1. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
1
Introduction
Political scientists have been interested in influences of political ideology on views of
nature and the environment for several decades (Bowman 1977; Buttel and Flinn 1976). In more
recent years, the interest has turned from the influence of political ideology on views of nature
and environment to the level of environmental concern an individual exhibits (Davidson and
Haan 2012; Neumayer 2004). Political ideology is one of many demographic factors that have
been studied when examining environmental attitudes. Education, age, social class and
socioeconomic factors, sex and gender, religion, ethnicity, and place of residence have also been
examined (Bonnett and Williams 1998; Bradley, Waliczek, and Zajicek 1999; Davidson and
Haan 2012; Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998; Van Liere and Dunlap 1980).
However, the impact of self-identified political ideology on beliefs and views on climate
change of college students, has not been studied. In this study, climate change is defined as any
long-term significant change in the weather patterns of an area. This study asks about the
relationship between the two, as it is important to study because climate change and
environmental concern have become hotly debated political issues and the two main American
political parties have differing beliefs on the topics. The age group is also significant, as the
years spent in college are when people begin to develop their own political beliefs, independent
of other influences (Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009). It’s hypothesized that self-identified
political ideology influences beliefs on climate change, and that people aligning more on the left
side of the political spectrum – very liberal, liberal, or moderately liberal – will hold the opinion
that climate change is occurring and is a current problem, while those on the other side of the
spectrum – very conservative, conservative, or moderately conservative – will either believe that
climate change is occurring, but is not an issue, or that it is not occurring at all.

2. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
2
Literature Review
The literature examined in this review spans 36 years, with topics ranging from primary
school children’s attitudes towards nature and the environment to gender, political ideology, and
climate change beliefs. The sources focus on either views of the environment and nature or levels
of environmental concern, while using certain demographic factors as predictive mechanisms.
One thing none of the literature does, though, is examine whether or not there is a relationship
between self-identified political ideology and views of climate change. Two articles come close
to filling this gap in the literature; however, both are from the 1970s, where the results are likely
outdated. Buttel and Flinn’s research compares ideology to environmental attitudes, but not
among college-aged students, and Bowman’s research analyzes college-aged students’
environmental opinions without considering their political ideology (Bowman 1977; Buttel and
Flinn 1976). This gap needs to be filled for a modern, holistic analysis to be done on
demographic factors and their influence on environmental attitudes of the general public. Neglect
to do so will lead to a misrepresentation of certain sectors of society, as data from high school
students cannot be extrapolated to college students, nor can data on views of nature be
extrapolated to views on climate change.
Impact of age and knowledge on environmental concern
Attitudes towards nature and the environment were examined in a 1998 study of primary
school aged children (Bonnett and Williams 1998). The study posits that many experiences
children have while in primary school have considerable impact on their attitudes towards the
environment. Its findings indicate that, while the attitudes of children of this age towards nature
and the environment are generally very positive, they can involve a number of limitations,
dichotomies and ambivalences. Children felt a strong empathy towards certain aspects of nature,

3. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
3
particularly 'animals' and trees, and once these aspects were associated with the idea of 'the
environment', strong protective feelings were invoked. There also appeared to be a strong moral
component to their relationship with these same aspects of nature.
In another study performed in 1999, high school students were administered a
questionnaire before and after an environmental science course (Bradley, Waliczek, and Zajicek
1999). This study addressed the question of whether increased knowledge concerning the
environment could improve students' environmental attitudes, hypothesizing that an increased
knowledge would positively impact a student’s environmental attitude. The results indicated
significant differences in both knowledge gain and attitudes of students after exposure, with
students' environmental knowledge scores increasing by 22% after completing the short course.
Students' environmental attitudes became more environmentally favorable, too. A statistically
significant correlation was found between pretest knowledge scores and pretest attitude scores
and between posttest knowledge scores and posttest attitude scores. In both cases, students
having higher knowledge scores had more favorable environmental attitudes compared with
students with lower knowledge scores, supporting the hypothesis.
In 1977, a survey of college-aged students was conducted on student awareness of the
environment (Bowman 1977). It addressed the students’ current degree of environmental concern
and background knowledge of the subject. The study yielded that many students are pro-
environmental, even over issues that uphold materialism, including the national economy. It was
also found that most students also believe there is a need for strong environmental action.
These sources examine how age and knowledge impact views of nature and the
environment. Klineberg et al. suggests that age is one of two demographic variables that are
consistently correlated with environmental concern across all the different measures. They argue

4. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
4
that younger members of the public are more concerned about issues of environmental quality
and more committed to environmental protection than their older counterparts (Klineberg,
McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). Van Liere and Dunlap argued a similar hypothesis, stating
that younger people are more inclined to care about environmental issues as opposed to older
people (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980).
Gender and sex as predictive factors of environmental concern
Many demographic characteristics have been studied as predictive factors for
environmental concern. Van Liere and Dunlap examined several demographic indicators of
environmental concern, sex being one of them, in their 1980 review. While they had limited data,
as not many researchers before 1980 had looked at sex as a predictive or influential factor, they
concluded that the overall pattern suggests that sex is not substantially associated with
environmental concern (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980).
In a recent 2012 study, a similar relationship between attitudes towards climate change
and gender were found in Alberta, Canada (Davidson and Haan 2012). The authors hypothesized
that gendered differences in the perceived significance of impacts are more likely the outcome of
socialization, rather than social roles. In general, the findings supported this hypothesis, with
women expressing significantly greater awareness and sense of perceived impacts about climate
change than men. Potentially the most noteworthy finding is that the gender gap in climate
change beliefs and perceived impacts is not due to gendered social roles, but rather appear to be
caused by the lower tendency for women to hold to a conservative political ideology relative to
men. While these differences were present, Davidson and Haan believe that the cleavages were
more predominantly associated with socioeconomic factors, therefore making gender a weaker
predictive factor.

5. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
5
Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach found opposing results in their 1998 study
(Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). The found that gender is a significant predictor
for environmental concern. They posit that women are more prepared than men to pay the
economic or regulatory costs of environmental protection. Women showed more support for pro-
environment choices and are more likely than men to reject the suggestion that pollution control
measures are unfair to industry, the authors argue. These varying results could be due to the time
periods in which the data was collected, but discrepancies in the data will be discussed later.
Socioeconomic status as a predictive factor of environmental concern
Davidson and Haan not only examined gender in their study, but also socioeconomic
factors (Davidson and Haan 2012). While women exhibited greater environmental awareness,
the authors posit that these differences appeared to be predominantly associated with
socioeconomic factors. Other research examines household income as a strong predictor of
respondents' willingness to pay $200 more each year for the products they consume, if price
increases are a result of new pollution controls (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998).
Klineberg et al. states that income is also related to the belief that environmental protection
should be given priority over the creation of jobs.
Van Liere and Dunlap hypothesize that environmental concern is positively associated
with social class as indicated by education, income, and occupational prestige (Van Liere and
Dunlap 1980). This hypothesis rests on Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory, and assumes that
concern for environmental quality is a luxury, which can be indulged only after more basic
material needs are met. Their results negate their hypothesis, as evidence provides very weak
support for the assertion that social class is positively associated with environmental concern.

6. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
6
What support there is, they argue, rests primarily on the moderately strong relationship between
environmental concern and education (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980).
Education as a predictive factor of environmental concern
Education is another demographic element that is often examined as a predictive factor
for environmental concern. Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach found education is one of
only two demographic variables that is consistently correlated with environmental concern
across all the different measures, the second being age. The authors argue that younger and
better-educated members of the public appear to be more concerned about issues of
environmental quality and are more committed to environmental protection, almost regardless of
the way the dependent variable is measured. They found that there are consistently positive
relationships between education and willingness to increase public spending to protect the
environment (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). The level of education an individual
has obtained consistently exhibits a positive relationship with approval of explicit trade-offs with
economic costs or government intervention for positive environmental action and higher levels
of concern about various types of pollution in one’s own community (Klineberg, McKeever, and
Rothenbach 1998).
Political ideology as a predictive factor of environmental concern
Self –identified political ideology is likely the most commonly used demographic
characteristic that is studied as a predictive factor of environmental concern. In 2004, Neumayer
examined the causal relationship between individual’s ideological orientation and party positions
within left-right wing politics in regards to pro-environmental beliefs. His results showed that
self-identified ideology plays a large role in determining individual’s willingness to support the
environment. They also indicate that Democrats are more supportive of the environment as

7. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
7
opposed to their Republican counterparts. Internationally, it was found that left-wing parties not
only embrace support of environmental issues in elections, but also are more willing to sacrifice
economically to preserve the environment (Neumayer 2004).
Davidson and Haan also discussed political ideology as a predictive element in
environmental concern and beliefs on climate change. They found that differences in climate
change beliefs are most closely associated with differences in political ideology, with individuals
voting for the conservative party being significantly less likely to anticipate societal climate
change impacts (Davidson and Haan 2012). In three of the four models used, conservative voting
patterns were significantly and negatively associated with climate change beliefs. Davidson and
Haan cite other research where political ideology has been identified as a significant predictor of
climate change beliefs and/or concern (Whitmarsh 2011; Eurobarometer 2009; Dunlap and
McCright 2008; Hamilton 2008; Tjernstrom and Tietenberg 2008). Buttel and Flinn, in 1976,
argued contrasting results. They found that, in several statewide surveys in Wisconsin and
Washington, neither political party identification nor political ideology has a substantial effect on
awareness of environmental problems, though a relationship does exist between party
identification and environmental concern among middle and upper class samples. Despite the
major impact of political liberalism on support for environmental reform, they argued that there
were no partisan differences in such support (Buttel and Flinn 1976).
When measuring the espousal of an ecological worldview, Klineberg et al. found similar
results to Buttel and Flinn. Political moderates, the authors posit, are more likely than
conservatives to reject the belief that nature exists to be used by humans and that concerns about
the global environment are exaggerated. Liberals are more likely to believe that global warming
is a serious threat (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). However, when measuring the

8. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
8
approval of explicit trade-offs with economic costs or government intervention for positive
environmental action, Klineberg et al. found political ideology to be a consistent predictive
factor; respondents who consider themselves liberal or moderate were consistently more likely
than self-identified conservatives to support stronger government regulations or more public
spending to protect the environment (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). These
inconsistent results will be discussed later.
Discrepancies
Differing results have been found throughout the literature on this topic, namely with the
demographic elements of gender and political ideology as predictive factors. Van Liere and
Dunlap and Davidson and Haan found that gender was not a strong predictive factor for
environmental concern, while Klineberg et al. argued opposing views. Similarly, for political
ideology, Neumayer and Davidson and Haan argued that political ideology could be used as a
predictive factor for environmental concern, while Klineberg et al. argued the opposite.
The main purpose of Klineberg et al.’s study was to “clarifies the reasons for the
inconsistent relationships reported in previous research between measures of environmental
concern and standard demographic predictors,” (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998).
From the beginning of their study, the authors claimed that it matters greatly how experiments
measure environmental concern. They argue that the only two demographic variables that are
consistently correlated with environmental concern across all the different measures are age and
education; otherwise, the determinants of environmental concern vary greatly depending on the
wording and framing of the questionnaire items (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998).
In relation to the discrepancies seen in the specific sources analyzed in this literature
review, Klineberg et al. suggests that political ideology is most consistently predictive for

9. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
9
questions that measure environmental protection against an explicit acceptance of increased
government intervention, but cannot be reliably used for other questions. A clear picture was not
found for the predictive role gender plays, as was found for political ideology, and Klineberg et
al. suggests further research for more clarification. However, they did find that women were
more likely to reject traditional human-over-nature beliefs, and to express concern about local
and statewide pollution. They were more prepared than men to pay the regulatory, but not the
economic, costs of environmental protection, and were more likely to report taking part in
"green" shopping, but not in recycling or contributing to environmental organizations.
(Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998).
Methodology
To answer the question of whether or not a relationship exists between self-identified
political ideology and beliefs on climate change, we conducted interviews with four Gustavus
Adolphus College students, chosen through stratified sampling, and a college-wide survey was
emailed to the four different class lists. It was hypothesized that self-identified political ideology
influences beliefs on climate change, and that people aligning more on the left side of the
political spectrum – very liberal, liberal, or moderately liberal – will hold the opinion that
climate change is occurring and is a current problem, while those on the other side of the
spectrum – very conservative, conservative, or moderately conservative – will either believe
climate change is occurring, but is not an issue, or that it is not occurring at all. Our independent
variable was the respondent’s political ideology, and the dependent variable was their beliefs on
climate change.
Two interviewed students were a part of the Gustavus Greens Club, one was a part of the
College Republicans, and one was a part of the College Democrats. Emails were sent out to the

10. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
10
student organizations with the consent form attached and a description of the research. Times
were set up to meet, and the interviews were digitally recorded for analysis later on.
The campus organizations were chosen for a couple of reasons. The two political groups
were chosen because their members have clearly identified with a certain political ideology, and
the questions could ask their views and beliefs on climate change. The environmental group was
chosen because we believed that their views and beliefs on climate change would be fairly
uniform - that climate change does exist, and that it is currently an issue and that they would take
a more liberal stance on the issue. The following questions then asked what political ideology
these members align with to be able to analyze their responses.
The interview questions included: 1) Where would you label yourself on the political
spectrum? Why would you give yourself this label? What were your earliest influences on your
ideology? 2) What are you beliefs on climate change? Is it an issue? Is it not? Why have your
opinions formed the way they have? What were your earliest influences on your beliefs? 3)
When did your concern for the environment begin? How did it begin? 4) Has your political
ideology influenced your beliefs on climate change in any form? Explain? 5) Have your beliefs
on climate changed influenced your political ideology in any form? Explain? Answers were
recorded and responses were typed or handwritten during the interview.
Interviews with the College Republicans and the College Democrat members were
conducted on Wednesday, October 29th, 2014 and Thursday October 30th, 2014, respectively.
Interviews with the Gustavus Greens members were conducted on Wednesday, October 22nd
and Thursday October 30th, 2014. The interviews averaged around a half an hour for each.
The survey was sent via email to students, to the four different class lists - class of 2015,
class of 2016, class of 2017, and class of 2018. This method was chosen because we only wanted

11. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
11
current Gustavus students to respond and not any faculty, staff, or former students. The email
explained the survey; that it would take ~10-15 minutes to complete and that participants could
enter their name in a drawing if they completed the survey. The response rate was 29.129%.
Once the survey closed, results were coded into SPSS and the data was analyzed.
Themes in the data appeared to be that people aligning on the left side of the political
spectrum, more with the Democratic Party, had stronger views on climate change and were
seeking immediate change in how climate change is dealt with. However, the member of College
Republicans did believe climate change was an issue and that something needed to be done about
it. His one concern was that he was not sure whether the climate change we are seeing is man-
made or a natural occurrence.
Themes in the Gustavus Greens data supported our hypotheses in that both participants
labeled themselves as liberals as opposed to identifying with a political party such as Democrat
or Republican. Both individuals also said that they look to see which party they believe is
addressing climate change in the best manner, when it comes to voting. In their opinion, it
doesn't matter as much which party they vote for but it does matter how that particular party is
addressing climate change and the importance of the issue to that party. Both participants
additionally agreed that their views on climate change more so affected their ideology versus the
other way around. We coded our responses and identified how each individual’s political
ideology has influenced their beliefs towards climate change.
Data
According to a crosstabulation (Table 1), 94% of liberals responded to a question on climate
change beliefs, stating that they believe climate change exists and is a current issue. This affirms
the hypothesis that students identifying as liberals are more likely to say that climate change

12. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
12
exists and is an issue, where more conservative students are more likely to say that climate
change either exists but is not an issue or does not exist at all. When analyzing moderate
students’ responses, it is notable that the percentage of responses increases from response 2 to
response 3. This is the only political ideology category that does so, and potentially indicates that
some students who identify as moderates on the Gustavus campus could lean more liberal, but
would not like to classify themselves as such. As political ideology moves from more liberal ot
more conservative, there is an increase in responses 2 and 3. This supports the hypothesis that
more conservatively leaning students are more likely to respond saying that climate change is not
an issue, or that it does not exist at all.
Table 1: A crosstabulation analyzing political ideology and climate change beliefs, in percentages of responses.
Very Liberal, Liberal,
Moderately Liberal
Moderate Moderately Conservative,
Conservative, Very
Conservative
% response to “Climate change
is exists and is currently an
issue”
94.2% 86.4% 56.4%
% response to “Climate change
exists, but is not currently an
issue”
4.0% 6.4% 23.9%
% response to “Climate change
is not an issue”
1.8% 7.3% 19.6%
A chi-squared statistical significance test (Table 2) was run on the data given from the
crosstabulation. A Pearson Chi-squared value of 109.014 was found, with 4 degrees of freedom,
and a p value of 0.000, meaning that the observed values were significantly different from
expected, equal values. While we cannot accept the hypothesis that liberal students will respond
saying climate change is an issue while more conservative students will respond saying it is not
an issue or doesn’t exist at all, we can say that we are 99.999999% confident that the data and
relationships we found are not due to random chance.

13. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
13
Table 2: A chi-squared statistical significance test for the crosstabulation in Table 1. The data is significant at
p=0.000.
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-squared 109.014 4 0.000
When analyzing data from the survey, factors other than ideology showed relationships
with beliefs on climate change. One factor in particular was political party affiliation. When
breaking down climate change beliefs into three responses - climate change exists and is an
issue, climate change exists but is not an issue, and climate change does not exist - a relationship
develops with political party affiliation (Figure 1). People responding with climate change
existing and being a problem were more likely to identify themselves as a Democrat. As the
responses moved towards climate change not being an issue or not existing, respondents became
more likely to identify as a Republican. This aligned with our hypothesis, as people identifying
as Democrats were more likely to say climate change exists and is an issue, and Republicans
were more likely to give one of the other two responses. Democrats align as liberal on the
political spectrum, and Republicans align conservatively, typically.
Figure 1: The relationship between climate change beliefs and percent response within a political party affiliation.
As views shift more towards climate change not existing, respondents identify themselves more frequently as
Republicans.

14. Marissa Haeny and Lauren Shurson
Research Report
14
Literature Cited
Bonnett, Michael, and Jacquetta Williams. 1998. “Environmental Education and Primary Children’s Attitudes
towards Nature and the Environment.” Cambridge Journal of Education 28(2): 159–75.
Bowman, J.S. 1977. “Public Opinion and the Environment: Post-Earth Day Attitudes among College Students.”
Environment and Behavior 9(3): 385–416.
Bradley, Jennifer Campbell, T.M. Waliczek, and J.M. Zajicek. 1999. “Relationship Between Environmental
Knowledge and Environmental Attitudes of High School Students.” Journal of Environmental Education
30(3): 17–21.
Buttel, Frederick H., and William L. Flinn. 1976. “Environmental Politics: The Structuring of Partisan and
Ideological Cleavages in Mass Environmental Attitudes.” The Sociological Quarterly 17(4): 477–90.
Davidson, Debra J., and Michael Haan. 2012. “Gender, Political Ideology, and Climate Change Beliefs in an
Extractive Industry Community.” Population and Environment 34(2): 217–34.
Guber, D. L. 2013. “A Cooling Climate for Change? Party Polarization and the Politics of Global Warming.”
American Behavioral Scientist 57(1): 93–115.
Jost,John T., Christopher M. Federico, and Jaime L. Napier. 2009. “Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions,and
Elective Affinities.” Annual Review of Psychology 60(1): 307–37.
Klineberg, Stephen L., Matthew McKeever, and Bert Rothenbach.1998. “Demographic Predictors of Environmental
Concern: It Does Make a Difference How It’s Measured.” Social Science Quarterly 79(4): 734–53.
Neumayer, Eric. 2004. “The Environment, Left-Wing Political Orientation and Ecological Economics.” Ecological
Economics 51(3): 167–75.
Van Liere, Kent D., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of
Hypotheses,Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44(2): 181–97.