4.0 Article

Human values and beliefs and concern about climate change: a Bayesian longitudinal analysis

Journal

QUALITY & QUANTITY
Volume 52, Issue 4, Pages 1613-1625

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-017-0538-z

Keywords

Values; Climate change; Beliefs; Concern; Risk perception; Longitudinal; Bayesian

Funding

  1. project TETRIS (Observing, modelling and testing synergies and trade-offs for the adaptive management of multiple impacts in coastal systems, Prin, MIUR)
  2. project BRIGAID of European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [700699]
  3. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [700699] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of human values on beliefs and concern about climate change using a longitudinal design and Bayesian analysis. A sample of 298 undergraduate/master students filled out the same questionnaire on two occasions at an interval of 2 months. The questionnaire included measures of beliefs and concern about climate change (i.e., perceived consequences, risk perception, and skepticism) and human values (i.e., the Portrait Values Questionnaire). After controlling for gender and the respective baseline score, universalism at Time 1 was associated with higher levels of perceived consequences of climate change and lower levels of climate change skepticism. Self-direction at Time 1 predicted Time 2 climate change risk perception and perceived consequences of climate change. Hedonism at Time 1 was associated with Time 2 climate change risk perception. The other human values at Time 1 were not associated with any of the measures of beliefs and concern about climate change at Time 2. The results of this study suggest that a focus on universalism and self-direction values seems to be a more successful approach to stimulate public engagement with climate change than a focus on other human values.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available