Communicating Climate Change: Probabilistic Expressions and Concrete Events

Abstract

Abstract Despite near unanimous agreement among climate scientists about global warming, a substantial proportion of Americans remain skeptical or unconcerned. The two experiments reported here tested communication strategies designed to increase trust in and concern about climate change. They also measured attitudes toward climate scientists. Climate predictions were systematically manipulated to include either probabilistic (90% predictive interval) or deterministic (mean value) projections that described either concrete (i.e., heat waves and floods) or abstract events (i.e., temperature and precipitation). The results revealed that projections that included the 90% predictive interval were considered more trustworthy than deterministic projections. In addition, in a nationally representative sample, Republicans who were informed of concrete events with predictive intervals reported greater concern and more favorable attitudes toward climate scientists than when deterministic projections were used. Overall, these findings suggest that while climate change beliefs may be rooted in partisan identity, they remain malleable, especially when targeted communication strategies are used.