Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparing the atmosphere to a bathtub: effectiveness of analogy for reasoning about accumulation

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding the process of accumulation is fundamental to recognising the magnitude and speed of emissions reduction required to stabilise atmospheric CO2 and, hence, global temperature. This research investigated the effectiveness of analogy for building understanding of accumulation among non-experts. Two studies tested the effects of analogy and graphical information on: (1) performance on a CO2 stabilisation task; and (2) preferred level of action on climate change. Study 1 was conducted with a sample of undergraduate students and Study 2, with a sample of the Australian public. In the student sample, analogical processing significantly improved task performance when information about emission rates was presented in text but not when it was presented in graph format. It was also associated with greater preference for strong action on climate change. When tested with the public, analogy and information format independently influenced task performance. Furthermore, there was a marginal effect of education such that the analogy especially might have helped those with at least high school attainment. Our results show that analogy can improve non-experts’ understanding of CO2 accumulation but that using graphs to convey emissions rate information is detrimental to such improvements. The results should be of interest to climate change communicators, advocates, and policy-makers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Following Sterman and Sweeney (2007), the term ‘CO2’ is used here as a proxy for greenhouse gases.

  2. See Participant Information Sheet/Consent Form guidelines available from: http://hrep.nhmrc.gov.au/_uploads/files/PICF%20Health%20&%20Social%20Science%20for%20Self%20May2012_0.doc

  3. Source: OECD Key Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Indicators, http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/oecdkeyictindicators.htm.

  4. Reduced n reflects missing data across variables

References

  • Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB (2006) Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13(6):608–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bord RJ, O’Connor RE, Fisher A (2000) In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Underst Sci 9(3):205–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom A (2008) Lead is like mercury: risk comparisons, analogies and mental models. J Risk Res 11(1):99–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom A, Morgan M, Fischoff B, Read D (1994) What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental models. Risk Anal 14(6):959–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowdle B, Gentner D (1997) Informativity and asymmetry in comparisons. Cogn Psychol 34(3):244–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brulle R (2010) From environmental campaigns to advancing the public dialog: environmental communication for civic engagement. Environ Commun 4(1):82–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Catrambone R, Holyoak K (1989) Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 15(6):1147–1156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corner A (2012) Psychology: science literacy and climate views. Nat Clim Chang 2(10):710–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin M, Gonzalez C, Sterman J (2009) Why don’t well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 108(1):116–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell B, Brundage M, Mackillop W (2000) Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Mak 20(2):228–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbus K, Gentner D (n.d.) Dark knowledge in qualitative reasoning: a call to arms. http://ailab.si/qr09/papers/Forbus.pdf. Accessed 8 October 2012

  • Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M (2010) Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people’s understanding of risks. Soc Sci Med 70(7):1019–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D, Smith L (2012) Analogical reasoning. In: Ramachandran V (ed) Encyclopedia of human behavior, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp 130–136

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gick ML, Holyoak KJ (1980) Analogical problem solving. Cogn Psychol 12:306–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowda M, Fox J, Magelky R (1997) Students’ understanding of climate change: insights for scientists and educators. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 78(10):2232–2240

    Google Scholar 

  • Green M, Brock T (2000) The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J Pers Soc Psychol 79(5):701–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson F (2011) Australia and the world: public opinion and foreign policy. The Lowy Institute Poll, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan D, Wittlin M et al (2011) The tragedy of the risk-perception commons: culture conflict, rationality conflict, and climate change. Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper (2011–26)

  • Kahan D, Peters E et al (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2(10):732–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellstedt P, Zahran S, Vedlitz A (2008) Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Anal 28(1):113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempton W (1991) Lay perspectives on global climate change* 1. Glob Environ Chang 1(3):183–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinsky S (2012) Comparing public rationales for trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmas. Glob Environ Chang 22(4):862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz KJ, Mao CH, Gentner D (2001) Learning by analogical bootstrapping. J Learn Sci 10(4):417–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane SN, Odoni N, Landstrom C, Whatmore SJ, Ward N, Bradley S (2011) Doing flood risk science differently: an experiment in radical scientific method. Trans Inst Br Geogr 36(1):15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Chang 77(1/2):45–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky S (2011) Popular consensus. Psychol Sci 22(4):460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2008) Communication and marketing as climate change intervention assets. Am J Prev Med 35(5):488–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx S, Weber E et al (2007) Communication and mental processes: experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Glob Environ Chang 17(1):47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxnes E, Saysel A (2009) Misperceptions of global climate change: information policies. Clim Chang 93(1):15–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Fisher A (1999) Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal 19(3):461–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Paasche-Orlow M, Taylor H, Brancati F (2003) Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med 348(8):721–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read D, Bostrom A, Morgan M, Fischoff B, Smuts T (1994) What do people know about global climate change? 2. Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Anal 14(6):971–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J (2008) Risk communication on climate: mental models and mass balance. Science 322(5.901):532–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J, Sweeney L (2002) Cloudy skies: assessing public understanding of global warming. Syst Dyn Rev 18(2):207–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J, Sweeney L (2007) Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adultsí mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Clim Chang 80(3):213–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney L, Sterman J (2000) Bathtub dynamics: initial results of a systems thinking inventory. Syst Dyn Rev 16(4):249–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler C, Visschers VH, Siegrist M (2012) Consumers’ knowledge about climate change. Clim Chang 114(2):189–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber E (2006) Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet). Clim Chang 77(1):103–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmarsh L (2009) What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’. Public Underst Sci 18(4):401–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S (2011) Introduction: opportunities for and barriers to engaging individuals with climate change. In: Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S, Lorenzoni I (eds) Engaging the public with climate change. Earthscan, London, pp 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S, Lorenzoni I (2011) Conclusion: what have we learnt and where do we go from here? In: Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S, Lorenzoni I (eds) Engaging the public with climate change. Earthscan, London, pp 270–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf J, Moser SC (2011) Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: insights from in depth studies across the world. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 2:547–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarship scheme and CSIRO Flagship Collaboration Fund Top-Up Scholarship. We thank the Editors and three anonymous reviewers for their suggestions that helped us improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sophie Guy.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 59 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guy, S., Kashima, Y., Walker, I. et al. Comparing the atmosphere to a bathtub: effectiveness of analogy for reasoning about accumulation. Climatic Change 121, 579–594 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0949-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0949-3

Keywords

Navigation