Abstract
Emotions about climate change are the subject of a growing area of interdisciplinary scholarship. But so far scholars have not studied the emotions expressed by self-declared climate change skeptics; nor have social scientists turned to affect studies to develop nuanced understandings of the constellation of emotions related to fear. Our team conducted 33 interviews and 1000 surveys with self-identified skeptics living in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. The data demonstrates the variability in perspectives, ideologies, and behaviors among skeptics themselves in new and unique ways, including tracking skeptics’ emotions about climate change. This article focuses on worry and dread. We find that those who believe climate change is a hoax, and skeptics who are politically conservative, tend to express less of these two emotions, as do men who identify as skeptics. Religiosity, as measured by frequency of religious attendance, does not significantly correlate with worry and dread; however, specific religious beliefs related to climate change (e.g. “Climate change is punishment for our sins”) do seem to increase those two feelings. Negative firsthand environmental experiences are also associated with higher degrees of worry and dread. Perhaps most significantly, our data suggests that worry and dread correlate strongly with environmental concern and policy support.
Our interdisciplinary approach has several methodological advantages. First, affect studies encourages more nuance in emotion language, including more detailed definitions of emotions like worry and dread, which simmer over time, as opposed to discrete emotions like fear, which are shorter-lived. Second, sociological approaches remind us that emotions function within particular political, historical, and cultural contexts, which are fundamentally shaped by power structures. Finally, humanities scholars can provide useful input both in research design and the interpretation of results by helping craft survey questions and data codes, and by providing close attention to the language of the survey and interview responses. Combined with quantitative data, this multi-pronged methodology brings together forms of knowledge from the humanities and social sciences. Our approach serves as a model for new work in the growing field of empirical ecocriticism and expands the boundaries of the environmental humanities.