Received: 30 October 2017 Revised: 9 March 2018 Accepted: 16 March 2018

DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12587

ARTICLE

Twitter and climate change

Jennifer R. Fownes1 | Chao Yu2 | Drew B. Margolin2

1
Department of Natural Resources, Cornell
University Abstract
2
Department of Communication, Cornell Twitter provides a useful tool for studying public conversa-
University
tions about climate change, an issue that crosses interna-
Correspondence
Drew B. Margolin, Department of
tional boundaries and stirs political and scientific debate.
Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, This review presents what is currently known about the
NY.
Email: dm658@cornell.edu
way climate change is discussed on Twitter, acknowledging
advantages and limitations and suggesting future areas for
Funding information study. As an accessible platform, Twitter allows public
NSF, Grant/Award Number: 1634702
expression of opinions on climate change and provides data
on how these fluctuate over different times and places.
Moving forward, studies assessing climate views can be
improved by better linking them to demographic and other
data indicating the population that Twitter users represent.
The open‐ended content of tweets provides additional
information, such as which topics are associated with cli-
mate change and which terms are used to discuss it. Future
studies can build on these results to capture a wider range
of climate‐related discussion. Finally, researchers are using
Twitter to understand who initiates and participates in cli-
mate change dialog and how, by categorizing users as differ-
ent actors—such as politicians, celebrities, NGOs, or the
general public. Future research could consider how effec-
tive these efforts are, and how Twitter activity translates
to offline outcomes.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

Social media have transformed public conversation on a variety of topics, and climate change is no exception. Climate
change refers to anthropogenic shifts in the global climate system, such as rising average temperatures known as
“global warming” (IPCC, 2014). As a large‐scale geophysical phenomenon triggered by human activity, climate change
is a social issue like many others that requires the collaboration of government, business, and the public. However,
climate change is also unique as it is a global problem that requires a coordinated international solution. Additionally,

Sociology Compass. 2018;e12587. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/soc4 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1 of 12
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12587
2 of 12 FOWNES ET AL.

many climate impacts happen unexpectedly, such as extreme weather events, influencing public opinion and discussion
in a way that makes climate change distinct. These features make social media a particularly useful platform for under-
standing public responses to climate change and how these may influence attitudes and movements for action.
Though social media is a general category, specific platforms are often used in substantially different ways.
Combining findings from multiple platforms overlooks important platform‐specific effects that may confound or con-
fuse interpretations (French & Bazarova, 2017; Lazer & Radford, 2017). Thus, in this article, we focus on one social
media platform: Twitter. Twitter is a micro‐blogging service in which users may post a “tweet,” a brief message (pre-
viously limited to 140 characters, but extended to 280 for most languages in 2017). Tweets are distributed automat-
ically to the user's network of followers and, unless the user has set their account to “private,” are also visible to
anyone using the web or a Twitter application. Tweets can also be replied to, explicitly flagging conversation partic-
ipants, or retweeted, shared along to one's own followers (French & Bazarova, 2017). Moreover, the public visibility
of tweets has given rise to hashtags, ad hoc categories that users assign to their tweets (e.g., #climatechange) to make
them easy for others interested in similar topics to discover (Romero, Meeder, & Kleinberg, 2011). Popular hashtags
can focus attention and organize conversation in a specific online space (Segerberg & Bennett, 2011). Twitter's
default settings allow researchers to access most tweets, in contrast to Facebook and Instagram, where only more
limited data are available. For this reason, academic research has focused intensely on Twitter over the last decade
(Lazer & Radford, 2017).
Twitter was selected for this review in part because it is a platform used extensively for the discussion of social
and political topics. Twitter is frequently used for receiving and sharing news, especially political information (Bosch,
2012; Earl, Hurwitz, Mesinas, Tolan, & Arlotti, 2013; Parmelee & Bichard, 2011; Pew Research Center, 2017). Con-
sistent with this feature, recent research shows that the topic of climate change has been discussed on Twitter by
users from different backgrounds, including NGOs, grassroots activists, celebrities, and politicians (Anderson, 2011;
Golbeck, Grimes, & Rogers, 2010; Lück, Wozniak, & Wessler, 2016; Segerberg & Bennett, 2011).
The following review identifies key findings to date related to the discussion of climate change on Twitter. The
first section, Measuring public views toward climate change, summarizes how Twitter has been used to describe and
characterize public sentiment and engagement on the issue. Although Twitter is not capable of replacing traditional
survey methods for measuring beliefs or attitudes, it can augment their understanding by shedding light on how cli-
mate change is discussed and framed. The second section, Reactions to climate change‐related events, focuses on one
of the more unique aspects of Twitter: its ability to record immediate responses to novel or unexpected events, often
with geographic specificity. Particular to the topic of climate change, conversations about its impacts are often linked
to the occurrence of extreme weather events. The third section, Proactive dialog about climate change, addresses the
potential for Twitter to foster social and political action to address (or thwart those attempting to address) climate
change. The diverse user base of Twitter allows for these dialogs to be started by a variety of actors, including NGOs,
politicians, celebrities, and grassroots movements.

2 | M E A S U R I N G P U BL I C V I E W S T O W A R D C L I M A T E CH A N G E

It has become popular to use Twitter as a means to assess public opinion about an issue (Jungherr, 2015; Sharma &
Baig, 2015), and the topic of climate change is no exception (Cody, Reagan, Mitchell, Dodds, & Danforth, 2015; UN
Global Pulse, 2015). As researchers note, it is important to interpret these studies with care (Jungherr, 2015). Treating
tweets as surveys that infer the current level of attitude or belief in an underlying population is problematic (Lin,
Margolin, Keegan, & Lazer, 2013) because user bases are not representative of this population (Kirilenko &
Stepchenkova, 2014; Ruths & Pfeffer, 2014). Total tweet volume can be skewed by over‐active users (Leetaru, Wang,
Cao, Padmanabhan, & Shook, 2013), and tweets may also be sent by bots or professional accounts that do not reflect
the opinion of an “individual” (Howard, Kollanyi, & Woolley, 2016). Twitter users also tend to connect to those with
similar opinions, and so may shape their activity and topics around the norms of those groups rather than their
FOWNES ET AL. 3 of 12

personal opinions (Pearce, Holmberg, Hellsten, & Nerlich, 2014; Ruths & Pfeffer, 2014; Williams, McMurray, Kurz, &
Hugo Lambert, 2015).
Nonetheless, tweets represent public behavior with real‐world consequences, including the potential to influ-
ence individuals, media, and politicians (Freelon, McIlwain, & Clark, 2016). Therefore, these studies can reveal impor-
tant aspects of public dialog, such as the intensity of support for a view, the potential for an issue to gain attention or
adherents, or normative pressures on opinion within a community (González‐Bailón, Banchs, & Kaltenbrunner, 2012;
Ruths & Pfeffer, 2014). In this spirit, previous studies (described below) have evaluated the prevalence of certain cli-
mate change views in public discourse, often using tweet metadata to focus on specific dates and locations. In addi-
tion to modeling the relative salience of basic views (e.g., belief or skepticism), researchers have also used the open‐
ended format of tweets to better understand the content of the views expressed online.
Surveys of public opinion about climate change often measure respondents' belief that it is real, concern about
its impacts, and support for mitigation or adaptation (Pew Research Center, 2015a; Gallup, 2017; Howe,
Mildenberger, Marlon, & Leiserowitz, 2015; Pew Research Center, 2015b). Studies of Twitter have documented
the online analog, quantifying the proportion of tweets in a sample that include words denoting climate change belief
(or skepticism), concern about impacts, or a desire for action (An et al., 2014; Jang & Hart, 2015). For example, English
language tweets in the US from 2012 to 2014 were twice as likely to discuss climate change as being real than to
frame it as a hoax (Jang & Hart, 2015). However, this differs from traditional surveys during that time, which show
an even greater ratio of belief to non‐belief (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser‐Renouf, Feinberg, & Rosenthal, 2014), sug-
gesting that Twitter is an active site of contestation over climate change.
Analysis of tweet content allows researchers to measure the intensity of collective sentiment toward climate
change in different kinds of discussions. In particular, the sentiment expressed in tweets about climate change may
be important because emotions can play a role in diffusing information and building solidarity (Kramer, Guillory, &
Hancock, 2014; Margolin & Liao, 2018; Sutton et al., 2015). A study of English language tweets in 2013 about the
generic topics “climate change” or “global warming” found that most tweets did not express any emotion, and that
there was an equal number of positive and negative tweets (Veltri & Atanasova, 2015). However, the preferred emo-
tion appears to depend on the context. A study of 2008–2014 English language tweets found that those containing
the word “climate” were generally less happy than tweets on average (Cody et al., 2015). Negative sentiment pre-
dominated due to the presence of words with negative connotations (e.g., “fight,” “crisis,” “threat,” “tax,” “war,” and
“disaster”) that are related to impacts or unpopular mitigation strategies (Cody et al., 2015). Nevertheless, some men-
tioned climate‐related words (e.g., “progress,” “book,” or “protect”) did carry positive connotations (Cody et al., 2015).
This distinction may be important for the evolution of public discussion and opinion, as the inclusion of sentiment
(especially negative) in tweets about climate change seems to increase their popularity (measured by retweets, Brady,
Wills, Jost, Tucker, & Van Bavel, 2017; Hansen, Arvidsson, Nielsen, Coleoni, & Etter, 2011).
Open‐ended tweet content can also provide clues about the issues that are associated with climate change con-
versations. As a controversial topic, climate change is often discussed on Twitter in terms of whether it is real,
whether the public is aware, and whether scientists agree (Jang & Hart, 2015; Pearce et al., 2014; Schuldt, Enns, &
Cavaliere, 2017; Veltri & Atanasova, 2015). Other popular topics include climate change causes (e.g., carbon emis-
sions) and possible solutions (e.g., a carbon tax and geoengineering), or energy, which is related to both (Cody
et al., 2015; Pathak, Henry, & Volkova, 2017; Pearce et al., 2014; Veltri & Atanasova, 2015). Many tweets also men-
tion perceived climate impacts, including warming temperatures and flooding (Pathak et al., 2017; Veltri & Atanasova,
2015). Furthermore, tweets often include links to external resources such as news sites, science journals and blogs,
and political sites (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2014; Maynard, Roberts, Greenwood, Rout, & Bontcheva, 2017; Veltri
& Atanasova, 2015), suggesting that Twitter users react to specific situations and external information.
Studies can also incorporate geographic information by using tweet geolocation or users' ID text. This allows
researchers to sample specific locations (Abbar, Zanouda, Berti‐Equille, & Borge‐Holthoefer, 2016; Jang & Hart,
2015; Pathak et al., 2017; Sisco, Bosetti, & Weber, 2017) or to compare tweet volume between locations (Kirilenko
& Stepchenkova, 2014; UN Global Pulse, 2015). For example, a sample of tweets in five languages (English, German,
4 of 12 FOWNES ET AL.

Russian, Spanish, and Portuguese) found that the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Norway had the highest relative
volume of tweets about climate change (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2014). Other studies have assessed how tweet
content differs geographically. Jang and Hart (2015) compared issue frames, finding that tweets from the US are
more likely than those from the UK, Canada, and Australia to use terms that imply climate change is a hoax (such
as “lie” or “fraud”). Within the US, tweets from Republican‐leaning states were more likely to use the hoax frame than
those from Democrat‐leaning states (Jang & Hart, 2015). The most prevalent country‐specific hashtags that appear in
climate‐related tweets tend to be related to national politics, such as #tcot (Top Conservatives on Twitter) and
#noKXL (“no Keystone Pipeline”) in the US (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2014; Pearce et al., 2014). These results
should be taken with some caution, however, as propensity to geotag or enable location services can differ by
sociodemographics, language, and country (Leetaru et al., 2013; Sloan & Morgan, 2015) and may be prone to error
(Graham, Hale, & Gaffney, 2014).

3 | R E A CT I O N S TO CL I M A T E CH A N G E‐ RE L A TE D EVE N T S

One of the benefits of studying Twitter as a mode of communication is that it allows real‐time observation of reac-
tions to events (Lin et al., 2013). Climate change‐related events include statements by political, social, and scientific
elites. Furthermore, extreme weather events, which are generally increasing as a result of climate change (IPCC,
2014), also prompt conversation about climate change impacts. These events are thus useful for understanding
how the public focuses attention on aspects of climate change when it is a salient issue, as well as the way larger
public conversations emerge in response.
As with many issues, Twitter attention to climate change increases following organized events and statements by
elites. Some of the largest surges in climate‐related tweets follow international meetings, such as the Conference of
the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Abbar et al., 2016; Holmberg &
Hellsten, 2015; Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2014; O'Neill, Williams, Kurz, Wiersma, & Boykoff, 2015; Stier,
Schunemann, & Steiger, 2017; UN Global Pulse, 2015), and scientific publications, such as the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (Holmberg & Hellsten, 2015; Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2014; Pearce
et al., 2014). Political events that garner attention include campaign issues (Pearce et al., 2014), speeches (Kirilenko,
Molodtsova, & Stepchenkova, 2015), executive orders (An et al., 2014), and politicians' own tweets (Jacques & Knox,
2016; Maynard et al., 2017). Spikes in Twitter activity also follow statements by scientists (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova,
2014) and celebrities (Leas et al., 2016; Stier et al., 2017).
Increased Twitter activity, however, does not necessarily reflect concern about climate change or support for action
to address it. To understand what kinds of reactions are elicited by events, researchers examine the open‐ended content
of tweets. For example, tweets reacting to new scientific information tend to focus on understanding the topic and
acknowledging the scientific consensus that climate change is real (Newman, 2016; O'Neill et al., 2015). Following polit-
ical events, an increase in tweets that are skeptical about the reality of climate change (An et al., 2014; Jacques & Knox,
2016; McKinnon, Semmens, Moon, Amarasekara, & Bolliet, 2016) reflects the politicized debate on the topic.
Extreme weather events also prompt a surge in climate‐related Twitter activity. Studies have documented an
increase in tweets about climate change following specific events: Hurricane Sandy in the US in 2012 (Cody et al.,
2015; Kirilenko et al., 2015; Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2014), Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines in 2013 (An et al.,
2014; Holmberg & Hellsten, 2015; Takahashi, Tandoc, & Carmichael, 2015), and bushfire outbursts in Australia in
2013 (An et al., 2014). Tweets about climate change also follow hot and cold local temperatures, wildfire, heavy snow,
hail, strong wind, flooding, and drought (Kirilenko et al., 2015; Molodtsova, Kirilenko, & Stepchenkova, 2013;
Murakami, Peters, Yamagata, & Matsui, 2016; Sisco et al., 2017). This coverage of extreme weather and natural disas-
ters captures a range of low and high magnitude events (Olteanu, Castillo, Diakopoulos, & Aberer, 2015), although
larger events receive more attention (Sisco et al., 2017). This increased attention to climate change appears to indicate
that at least a portion of the public perceives a strong link between extreme weather events and the issue of global
FOWNES ET AL. 5 of 12

climate change. This reflects scientific findings that climate change is increasing extreme weather events across the
globe (IPCC, 2014). Perhaps more importantly, it also suggests that extreme weather events are catalysts for conversa-
tion about the issue, and may indicate important moments when opinion might be swayed by public dialog.
Extreme weather events tend to negatively impact people, leading Twitter activity about such events to be more
sad than tweets on average (Cody et al., 2015). This may partly explain why climate‐related tweet sentiment in gen-
eral tends to be sadder than average (see Section 2). However, different user groups may not react to extreme
weather events in the same way. For example, one study found that women react to specific weather events and
are concerned about the social impacts of climate change, while men tend to discuss the general environmental
impacts or political, economic, and scientific issues of climate change (Holmberg & Hellsten, 2015).
Twitter users associate a variety of severe weather phenomena with climate change (Olteanu et al., 2015).
Around the time of extreme weather events, there is a decrease in skeptical climate‐related tweets, suggesting that
Twitter users interpret these events as climate change impacts and therefore evidence that it is happening (An et al.,
2014). The relationship between climate‐related tweets and temperatures mirrors findings by more traditional sur-
veys that belief in climate change increases with hot extremes and decreases with cold extremes (Donner &
McDaniels, 2013; Egan & Mullin, 2012; Hamilton & Keim, 2009; Kirilenko et al., 2015; Li, Johnson, & Zaval, 2011).
More explicitly, during an extreme drought in the central US in 2012–2013, tweets often discussed the possibility
that the drought was caused by climate change (Wagler & Cannon, 2015).
Twitter reactions to extreme weather events may facilitate responses to climate change impacts. There is
increasing interest in using Twitter data for disaster response (Sutton et al., 2015), and there is evidence that Twitter
can be particularly useful with respect to extreme weather events. For example, Twitter may aid in the high‐
resolution determination of impacted areas, as most extreme weather tweets are most concentrated in the locations
affected by typhoons and hurricanes (Kryvasheyeu et al., 2015; Sakaki, Okazaki, & Matsuo, 2010, 2013), floods
(Bruns, Burgess, Crawford, & Shaw, 2012), urban heat waves (Murakami et al., 2016), and droughts (Wagler &
Cannon, 2015). Additional information about events can be provided through Twitter's “check in” feature (Acar &
Muraki, 2011) and photos (Bruns et al., 2012). Furthermore, Twitter can promote the coordination of public and gov-
ernment efforts to request assistance, disseminate and amplify information, memorialize victims, and organize relief
efforts (Alexander, 2014; Bruns et al., 2012; Kongthon, Haruechaiyasak, Pailai, & Kongyoung, 2012; Takahashi et al.,
2015; Wagler & Cannon, 2015), depending on the extent of Twitter use in a region (Tandoc & Takahashi, 2016) and
the validity of propagated information (Acar & Muraki, 2011; Alexander, 2014; Bruns et al., 2012).

4 | P R O A C TI V E DI A LO G A BOU T C L I M A T E CH A N G E

Twitter and other social media have become instrumental in organizing social movements, from raising awareness to
coordinating social participation and interactions (Carlson & Strandberg, 2005). As a result, researchers have begun to
assess how different actors use Twitter to promote climate action and who their message reaches. This section con-
siders four types of actors—NGOs, grassroots movements, celebrities, and politicians—and how they use Twitter to
promote their agendas around climate change.
From a theoretical point of view, Twitter enables NGOs to mobilize and link loosely connected audiences
through weak ties. Such flexible organizational structure is one of the key factors in the success of social movements
(Jenkins, 1983; McCarthy & Zald, 1977). For example, NGOs can use social media to mobilize action and manage
public attention by directing tweets to particular hashtags (Segerberg & Bennett, 2011). By repeating a specific
and replicable message via a hashtag, social leaders can amplify a consistent point of view and control, to some
extent, the discussion. For example, the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition launched a hashtag to coordinate The Wave
march in the UK in 2009 (#thewave), which became popular enough to trend in the UK. Similarly, Global NGO Avaaz
created two hashtags, #telltheclimatetruth and #debateisover, to pressure Rupert Murdoch's Sky Media to report the
truth of climate change and to stop attacking scientific findings indicating its reality (Pearce et al., 2014). Although it
6 of 12 FOWNES ET AL.

is unclear whether the hashtags influenced Sky Media itself, they succeeded in gathering mass media attention to the
cause (Pearce et al., 2014). NGOs have also used Twitter to establish direct communication with specialized journal-
ists and to lobby with political decision makers (Lück et al., 2016). NGOs can also influence Twitter discussions of cli-
mate change through external content, such as having their web links embedded in tweets by other individuals (Veltri
& Atanasova, 2015).
Self‐organized grassroots action on Twitter can also shape public opinion and policy. Impromptu social media
crowds, in which many individuals spontaneously speak out on an issue, can influence the number of supporters for
a particular point of view (Lin, 2015; Segerberg & Bennett, 2011) via mechanisms like threshold effects (Granovetter,
1978), emotional contagion (Kramer et al., 2014), and solidarity building (Margolin & Liao, 2018). There is also evidence
that sustained crowds draw more attention from those in power (Freelon et al., 2016). Thus, while grassroots actions
might not lead directly to change on climate policy, they can facilitate the political process by sharpening the focus
of formal political actors and increasing their willingness to act (Rootes, Zito, & Barry, 2012; Stier et al., 2017).
Several of these grassroots efforts have been studied. For instance, Twitter was the popular platform for self‐
organized protests during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change COP 15 in 2009 (Segerberg
& Bennett, 2011). While some hashtags during the conference were organized by NGOs (such as #thewave, discussed
above), the hashtag #cop15 emerged organically from tweets by members of the general public and was used widely
to share real‐time information about events and resources (Segerberg & Bennett, 2011). The grassroots movement Camps
for Climate Action successfully utilized social media, including Twitter, to organize protests against industries that nega-
tively affect climate change (Baker, 2011; Rootes et al., 2012). One study suggests that grassroots protests use Twitter
because it allows users to share tactical information, such as the location of protests or police responses (Earl et al., 2013).
Celebrity involvement also exercises influence on the broader climate change discussion. Celebrities have the
power to draw attention, and their use of social media has become “a powerful news hook and potential mobilizing
agent,” especially to younger audiences (Anderson, 2011, p. 535). Environmental NGOs in particular are dependent
on celebrities to make their voices heard (Anderson, 2011; Lester, 2006). For example, Leonardo DiCaprio made a
strong call for climate change action in his acceptance speech at the 2016 Academy Awards, prompting many more
climate‐related tweets than other recent major climate change events including COP 15 and Earth Day (Batalla Miller,
2017; Leas et al., 2016; Stier et al., 2017). By increasing the visibility of climate change as a topic, celebrities tend to
influence public opinion and media attention in a way that is de‐politicized or “softened” (Anderson, 2011). This kind
of discussion on social media may facilitate or institutionalize the movement (Meyer & Gamson, 1995). However,
some scholars are concerned that celebrity involvement on climate change may “trivialize behavioral change and cod-
dle ongoing consumerism” (Boykoff & Goodman, 2009, p. 404) or shift the public's focus from fundamental issues to
inconsequential directions (Anderson, 2011).
Politicians use tweets as mini press releases, personal posts, and direct messages with their followers (Golbeck
et al., 2010). However, literature on politicians' use of social media on climate change issues is limited to comparisons
with grassroots movements' use of Twitter to influence politics. A recent study found that politicians' tweets related
to climate change had high levels of engagement compared to their tweets on other topics (Maynard et al., 2017).
This may indicate that climate change is a salient political topic, and that politicians may be engaging in widely read
discourse about it on Twitter. Politicians may also use Twitter to access information about potential climate change
impacts. For example, although in general Republican US Senators on Twitter follow fewer scientific accounts than
Democratic senators, Republican Senators do follow scientific accounts about responses to extreme weather events
such as FEMA and the NOAA National Hurricane Center (Helmuth, Gouhier, Scyphers, & Mocarski, 2016).

5 | C O N CL U S I O N

This review describes the different areas of research about discussions of climate change on Twitter, from assessing
public views on the topic, specifying spatial–temporal trends in activity and content, and understanding how the
FOWNES ET AL. 7 of 12

medium is used actively to promote dialog. However, there are limitations to the current state of knowledge. Section
2 discussed how Twitter users discuss climate change, but these discussions are not yet well mapped onto attitudes
about climate change as captured by surveys. Future methodological improvements may allow studies to better
integrate these two. For example, recent research suggests that it may be possible to estimate Twitter users'
sociodemographic characteristics from their profiles (using either computer models or crowdsourced coding),
allowing researchers to characterize patterns in topic interest and sentiment between specific groups (McCormick,
Lee, Cesare, Shojaie, & Spiro, 2017; Pathak et al., 2017).
Researchers may also further examine nuances in the expression of views on climate change to understand how
different communities respond to events, political movements, and other potential influences on climate change‐
related attitudes. For example, the partisan divide in climate change belief and support for action (Dunlap, McCright,
& Yarosh, 2016) is demonstrated in the terms used to describe it: “global warming” implies human causation
(Leiserowitz, Feinberg, et al., 2014; Whitmarsh, 2009) while “climate change” is sometimes framed as a natural phe-
nomenon not requiring human intervention (Schuldt et al., 2017). These differences are also reflected on social
media: Tweets that frame climate change as a hoax are more likely to refer to the phenomenon as “global warming”
than “climate change” (Jang & Hart, 2015; Schuldt et al., 2017). Tracking the usage of these keywords or frames
over time or in response to events could reflect shifts in belief or support for action. Furthermore, researchers might
explore whether different frames are associated with specific types of events. For instance, extreme short‐term cold
spells are sometimes interpreted as evidence against “global warming,” even though such events are possible under
long‐term climate change (Pierre‐Louis, 2017).
More broadly, it may be worth understanding how climate‐related impacts are framed and discussed without
referring specifically to “climate change” or “global warming,” which have become markers of controversy. For exam-
ple, people may discuss topics such as extreme weather impacts, adaptation measures like updated flood plans, or
energy security. Future studies can draw on previously documented topics commonly associated with climate
change on Twitter (described in Section 2) to determine which of these alternative terms may be relevant. For exam-
ple, researchers interested in quantifying adaptation planning could focus on climate change impacts (such as
flooding, extreme storms, drought, and heat waves) and associated infrastructure, while those interested in climate
change mitigation may consider discussion of energy or carbon capture.
Twitter might also be used to detect small and immediate shifts in opinion or attitude, such as instances
when specific users temporarily abandon partisan leanings (Lin et al., 2013). Research on other extreme
events, such as terrorist attacks, indicates that such events can stimulate strong, but temporary, emotions that
re‐orient individuals' focus and priorities (Lin, Margolin, & Wen, 2017; Ray, Mackie, Rydell, & Smith, 2008). Longi-
tudinal studies of specific Twitter users might examine the extent to which extreme weather events, hashtag
campaigns, or other forms of political action or speech change the trajectory of individuals' communication on
the topic.
In addition to understanding the online climate change conversation, practitioners may want to understand
how best to communicate their desired message to a target audience or how to prompt action. For instance, sci-
entists have previously connected to the public mostly through traditional journalistic outlets, but social media plat-
forms such as Twitter can allow them to communicate directly and in a personable manner with lay audiences
(Büchi, 2016; Dudo, 2015). Similarly, politicians are increasingly using social media, but few studies have quantified
how this benefits politician themselves, such as by increasing their favorability with the public (Hong & Nadler,
2011). Since politicians' tweets can influence the popularity of topics on Twitter (as described above), further
research could investigate whether Twitter is most useful for politicians to communicate with supporters, gain sup-
port, or direct attention to issues. Finally, as a low‐threshold and interactive platform, Twitter can allow the general
public to access information that is relevant to them. Personalized access to climate change content may be part of
a coordinated response, as many individual behaviors can help contribute to climate change mitigation (Knuth,
Nagle, Steuer, & Yarnal, 2007). Future investigation could assess how individuals change their thinking and behavior
in response to online dialog.
8 of 12 FOWNES ET AL.

ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T
This work is part of research supported by NSF Grant #1634702.

ORCID
Jennifer R. Fownes http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6699-2941
Chao Yu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4279-2152
Drew B. Margolin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0257-6217

RE FE R ENC ES
Abbar, S., Zanouda, T., Berti‐Equille, L., & Borge‐Holthoefer, J. (2016). Using Twitter to understand public interest in climate
change: The case of Qatar. International Workshop on Social Media for Environment and Ecological Monitoring. Retrieved
from https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04010 (Accessed July 13 2017).
Acar, A., & Muraki, Y. (2011). Twitter for crisis communication: Lessons learned from Japan's tsunami disaster. International
Journal of Web Based Communities, 7(3), 392–402.
Alexander, D. E. (2014). Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(3), 717–733.
An, X., Ganguly, A. R., Fang, Y., Scyphers, S. B., Hunter A. M., & Dy J. G. (2014). Tracking climate change opinions fromTwitter data.
Workshop on Data Science for Social Good Held in Conjunction with KDD 2014, August 24, 2014, New York City, New York.
Anderson, A. (2011). Sources, media, and modes of climate change communication: The role of celebrities. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(4), 535–546.
Baker, D. (2011). A case study of policing responses to camps for climate action: Variations, perplexities, and challenges for
policing. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 35(2), 141–165.
Batalla Miller, N. (2017). Celebrity advocacy: Leonardo DiCaprio's development of iconographic persona as a climate activist.
Celebrating Scholarship & Creativity Day 109. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/elce_cscday/109
(Accessed October 17, 2017).
Bosch, T. (2012). Blogging and tweeting climate change in South Africa. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, 33(1), 44–53.
Boykoff, M. T., & Goodman, M. K. (2009). Conspicuous redemption? Reflections on the promises and perils of the
‘celebritization’ of climate change. Geoforum, 40(3), 395–406.
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content
in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313–7318.
Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Crawford, K., & Shaw, F. (2012). #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: Crisis communication on Twitter in the
2011 south east Queensland floods. Brisbane, Australia: ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries & Innovation.
Retrieved from http://cci.edu.au/
Büchi, M. (2016). Microblogging as an extension of science reporting. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 953–968.
Carlson, T., & Strandberg, K. (2005). The 2004 European parliament election on the web: Finnish actor strategies and voter
responses. Information Polity, 10, 189–204.
Cody, E. M., Reagan, A. J., Mitchell, L., Dodds, P. S., & Danforth, C. M. (2015). Climate change sentiment on Twitter: An unso-
licited public opinion poll. PLoS one, 10(8), e0136092.
Donner, S. D., & McDaniels, J. (2013). The influence of national temperature fluctuations on opinions about climate change
in the U.S. since 1990. Climatic Change, 118(3–4), 537–550.
Dudo, A. (2015). Scientists, the media, and the public communication of science: Scientists' public communication activities.
Sociology Compass, 9(9), 761–775.
Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016). The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in
the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4–23.
Earl, J., Hurwitz, H. M. K., Mesinas, A. M., Tolan, M., & Arlotti, A. (2013). This protest will be Tweeted: Twitter and protest
policing during the Pittsburgh G20. Information, Communication & Society, 16(4), 459–478.
Egan, P. J., & Mullin, M. (2012). Turning personal experience into political attitudes: The effect of local weather on Americans'
perceptions about global warming. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 796–809.
Freelon, D., McIlwain, C., & Clark, M. (2016). Quantifying the power and consequences of social media protest. New Media &
Society, 1–22.
French, M., & Bazarova, N. N. (2017). Is anybody out there?: Understanding masspersonal communication through expecta-
tions for response across social media platforms. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 22(6), 303–319.
FOWNES ET AL. 9 of 12

Gallup (2017). Global Warming Concern at Three‐Decade High in US. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/206030/
global‐warming‐concern‐three‐decade‐high.aspx (Accessed October 5, 2017).
Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612–1621.
González‐Bailón, S., Banchs, R. E., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2012). Emotions, public opinion, and U.S. presidential approval rates:
A 5‐year analysis of online political discussions. Human Communication Research, 38(2), 121–143.
Graham, M., Hale, S. A., & Gaffney, D. (2014). Where in the world are you? Geolocation and language identification in
Twitter. The Professional Geographer, 66(4), 568–578.
Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443.
Hamilton, L. C., & Keim, B. D. (2009). Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. International Journal of
Climatology, 29(15), 2348–2352.
Hansen, L. K., Arvidsson, A., Nielsen, F. A., Coleoni, E., & Etter, M. (2011). Good friends, bad news—Affect and virality in
Twitter. 2011 International Workshop on Social Computing, Network, and Services (SocialComNet 2011). Retrieved from
https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0510 (Accessed July 13, 2017).
Helmuth, B., Gouhier, T. C., Scyphers, S., & Mocarski, J. (2016). Trust, tribalism and tweets: Has political polarization made
science a ‘wedge issue’? Climate Change Responses, 3(3). Retrieved from http://climatechangeresponses.biomedcentral.
com/articles/10.1186/s40665‐016‐0018‐z (Accessed June 30 2016)
Holmberg, K., & Hellsten, I. (2015). Gender differences in the climate change communication on Twitter. Internet Research,
25(5), 811–828.
Hong, S., & Nadler, D. (2011). Does the early bird move the polls?: The use of the social media tool ‘Twitter’ by U.S. politi-
cians and its impact on public opinion. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research
Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times. ACM Press. pp. 182–86. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.
org/citation.cfm?doid=2037556.2037583 (Accessed March 5, 2018).
Howard, P. N., Kollanyi, B., & Woolley, S. (2016). Bots and automation over Twitter during the US election. Computational
Propaganda Project: Working Paper Series. Retrieved from http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp‐content/uploads/sites/89/
2016/11/Data‐Memo‐US‐Election.pdf (Accessed March 1, 2018).
Howe, P. D., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at
state and local scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 596–603.
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment
report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
Jacques, P. J., & Knox, C. C. (2016). Hurricanes and hegemony: A qualitative analysis of micro‐level climate change denial
discourses. Environmental Politics, 25(5), 831–852.
Jang, S. M., & Hart, P. S. (2015). Polarized frames on ‘“climate change”’ and ‘“global warming”’ across countries and states:
Evidence from Twitter big data. Global Environmental Change, 32, 11–17.
Jenkins, J. C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527–553.
Jungherr, A. (2015). Sensor of attention to politics. In Analyzing political communication with digital trace data, contributions to
political science. New York, NY: Springer.
Kirilenko, A. P., Molodtsova, T., & Stepchenkova, S. O. (2015). People as sensors: Mass media and local temperature influence
climate change discussion on Twitter. Global Environmental Change, 30, 92–100.
Kirilenko, A. P., & Stepchenkova, S. O. (2014). Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide. Global
Environmental Change, 26, 171–182.
Knuth, S., Nagle, B., Steuer, C., & Yarnal, B. (2007). Universities and climate change mitigation: Advancing grassroots climate
policy in the US. Local Environment, 12(5), 485–504.
Kongthon, A., Haruechaiyasak, C., Pailai, J., & Kongyoung, S. (2012). The role of Twitter during a natural disaster: Case study
of 2011 Thai Flood. In Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (PICMET), 2012 Proceedings of PICMET'12: IEEE.
pp. 2227–2232. Retrieved from June 27, 2017 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6304238/
Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive‐scale emotional contagion through
social networks. PNAS, 111(24), 8788–8790.
Kryvasheyeu, Y., Chen, H., Obradovich, N., Moro, E, Van Hentenryck, P., Fowler, J., & Cebrian, M.. 2015. “Nowcasting
disaster damage” ArXiv:1504.06827 [Physics]. Retrieved from May 30, 2016 http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06827
Lazer, D., & Radford, J. (2017). Data ex machina: Introduction to big data. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 19–39.
10 of 12 FOWNES ET AL.

Leas, Eric C., Althouse Benjamin M., Dredze Mark, Obradovich Nick, Fowler James H., Noar Seth M., Allem Jon‐Patrick,
Ayers John W. 2016. “Big data sensors of organic advocacy: The case of Leonardo DiCaprio and climate change” edited
by D. R. Olson. PLoS one 11(8):e0159885.
Leetaru, K., Wang, S., Cao, G., Padmanabhan, A., & Shook, E. (2013). Mapping the global Twitter heartbeat: The geography of
twitter. First Monday, 18(5).
Leiserowitz, A., Feinberg, G., Rosenthal, S., Smith, N., Anderson, A., Roser‐Renouf, C., & Maibach, E. (2014). What's in a name?
Global warming vs. climate change. New Haven, CT: Yale University and George Mason University.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser‐Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Rosenthal, S. (2014). Climate change in the American mind: April,
2014. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
Lester, L. (2006). Lost in the wilderness? Celebrity, protest and the news. Journalism Studies, 7(6), 907–921.
Li, Y., Johnson, E. J., & Zaval, L. (2011). Local warming: Daily temperature change influences belief in global warming.
Psychological Science, 22(4), 454–459.
Lin, Y.‐R., Margolin, D., Keegan, B., & Lazer, D. (2013). Voices of victory: A computational focus group framework for tracking
opinion shift in real time. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web. Rio de Janeiro, Brail:
ACM. pp. 737–748.
Lin, Y.‐R., Margolin, D., & Wen, X. (2017). Tracking and analyzing individual distress following terrorist attacks using social
media streams: Distress following terrorist attacks. Risk Analysis, 37(8), 1580–1605.
Lin, Y.‐R. (2015). Event‐related crowd activities on social media. In Social phenomena: From data analysis to models (pp. 235–250).
Lück, J., Wozniak, A., & Wessler, H. (2016). Networks of coproduction: How journalists and environmental NGOs create
common interpretations of the UN climate change conferences. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 21(1), 25–47.
Margolin, D., & Liao, W. (2018). The emotional antecedents of solidarity in social media crowds. New Media & Society, 1–20.
Maynard, D., Roberts, I., Greenwood, M. A., Rout, D, & Bontcheva, K. (2017). A framework for real‐time semantic social
media analysis. Web semantics: Science, services and agents on the world wide web. Retrieved from October 13,
2017. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1570826817300240
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of
Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241.
McCormick, T. H., Lee, H., Cesare, N., Shojaie, A., & Spiro, E. S. (2017). Using Twitter for demographic and social science
research: Tools for data collection and processing. Sociological Methods & Research, 46(3), 390–421.
McKinnon, M., Semmens, D., Moon, B., Amarasekara, I., & Bolliet, L. (2016). Science, Twitter and election campaigns: Track-
ing# auspol in the Australian federal elections. Journal of Science Communication, 15(6). Retrieved July 13, 2017 http://
eprints.qut.edu.au/102139
Meyer, D. S., & Gamson, J. (1995). The challenge of cultural elites: Celebrities and social movements. Sociological Inquiry,
65(2), 181–206.
Molodtsova, T., Kirilenko, A., & Stepchenkova, S. O. (2013). Utilizing the social media data to validate ‘climate change’ indi-
ces. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, vol. 11. Retrieved from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFMGC11D1039M
Murakami, D., Peters, G. W., Yamagata, Y., & Matsui, T. (2016). Participatory sensing data tweets for micro‐urban real‐time
resiliency monitoring and risk management. IEEE Access, 4, 347–372.
Newman, T. P. (2016). Tracking the release of IPCC AR5 on Twitter: Users, comments, and sources following the release of
the working group I summary for policymakers. Public Understanding of Science, 26(7), 1–11.
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diakopoulos, N., & Aberer, K. (2015). Comparing events coverage in online news and social media:
The case of climate change. In Proceedings of the Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Retrieved
from June 27, 2017 http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM15/paper/viewFile/10583/10512
O'Neill, S., Williams, H. T. P., Kurz, T., Wiersma, B., & Boykoff, M. (2015). Dominant frames in legacy and social media
coverage of the IPCC fifth assessment report. Nature Climate Change, 5(4), 380–385.
Parmelee, J. H., & Bichard, S. L. (2011). In their own words: Exploring the role and value of political Twitter use in followers'
lives. In Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public (pp.
142–166). Lanham, MD: Lexington books.
Pathak, N., Henry, M., & Volkova, S. (2017). Understanding social media's take on climate change through large‐scale analysis
of targeted opinions and emotions. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from October 13,
2017 https://www.cs.jhu.edu/~svitlana/papers/PHV_17.pdf
Pearce, W., Holmberg, K., Hellsten, I., & Nerlich, B. (2014). Climate change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversa-
tions about the 2013 IPCC working group 1 report edited by F. Amblard. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94785.
FOWNES ET AL. 11 of 12

Pew Research Center. (2015a). Americans, politics, and science issues. Retrieved from October 5, 2017. http://www.
pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/americans‐politics‐and‐science‐issues/
Pew Research Center. (2015b). Global concern about climate change, broad support for limiting emissions. Retrieved from
October 5, 2017. http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/global‐concern‐about‐climate‐change‐broad‐support‐for‐lim-
iting‐emissions/
Pew Research Center. (2017). News use across social media platforms. Retrieved from February 27, 2018. http://www.jour-
nalism.org/2017/09/07/news‐use‐across‐social‐media‐platforms‐2017/
Pierre‐Louis, K. (2017). It's cold outside. Cue the Trump global warming tweet. The New York Times, December 28.
Retrieved from March 7, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/climate/trump‐tweet‐global‐warming.html
Ray, D. G., Mackie, D. M., Rydell, R. J., & Smith, E. R. (2008). Changing categorization of self can change emotions about
outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1210–1213.
Romero, D. M., Meeder, B., & Kleinberg, J. (2011). Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics:
Idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World
wide web. ACM. pp. 695–704.
Rootes, C., Zito, A., & Barry, J. (2012). Climate change, national politics and grassroots action: An introduction. Environmental
Politics, 21(5), 677–690.
Ruths, D., & Pfeffer, J. (2014). Social media for large studies of behavior. Science, 346(6213), 1063–1064.
Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2010). Earthquake shakes Twitter users: Real‐time event detection by social sensors. In
Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. ACM. pp. 851–860. Retrieved from June 27, 2017.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1772777
Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2013). Tweet analysis for real‐time event detection and earthquake reporting system
development. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 25(4), 919–931.
Schuldt, J. P., Enns, P. K., & Cavaliere, V. (2017). Does the label really matter? Evidence that the US public continues to doubt
‘global warming’ More than ‘climate change. Climatic Change, 143(1–2), 271–280.
Segerberg, A., & Bennett, W. L. (2011). Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the
ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review, 14(3), 197–215.
Sharma, D. M., & Baig, M. M. (2015). Sentiment analysis on social networking: A literature review. International Journal on
Recent and Innovation Trneds in Computing and Communication, 3(2), 22–27.
Sisco, M. R., Bosetti, V., & Weber, E. U. (2017). When do extreme weather events generate attention to climate change?
Climatic Change, 143(1–2), 227–241.
Sloan, L., & Morgan, J. (2015). Who tweets with their location? Understanding the relationship between demographic char-
acteristics and the use of geoservices and geotagging on Twitter” edited by T. Preis. PLoS one, 10(11), e0142209.
Stier, S., Schunemann, W. J., & Steiger, S. (2017). Of activists and gatekeepers: Temporal and structural properties of policy
networks on Twitter. New Media & Society.
Sutton, J., Gibson, C. B., Spiro, E. S., League, C., Fitzhugh, S. M., & Butts, C. T. (2015). What it takes to get passed on:
Message content, style, and structure as predictors of retransmission in the Boston Marathon bombing response” edited
by C. M. Danforth. PLoS one, 10(8), e0134452.
Takahashi, B., Tandoc, E. C., & Carmichael, C. (2015). Communicating on Twitter during a disaster: An analysis of tweets dur-
ing Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 392–398.
Tandoc, E. C., & Takahashi, B. (2016). Log in if you survived: Collective coping on social media in the aftermath of Typhoon
Haiyan in the Philippines. New Media & Society, 19(11), 1778–1793.
UN Global Pulse. (2015). Using Twitter to measure global engagement on climate change.
Veltri, G. A., & Atanasova, D. (2015). Climate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour.
Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 721–737.
Wagler, A., & Cannon, K. J. (2015). Exploring ways social media data inform public issues communication: An Analysis of
Twitter conversation during the 2012–2013 drought in Nebraska. Journal of Applied Communications, 99(2). Retrieved
from July 13, 2017). http://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol99/iss2/5
Whitmarsh, L. (2009). Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 13–23.
Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T., & Hugo Lambert, F. (2015). Network analysis reveals open forums and echo
chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 32, 126–138.
12 of 12 FOWNES ET AL.

Jennifer R. Fownes' work has focused on using science to inform policy and what the barriers are to doing so.
She completed an MS in Natural Resources from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Her research there
examined how the general public experiences climate change, and what types of extreme weather influence pub-
lic opinion, communication, and responses to climate change. She acted as a graduate student representative for
the Cornell Institute for Climate Smart Solutions, and attended the UNFCC 22nd Conference of the Parties in
Marrakech, Morocco, as a member of the Cornell delegation. Previously, she worked as an environmental consul-
tant for ICF in Fairfax, Virginia, performing human health and environmental risk assessments. She also holds a
BA in Biology from Dartmouth College.

Chao Yu's research centers around people's behaviors and opinions (e.g., consumption styles and climate change)
on social media. His previous work uses Twitter data to study how politicians talk about climate change issues
and respond to extreme weather events. Using Yelp data, his current study tries to understand how social status
is constructed and maintained through consumption styles (e.g., cultural omnivorousness and authenticity seek-
ing). He holds a BA in Journalism from Peking University. He is now a PhD student in Communication at Cornell
University.

Drew Margolin's research focuses on the influence of collective dynamics on communication behavior, in partic-
ular within social media. He has published several studies examining Twitter behavior, such as during political
debates, after terrorist attacks, and in response to fact‐checking corrections. Current research includes an exam-
ination of the social factors that influence politicians' to tweet about climate change. He holds a PhD in Commu-
nication from The Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, University of Southern California and a
BA in Economics from Yale University.

How to cite this article: Fownes JR, Yu C, Margolin DB. Twitter and climate change. Sociology Compass.
2018;e12587. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12587