative impact on nor disagree, tend to distance
the environment in disagree, strongly
which my family disagree, no opinion,
and I live. don’t know.
Hoffarth 2016 Climate change is 1 (strongly disagree) Reality
real to 7 (strongly agree)
Jang 2013 Do you think a rise 0 (mostly by nature), Causes
in the world’s 50 (equally by nature
temperatures is and humans), and 100
being caused mostly (mostly by humans).
by things people do,
mostly by natural
causes, or about
equally by things
people do and by
natural causes?”
Johnson 2017 Climate change is 1 (strongly Reality/causes
happening now, disagree) to 7
caused mainly by (strongly agree)
human activities
Kaklamanou Do you think that (yes / no / don’t Reality
2015 the world’s climate know)
is changing?
Kaklamanou How concerned are not at all Valence of the
2015 you about climate concerned/not very consequences
change concerned/ fairly
concerned/very
concerned/don’t know
Kittipongvises I believe that climate 1, strongly disagree, Reality
2013 change is occurring to 5, strongly agree,
as a real problem
Kittipongvises I believe that human 1, strongly disagree, Causes
2013 activity is a to 5, strongly agree,
substantial cause of
climate change
Le Dang 2014 Climate change is 1 (strongly disagree) Reality
actually happening to 7 (strongly agree).
Le Dang 2014 My farming is 1 (strongly disagree) Spatial distance
affected by climate to 7 (strongly agree).
change
Le Dang 2014 My family’s life is 1 (strongly disagree) Spatial distance
influenced by to 7 (strongly agree).
climate change
Leiserowitz 2012 Global warming (1) Yes; (2) No; and Reality
refers to the idea that (3) Don’t know.
the world’s average
temperature has
been increasing over
the past 150 years,
may be increasing
more in the future,
and that the world’s
climate may change
as a result. What do
you think? Do you
think that global
warming is
happening?
Leiserowitz 2012 Assuming global ) Caused mostly by Causes
warming is human activities; (2)
happening, do you Caused mostly by
think it is . . . natural changes in the
environment; (3)
Other (Please
specify); (4) None of
the above because
global warming isn’t
happening.”
Levinston 2012 Which of the I don’t think that Reality and causes
following statements climate change is
best describes your happening; I have no
thoughts on climate idea whether climate
change? change is happening
 or not; I think that
climate change is
happening, but it’s
just a natural
fluctuation in Earth’s
temperatures; I think
that climate change is
happening, and I think
that humans are
largely causing it
Leviston 2012 How much do 1 = not at all to 4 =a Valence of the
you think climate great deal) consequences/Spatial
change will harm distance
you personally?
Leviston 2012 Is climate change Yes, No, unsure Reality
happening?
Leviston 2012 Is the climate Yes, No, unsure Reality
changing?
Maibach 2009 Do you think global Extremely sure global Reality
warming is warming is
happening? How happening. Very sure
sure are you that global warming is
global warming (is happening. Somewhat
happening/is not sure global warming
happening)? is happening. Not at
all sure global
warming is
happening. Don't
know. Not at all sure
global warming is not
happening. Somewhat
sure global warming
is not happening.
Very sure global
warming is not
happening. Extremely
sure global warming
is not happening.
Maibach 2009 Assuming global Caused mostly by Causes
warming is human activities.
happening, do you Caused by human
think it is ... activities and natural
changes. Caused
mostly by natural
changes in the
environment. Neither
because global
warming isn't
happening. Other
(Please specify).
 Don't know.
Maibach 2009 Which comes closer Most scientists think Reality
to your own view? global warming is
happening. There is a
lot of disagreement.
Most scientists think
global warming is not
happening. Don't
know enough to say.
Maibach 2009 how many people do Millions. Thousands. Valence of the
you think ... Hundreds. None. consequence
Currently die each
year due to global
warming?
Maibach 2009 how many people do Millions. Thousands. Valence of the
you think ... Are Hundreds. None. consequence
currently injured or
become ill each year
due to global
warming?
Maibach 2009 how many people do Millions. Thousands. Valence of the
you think ... Will die Hundreds. None. consequence
each year 50 years
from now due to
global warming?
Maibach 2009 how many people do Millions. Thousands. Valence of the
you think ... Will be Hundreds. None. consequence
injured or become ill
each year 50 years
from now due to
global warming?
Maibach 2009 How much do you A great deal. A Valence of the
think global moderate amount. consequence
warming will harm: Only a little. Not at
You personally, all. Don’t Know.
Your family, Your
community, People
in the United States,
People in other
modern
industrialized
countries, People in
developing
countries, Future
generations of
people, Plant and
animal species
Maibach 2009 When do you think They are being Temporal distance
global warming will harmed now In 10
start to harm people years In 25 years In
 in the United 50 years In 100 ye
States/other people
around the world?
Maibach 2009 Worldwide over the Many more. A few Valence of the
next 20 years, do more. No Difference. consequence
you think global A few less. Many
warming will cause less. Don’t Know.
more or less of the
following, if nothing
is done to address it?
Droughts and water
shortages, Severe
heat waves,
Extinctions of plant
and animal species,
Famines and food
shortages, Floods,
Intense hurricanes,
Forest fires, People
living in poverty,
Refugees, Disease
epidemics
Maibach 2009 Worldwide over the Very likely, Valence of the
next 20 years, how somewhat likely, consequence
likely do you think it somewhat unlikely,
is that global very unlikely, don’t
warming will cause know.
each of the
following if nothing
is done to address it?
Melting ice caps and
glaciers,
Abandoning large
coastal cities due to
rising sea levels,
Expanding deserts
Mäkiniemi 2013 ‘The negative (1 = totally disagree Valence of the
consequences of and 7 = totally agree). consequences
climate change will
be very serious
Mäkiniemi 2013 The overall harm as (1 = totally disagree Valence of the
a result of climate and 7 = totally agree). consequences
change will be very
small,
Mäkiniemi 2013 Climate change is (1 = totally disagree Valence of the
not likely to cause and 7 = totally agree). consequences/Temporal
harm in the near distance
future
Mäkiniemi 2013 The negative effects (1 = totally disagree Valence of the
of climate change and 7 = totally agree). consequences/Temporal
 will be felt very distance
quickly
Mäkiniemi 2013 is unlikely that (1 = totally disagree Valence of the
climate change will and 7 = totally agree). consequences
cause any harm
Mäkiniemi 2013 ‘‘Climate change is (1 = totally disagree Valence of the
likely to cause harm and 7 = totally agree). consequences
Mäkiniemi 2013 The harmful effects (1 = totally disagree Valence of the
of climate change and 7 = totally agree). consequences/Spatial
will affect people distance
close to me’
Mäkiniemi 2013 ‘‘The harmful (1 = totally disagree Valence of the
effects of climate and 7 = totally agree). consequences/Spatial
change will affect distance
the nearby
environment’’
Mäkiniemi 2013 ‘The harmful effect (1 = totally disagree Valence of the
of climate change and 7 = totally agree). consequences/Spatial
will affect people far distance
away from me
Mäkiniemi 2013 ‘The harmful effects (1 = totally disagree Valence of the
of climate change and 7 = totally agree). consequences/Spatial
will affect the distance
environment far
away fromme’’
Milfont 2015 Climate change is (1 = totally disagree Reality
real and 7 = totally agree).
Milfont 2015 Climate change is (1 = totally disagree Causes
caused by humans and 7 = totally agree).
Nolan 2010 How likely is it that I =not at all likely to 7 Reality
the earth's annual =very likely.
temperaturewill
increase at least 3
degrees Fahrenheit
within the next 50
years?
O’Connor 1999 Suppose annual I =not at all likely to 7 Valence of the
average temperature =very likely. consequences
DOES increase by 3
degrees Fahrenheit
over the next 50
years. Then how
likely do you think
each of the
following would
be?” The seven
items are: Many
people’s standard of
living will decrease;
My standard of
 living will decrease;
Starvation and food
shortages will occur
in much of the
world; Starvation
and food shortages
will occur where I
live; It will be
necessary for richer
countries to make
large donations of
financial aid-to
poorer countries;
Rates of serious
disease will
increase; and My
chances of suffering
from a serious
disease will
increase.
Poortinga 2011 As far as you know, Yes, No, Don’t know Reality
do you personally
think the world’s
climate is changing
or not?
Poortinga 2011 ‘I am uncertain that Strongly agree – Reality
climate change is strongly disagree
really happening’
Poortinga 2011 Thinking about the ‘climate change is Causes
causes of climate entirely caused by
change, which, if natural processes’’,
any, of the following ‘‘climate change is
best describes your mainly caused by
opinion’’ natural processes’’,
‘‘climate change is
partly caused by
natural processes and
partly caused by
human activity’’,
‘‘climate change is
mainly caused by
human activity’’, and
‘‘climate change is
completely caused by
human activity’’
Poortinga 2011 Most scientists agree Strongly agree – Causes
that humans are strongly disagree
causing climate
change
Poortinga 2011 The seriousness of Strongly agree – Valence of the
 climate change is strongly disagree consequence
exaggerated’
Poortinga 2011 ‘It is uncertain what Strongly agree – Valence of the
the effects of climate strongly disagree consequence
change will be’
Reynolds 2010 “How “certain,” “very Causes
likely do you think it likely,” “somewhat
is that human likely,” “not likely,”
actions have and “impossible
changed global
climate?
Rosenstrater How soon will the 1 = immediate 7 = far Temporal distance
2013 consequences of in the future
climate
change be
experienced?
Rosenstrater How much does the (1 = not at all Valence of the
2013 idea of climate dreadful, 7 = very consequences
change fill you with dreadful)
dread
Rosenstrater How much do (1 = no benefit, 7 = Valence of the
2013 humans benefit from great benefit) consequences
climate change
Rosenstrater Are the risks and (1 = very equitably Valence of the
2013 benefits of climate distributed, 7 = very consequences
change equitably inequitably
distributed among distributed
humans
Saleh Safi 2012 Please use the scale 1 is not at all, 2 is Valence of the
below to in- dicate only a little, 3 is a consequences/Spatial
how much you think moderate amount, and distance
climate change will 4 is a great deal, in
neg- atively impact addi- tion to “I don’t
the following. 1) know” as a fifth
oneself; (2) family; option
(3) ranching and
farming community;
(4) the United
States; (5) wealthy
nations; (6) least
wealthy nations; (7)
plants and animals;
and (8) future
generations
Saleh Safi 2012 I believe that hu- 1 (Strongly disagree) Causes
man activity has to 5 (Strongly agree).
been playing a
significant role in
recent climate
change”
Schuldt 2014 You may have heard Definitely has not Reality
about the idea that been happening;
the world’s Probably has not been
temperature may happening; Unsure,
have been going up but leaning toward it
[changing] over the has not been
past 100 years, a happening; Not sure
phenomenon either way; Unsure,
sometimes called but leaning toward it
“global warming” has been happening;
[“climate change”]. Probably has been
What is your happening; Definitely
personal opinion has been happening).
regarding whether or Participants
not this has been
happening
Shao 2016 “Do you think Yes, no, don’t know Reality
climate change is
happening?
Shao 2016 How concerned are 0 (“not concerned at Valence of the
you that your all”) to 4 (“extremely consequences/Spatial
community will be concerned”) distance
affected by future
climate change?”
Sibley 2013 Climate 1 (strongly disagree) Reality
change is real. to 7 (strongly agree).
Sibley 2013 Climate change is 1 (strongly disagree) Causes
caused by humans to 7 (strongly agree).
Sinatra 2012 Scientific evidence 1, strongly disagree, Reality
points to a warming to 5, strongly agree,
trend in global
climate.
Sinatra 2012 Human activity has 1, strongly disagree, Causes
been the driving to 5, strongly agree,
force behind the
warming trend over
the last 50 years.
Sinatra 2012 The release of CO2 1, strongly disagree, Causes
(carbon dioxide) to 5, strongly agree,
from human activity
(such as smoke
stacks and car
emissions) has
played a central role
in raising the
average surface
temperature of the
earth
Sinatra 2012 Human activity is 1, strongly disagree, Causes
responsible for the to 5, strongly agree,
 continuing rise in
average global
temperature.
Sinatra 2012 Natural phenomena 1, strongly disagree, Causes
such as solar to 5, strongly agree,
variations combined
with volcanic
activity are the real
cause of the
warming effect
Sinatra 2012 Humans have very 1, strongly disagree, Causes
little effect on to 5, strongly agree,
climate temperature.
Sinatra 2012 It is arrogant to 1, strongly disagree, Causes
assume that humans to 5, strongly agree,
can influence
climate temperature
Soliman 2017 “Global warming is 1 = strongly disagree, Reality
a theory that has not 6 = strongly agree
yet been proven
Soliman 2017 “Global warming is 1 = strongly disagree, Reality
a proven fact 6 = strongly agree
Soliman 2017 Current behaviors of (0 = not at all, 100 = Causes
humans are extremely
causing climate
change effects in the
future
Soliman 2017 The percentage of 0-100 Causes
the effects of climate
change that they
think is caused by
the impact of human
behavior on the
environment
(0%e100%).
Spence 2012 When, if at all, do We are already Temporal distance
you think Britain feeling the effects. In
will start feeling the the next 10 years. In
effects of climate the next 25 years. In
change? the next 50 years. In
the next 100 years.
Beyond the next 100
years. Never
Spence 2012 Climate change will 1, strongly disagree, Spatial distance
mostly affect areas to 5, strongly agree,
that are far away
from here
Spence 2012 My local area is 1, strongly disagree, Spatial distance
likely to be affected to 5, strongly agree,
by climate change
Spence 2012 Climate change will 1, strongly disagree, Spatial distance
mostly affect to 5, strongly agree,
developing countries
Spence 2012 Climate change is 1, strongly disagree, Spatial distance
likely to have a big to 5, strongly agree,
impact on people
like me
Stanley 2017 is an entirely natural 1 (strongly Causes
phenomenon – disagree)to7(strongly
human action does agree)
not contribute
importantly to it
Stanley 2017 Any changes in 1 (strongly Causes
global climate disagree)to7(strongly
simply reflects agree)
naturally occurring
variation”.
Taylor 2014 How convinced are “totally convinced” (= Reality/Temporal
you, if at all, that 1) to “not at all distance
climate change is convinced” (= 4) for
currently affecting
the planet?
Taylor 2014 How convinced are “totally convinced” (= Reality/Temporal
you, if at all, that 1) to “not at all distance/Spatial
climate change is convinced” (= 4) for distance
currently affecting
the United
Kingdom? (3)
Whitmarsh 2008 Human activities 1 (strongly Causes
have no significant disagree)to7(strongly
impact on global agree)
temperatures
Whitmarsh 2008 Climate change is 1 (strongly Causes
just a natural disagree)to7(strongly
fluctuation in earth’s agree)
temperatures
Whitmarsh 2008 What impacts, if Changes/extremes in Valence of the
any, do you think weather, flooding, sea consequences
that climate change level rise/loss of land,
may have? catastrophe/global
destruction
Whitmarsh 2008 What do you think Pollution, ozone layer Causes
causes climate depletion,
change? cars/traffic/exhaust
fumes,
overuse/misuse of
earth’s resources

References
Alcock, I., White, M. P., Taylor, T., Coldwell, D. F., Gribble, M. O., Evans, K. L., … Fleming, L.

E. (2017). ‘Green’ on the ground but not in the air: Pro-environmental attitudes are related to

household behaviours but not discretionary air travel. Global Environmental Change, 42,

136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.005

Arbuckle, J. G., Morton, L. W., & Hobbs, J. (2015). Understanding Farmer Perspectives on

Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation: The Roles of Trust in Sources of Climate

Information, Climate Change Beliefs, and Perceived Risk. Environment and Behavior, 47(2),

205–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513503832

Benjamin, D., Por, H.-H., & Budescu, D. (2017). Climate Change Versus Global Warming: Who

Is Susceptible to the Framing of Climate Change? Environment and Behavior, 49(7), 745–

770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516664382

Blennow, K., Persson, J., Persson, E., & Hanewinkel, M. (2016). Forest Owners’ Response to

Climate Change: University Education Trumps Value Profile. PLOS ONE, 11(5), e0155137.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155137

Bloodhart, B., Maibach, E., Myers, T., & Zhao, X. (2015). Local Climate Experts: The Influence

of Local TV Weather Information on Climate Change Perceptions. PLOS ONE, 10(11),

e0141526. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141526

Borick, C. P., & Rabe, B. G. (2010). A Reason to Believe: Examining the Factors that Determine

Individual Views on Global Warming. Social Science Quarterly, 25.

Bostrom, A., O’Connor, R. E., Böhm, G., Hanss, D., Bodi, O., Ekström, F., … Sælensminde, I.

(2012). Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: International survey findings.

Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 210–222.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.012
Bradley, G. L., & Reser, J. P. (2017). Adaptation processes in the context of climate change: A

social and environmental psychology perspective. Journal of Bioeconomics, 19(1), 29–51.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-016-9231-x

Brenkert-Smith, H., Meldrum, J. R., & Champ, P. A. (2015). Climate change beliefs and hazard

mitigation behaviors: Homeowners and wildfire risk. Environmental Hazards, 14(4), 341–

360. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2015.1080656

Brody, S. D., Lee, Y., & Highfield, W. E. (2017). Household adjustment to flood risk: A survey of

coastal residents in Texas and Florida, United States. Disasters, 41(3), 566–586.

https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12216

Carrico, A. R., Truelove, H. B., Vandenbergh, M. P., & Dana, D. (2015). Does learning about

climate change adaptation change support for mitigation? Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 41, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.10.009

Chang, J. J., Kim, S.-H., Shim, J. C., & Ma, D. H. (2016). Who Is Responsible for Climate

Change? Attribution of Responsibility, News Media, and South Koreans’ Perceived Risk of

Climate Change. Mass Communication and Society, 19(5), 566–584.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1180395

Clayton, S., Luebke, J., Saunders, C., Matiasek, J., & Grajal, A. (2014). Connecting to nature at the

zoo: Implications for responding to climate change. Environmental Education Research,

20(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.816267

Cook, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2016). Rational Irrationality: Modeling Climate Change Belief

Polarization Using Bayesian Networks. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 160–179.

https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12186

Davidson, D. J., & Haan, M. (2012). Gender, political ideology, and climate change beliefs in an

extractive industry community. Population and Environment, 34(2), 217–234.

de Boer, J., de Witt, A., & Aiking, H. (2016). Help the climate, change your diet: A cross-sectional

study on how to involve consumers in a transition to a low-carbon society. Appetite, 98, 19–

27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.12.001

de Boer, J., Wouter Botzen, W. J., & Terpstra, T. (2014). Improving Flood Risk Communication

by Focusing on Prevention-Focused Motivation: Flood Risk Communication. Risk Analysis,

34(2), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12091

DeBono, R., Vincenti, K., & Calleja, N. (2012). Risk communication: Climate change as a human-

health threat, a survey of public perceptions in Malta. The European Journal of Public Health,

22(1), 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckq181

Deng, Y., Wang, M., & Yousefpour, R. (2017). How do people’s perceptions and climatic disaster

experiences influence their daily behaviors regarding adaptation to climate change? — A case

study among young generations. Science of The Total Environment, 581–582, 840–847.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.022

Deryugina, T., & Shurchkov, O. (2016). The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus

about Climate Change. PLOS ONE, 11(4), e0151469.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151469

Dickinson, J. L., McLeod, P., Bloomfield, R., & Allred, S. (2016). Which Moral Foundations

Predict Willingness to Make Lifestyle Changes to Avert Climate Change in the USA? PLOS

ONE, 11(10), e0163852. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163852

Ekholm, S., & Olofsson, A. (2017). Parenthood and Worrying About Climate Change: The

Limitations of Previous Approaches: Parenthood and Worrying About Climate Change. Risk

Analysis, 37(2), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12626

European Social Survey. (2016). ESS Round 8 Source Questionnaire. London: ESS ERIC c/o City

University London.
Fusco, E., Snider, A., & Luo, S. (2012). Perception of global climate change as a mediator of the

effects of major and religious affiliation on college students’ environmentally responsible

behavior. Environmental Education Research, 18(6), 815–830.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.672965

Greenberg, M. R., Weiner, M. D., Noland, R., Herb, J., Kaplan, M., & Broccoli, A. J. (2014).

Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy: Policies to Reduce Risk

After Hurricane Sandy. Risk Analysis, 34(6), 997–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12203

Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2006). Free-Market Ideology and Environmental Degradation: The Case

of Belief in Global Climate Change. Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 48–71.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505277998

Hennes, E. P., Ruisch, B. C., Feygina, I., Monteiro, C. A., & Jost, J. T. (2016). Motivated recall in

the service of the economic system: The case of anthropogenic climate change. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 145(6), 755–771. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000148

Hine, D. W., Reser, J. P., Phillips, W. J., Cooksey, R., Marks, A. D. G., Nunn, P., … Glendon, A.

I. (2013). Identifying climate change interpretive communities in a large Australian sample.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 229–239.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.08.006

Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2016). Green on the outside, red on the inside: Perceived

environmentalist threat as a factor explaining political polarization of climate change. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 45, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.002

Jang, S. M. (2013). Framing responsibility in climate change discourse: Ethnocentric attribution

bias, perceived causes, and policy attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 27–36.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.003
Johnson, D. R. (2017). Bridging the political divide: Highlighting explanatory power mitigates

biased evaluation of climate arguments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 248–255.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.008

Kaklamanou, D., Jones, C. R., Webb, T. L., & Walker, S. R. (2015). Using Public Transport Can

Make Up for Flying Abroad on Holiday: Compensatory Green Beliefs and Environmentally

Significant Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 47(2), 184–204.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513488784

Kittipongvises, S., & Mino, T. (2013). The Influence of Psychological Factors on Global Climate

Change Perceptions Held by the Rural Citizens of Thailand. Ecopsychology, 5(2), 126–135.

https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2012.0080

Le Dang, H., Li, E., Nuberg, I., & Bruwer, J. (2014). Farmers’ assessments of private adaptive

measures to climate change and influential factors: A study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.

Natural Hazards, 71(1), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0931-4

Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N., & Dawson, E. (2012).

Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 20.

Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. (2012). Beliefs and Denials About Climate Change: An Australian

Perspective. Ecopsychology, 4(4), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2012.0051

Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2009). Global warming’s six americas

2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis. George Mason University, Yale University.

Mäkiniemi, J.-P., & Vainio, A. (2013). Moral intensity and climate-friendly food choices. Appetite,

66, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.01.026

Milfont, T. L., Milojev, P., Greaves, L. M., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). Socio-structural and

psychological foundations of climate change beliefs. New Zealand Journal of Psychology,

44(1), 14.
Nolan, J. M. (2010). “An Inconvenient Truth” Increases Knowledge, Concern, and Willingness to

Reduce Greenhouse Gases. Environment and Behavior, 42(5), 643–658.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509357696

O’Connor, R. E., Bard, R. J., & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk Perceptions, General Environmental

Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 461–471.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x

Poortinga, W., Spence, A., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2011). Uncertain

climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Global

Environmental Change, 21(3), 1015–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.001

Reynolds, T. W., Bostrom, A., Read, D., & Morgan, M. G. (2010). Now What Do People Know

About Global Climate Change? Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople: Now What Do People

Know About Global Climate Change? Risk Analysis, 30(10), 1520–1538.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01448.x

Rosentrater, L. D., Sælensminde, I., Ekström, F., Böhm, G., Bostrom, A., Hanss, D., & O’Connor,

R. E. (2013). Efficacy Trade-Offs in Individuals’ Support for Climate Change Policies.

Environment and Behavior, 45(8), 935–970. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512450510

Saleh Safi, A., James Smith, W., & Liu, Z. (2012). Rural Nevada and Climate Change:

Vulnerability, Beliefs, and Risk Perception: Vulnerability and Climate Change. Risk Analysis,

32(6), 1041–1059. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01836.x

Schuldt, J. P., & Roh, S. (2014). Of Accessibility and Applicability: How Heat-Related Cues

Affect Belief in “Global Warming” Versus “Climate Change”. Social Cognition, 32(3), 217–

238. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.3.217

Shao, W., & Goidel, K. (2016). Seeing is Believing? An Examination of Perceptions of Local

Weather Conditions and Climate Change Among Residents in the U.S. Gulf Coast. Risk

Analysis, 36(11), 2136–2157. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12571

Sibley, C. G., & Kurz, T. (2013). A Model of Climate Belief Profiles: How Much Does It Matter If

People Question Human Causation? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 245–

261. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12008

Sinatra, G. M., Kardash, C. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2012). Promoting attitude

change and expressed willingness to take action toward climate change in college students.

Instructional Science, 40(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9166-5

Soliman, M., & Wilson, A. E. (2017). Seeing change and being change in the world: The

relationship between lay theories about the world and environmental intentions. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 50, 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.01.008

Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The Psychological Distance of Climate Change.

Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x

Stanley, S. K., Wilson, M. S., Sibley, C. G., & Milfont, T. L. (2017). Dimensions of social

dominance and their associations with environmentalism. Personality and Individual

Differences, 107, 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.051

Taylor, A., de Bruin, W. B., & Dessai, S. (2014). Climate Change Beliefs and Perceptions of

Weather-Related Changes in the United Kingdom: Climate Change Beliefs. Risk Analysis,

34(11), 1995–2004. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12234

Whitmarsh, L. (2008). Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people?

The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. Journal of Risk

Research, 11(3), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701552235

Exploratory factor analysis (Study 1)
In response to a reviewer’s request, we also conducted an exploratory factor analysis
(estimation method = maximum likelihood, rotation = oblimin) with the data collected in
Study 1, using the R package ‘psych’ (v. 2.0.12). The parallel analysis method was used to
determine the number of factors to extract, which is an approach that is recommended in the
literature (Hayton et al., 2004; Watkins, 2018; Howard, 2016). This analysis suggests that 5
factors can be extracted from the data, in line with our expectations based on theory. The EFA
proposes a similar arrangement of the items as we found on the basis of our oblique multiple
group analysis. Like with Oblique Multiple Group analysis, we do see that some items are
wrongly specified and load more strongly onto other factors. For example, the EFA indicates
that the items 2 and 4 measuring spatial distance loaded more strongly onto a different factor,
namely temporal distance. Notably, these same items were also removed in the original
process using the oblique multiple group method. Hence, the key finding here is that all items
that were selected to form the final scale on the basis of their factor loadings in the original
analyses, would also have been selected to form the final scale if the EFA procedure was
used, with one notable exception we discuss below.
Table 1
Results of an exploratory factor analysis (Study 1)
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Reality 1 0.90 0.08 0.00 -0.07 -0.10
Reality 2 0.95 -0.04 -0.02 0.06 0.12
Reality 3 0.87 0.02 -0.12 0.06 -0.02
Reality 4 0.96 0.00 0.08 -0.03 0.07
Reality 5 0.90 0.01 -0.02 -0.10 -0.06

Cause 1 0.06 0.85 -0.07 0.04 0.05

Cause 2 -0.03 0.63 0.02 -0.18 0.23
Cause 3 -0.02 0.92 -0.04 -0.03 -0.01
Cause 4 0.04 0.96 0.02 -0.01 -0.02
Cause 5 0.11 0.39 0.05 -0.28 0.26

Consequence 1 0.29 0.23 -0.24 0.10 0.30

Consequence 2 0.02 0.10 -0.01 -0.06 0.81
Consequence 3 0.17 0.32 -0.34 0.05 0.23
Consequence 4 0.26 0.33 -0.31 0.06 0.20
Consequence 5 0.12 0.06 -0.01 -0.17 0.59

Spatial 1 0.01 0.01 0.94 0.03 -0.02

Spatial 2 0.03 0.04 0.29 0.39 -0.28
Spatial 3 -0.11 0.04 0.79 0.06 -0.01
Spatial 4 -0.05 0.14 0.26 0.38 -0.35
Spatial 5 -0.01 -0.14 0.78 0.02 0.01

Temporal 1 -0.31 -0.28 0.28 0.14 0.03

Temporal 2 -0.10 -0.05 0.04 0.75 -0.05
Temporal 3 0.07 -0.05 0.00 0.50 0.00
Temporal 4 -0.04 -0.03 0.03 0.83 -0.02
Temporal 5 -0.11 -0.35 0.38 0.26 0.19
The one exception to this statement is that the EFA gives higher factor loadings to the items
measuring the perceived positive consequences of climate change (consequence 2 and 5),
rather than the perceived negative consequences (which got higher factor loadings in the
oblique multiple group method) (consequence 1, 3, and 4). This is occurring because the
factor analysis is trying to maximise the difference between the factors. Study 2 showed that
the perceived positive consequences of climate change correlated less strongly with the
perceived causes dimension compared to the perceived negative consequences, which is why
the perceived positive consequences are being suggested as a factor by the EFA. Even though
we did not select these items in Study 1, we reached the conclusion that the perceived positive
consequences, amongst others, could potentially form an additional dimension for our scale,
which we tested in Study 2. While we found that the two dimensions of perceived positive
and negative consequences can indeed be conceptualized as different factors, the perceived
negative consequences of climate change was a better predictor of relevant outcome than the
perceived positive consequences of climate change. Had we therefore followed the suggested
factor structure proposed by the EFA, our final scale would have included a positive
consequences dimensions, and would have reduced predictive and concurrent validity.
References
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor Retention Decisions in Exploratory
Factor Analysis: A Tutorial on Parallel Analysis. Organizational Research Methods,
7(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675
Howard, M. C. (2016). A Review of Exploratory Factor Analysis Decisions and Overview of
Current Practices: What We Are Doing and How Can We Improve? International
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51–62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664
Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. Journal of
Black Psychology, 44(3), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807

Table S4
Comparing the factor structure of the scale to more parsimonious models (Study 1)

CFI RMSEA SRMR AIC BIC Chi square

difference 5

factor model

Benchmark (Hu & >.95 < .06 < .08 N/A N/A N/A

Bentler, 1999)

Five factor model .992 .030 .022 11606.874 11752.486 N/A

Four factor model .929 .088 .064 11908.635 12038.919 χ2 (4) = 58.73, p

(collapse Reality < .001

and Consequences

Four factor model .923 .092 .070 11905.449 12035.733 χ2 (4) = 96.72, p

(collapse Causes and < .001

Consequences)

Four factor model .933 .085 .039 11853.596 11983.880 χ2 (4) = 100.88,

(collapse p < .001

Consequences and

Spatial distance)

Three factor model .894 .105 .053 12042.947 12161.735 χ2 (7) = 149.89,

(collapse Causes, p < .001

Consequences,

Spatial distance,

Two factor model .762 .155 .070 12809.333 12920.457 χ2 (9) = 239.09,

(collapse Reality, p < .001

Causes,

Consequences, and

collapse Spatial
distance and

Temporal Distance)

Unidimensional .695 .175 .075 13110.428 13217.721 χ2 (10) =

model 344.69, p < .001

Table S5

Comparing the factor structure of the scale to more parsimonious models (Study 2)

CFI RMSEA SRMR AIC BIC Comparison full

model

Benchmark (Hu & >.95 < .06 < .08 N/A N/A N/A

Bentler, 1999)

Full model (8 .987 .030 .029 20208.675 20498.094 N/A

factors)

Five factor model .889 .084 .061 21059.721 21280.593 χ2 (18) =

(collapse two 456.93, p < .001

dimensional items)

Three factor model .813 .108 .080 21685.196 21879.412 χ2 (25) =

(collapse Causes, 942.76, p < .001

Consequences,

Spatial distance,

Unidimensional .720 .131 .089 22633.898 22816.689 χ2 (28) =

model 1005.5, p < .001

Table S6
Convergent and predictive validity of the single-items version of the scale in Studies 1, 2 and 3.
Study 1
Convergent validity Reality Cause Consequence Spatial Temporal
NEP .54 .65 .63 -.53 -.63
Negative affect .72 .71 .69 -.61 -.55
Risk Perception .80 .79 .81 -.74 -.61

Predictive validity
Mitigation behaviour .27 .30 .30 -.31 -.30
Adaptation behaviour .19 .18 .18 -.22 -.15
Mitigation policy support .66 .71 .68 -.58 -.54
Adaptation policy support .57 .56 .56 -.48 -.41

Study 2
Convergent validity Reality Cause Consequence Spatial Temporal
NEP .51 .58 .57 .54 -.63
Negative affect .74 .68 .61 .63 -.53
Risk Perception .82 .70 .68 .70 -.59

Predictive validity
Mitigation behaviour .30 .26 .28 .30 -.32
Adaptation behaviour .09 .04 .07 .10 .02
Mitigation policy support .68 .66 .59 .62 -.51
Adaptation policy support .65 .50 .51 .54 -.41

Study 3
Convergent validity Reality Cause Consequence
Biospheric values .24 .24 .28

Predictive validity
Aspiration reduce energy .26 .22 .30
Aspiration renewable energy .35 .33 .37
Acceptability wind energy .18 .27 .24
Acceptability solar energy .31 .28 .31
Table S7
Post-hoc Mann Whitney U tests to test discriminant validity for the single-items version of the scale in Studies 1, 2, and 3.
Men Women Democrats Republicans
Mean SD Mean SD U p 95% CI Mean SD Mean SD U p 95% CI
Study 1
Reality 6.02 1.33 5.94 1.53 15136 .41 [-0.23, 0.38] 6.56 0.77 4.91 1.78 10580 < .01 [1.23, 2.07]
Causes 5.37 1.72 5.53 1.60 13669 .25 [-0.52, 0.19] 6.04 1.11 4.18 2.03 9381 < .01 [1.35, 2.37]
Consequences 5.72 1.33 5.74 1.54 13494 .18 [-0.33, 0.29] 6.20 1.16 4.75 1.57 9427 < .01 [1.05, 1.87]
Spatial distance 2.59 1.48 2.43 1.38 15046 .19 [-0.15, 0.46] 2.02 1.06 3.51 1.78 3001 < .01 [-1.93, -1.03]
Temporal distance 2.75 1.62 2.50 1.73 15942 .03 [-0.11, 0.61] 2.13 1.48 3.72 1.86 3029 < .01 [-2.08, -1.09]

Study 2
Reality 6.26 1.14 6.08 1.38 15432 .80 [-0.09, 0.45] 6.51 0.90 5.23 1.77 9447 < .01 [0.85, 1.72]
Causes 5.75 1.50 5.67 1.49 14294 .76 [-0.24, 0.41] 6.08 1.21 4.71 1.98 7849 < .01 [0.84, 1.90]
Consequences 6.02 1.29 5.97 1.26 14253 .74 [-0.23, 0.32] 6.28 1.15 5.31 1.46 7779 < .01 [0.56, 1.38]
Spatial distance 5.78 1.28 5.86 1.24 13214 .27 [-0.36, 0.19] 6.10 1.10 5.11 1.54 7663 < .01 [0.56, 1.40]
Temporal distance 3.06 1.84 2.60 1.63 15717 .01 [0.09, 0.84] 2.45 1.67 3.89 1.77 2980 < .01 [-1.95, -0.93]

Study 3
Reality 6.20 1.01 6.19 1.05 126667 .45 [-0.13, 0.13]
Causes 5.26 1.35 5.47 1.45 125842 .01 [0.04, 0.39]
Consequences 5.68 1.24 5.81 1.14 122054 .08 [-0.02, 0.28]
Note: Corrected alpha level for tests is .05/5 = .01 in Study 1 and Study 2, and 0.05/3 = .017 in Study 3.
Measurement invariance across age groups
Upon a reviewers’ request, we tested whether the scale was measurement invariant across
different age groups. We compared the age groups 18-34 and 35+ in studies 1 and 2, since
there were very few respondents over the age of 65. In Study 3, we compared the groups 18-
34, 35-64, and 65+.
In Study 1, the fit of the model was excellent if both age groups were considered separately
(omnibus Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2 (134) = 150.34 , χ2/df = 1.12 , p = .16, scaled CFI = .993,
scaled RMSEA = .027, 90% CI [0.00, 0.044], SRMR = .026). There was no evidence of
measurement non-invariance across factor loadings (χ2(9) = 4.16, p = .90), intercepts (χ2(9) =
13.06, p = .16), or residuals (χ2(14) = 23.53, p = .05) between the different age groups.
In Study 2, the fit of the model was also excellent if age groups were considered separately
(omnibus Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2 (448) = 543.28, χ2/df =1.21, p = .001, scaled CFI = .982,
scaled RMSEA = .036, 90% CI [.026, .044], SRMR = .038). There was no evidence of
measurement non-invariance across factor loadings (χ2(16) = 24.70 , p = .08). There was
evidence of non-invariance of intercepts (χ2(16) = 39.75 , p < .001), but the change in model
fit was marginal (ΔCFI = -.002, ΔRMSEA = .002). Moreover, the difference between the
model constraining intercepts and factor loadings and the model constraining only factor
loadings was non-significant after constraints on the intercepts for one item (“I believe that
climate change is real“) were removed (χ2(15) = 23.78, p = .07), showing that the scale was at
least partially invariant. There was also evidence of non-invariance of the residuals (χ2(25) =
52.65, p < .01), with some changes to the model fit indices (ΔCFI = -.022, ΔRMSEA = .015).
The difference between the model constraining residuals, intercepts, factor loadings and the
model constraining only intercepts and factor loadings was only marginally significant after
constraints on the residuals for five items (Reality 1, Spatial Proximity 2, Spatial Distance 2,
Temporal distance 1, Temporal distance 3) were removed, (χ2(19) = 30.59 p = .045),
suggesting that the model was at least partially invariant.
In Study 3, the fit of the model was good if age groups (18-34, 35-64, and 65+) were
considered separately (omnibus Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2(51) = 146.62, χ2/df =2.87, p < .001,
scaled CFI = .960, scaled RMSEA = .080, 90% CI [.067, .093], SRMR = .045). There was no
evidence of measurement non-invariance across factor loadings (χ2(10) = 10.23, p = .42),
intercepts (χ2(10) = 12.58, p = .25), or residuals (χ2(16) = 8.43, p = .94) between the different
age groups.