PPBS

Climate Conspiracy [2016]

A Politico-Psychological Analysis

Report generated

June 15, 2026

1 Study Characteristics

1.1 Items: Climate Conspiracy

1.2 Sample

N=1500

To conduct a exploratory and a confirmatory large surveys during the general election, we hired a professional survey firm (SSI, a US-based market research company that recruits participants from a panel of 7,139,027 American citizens; more information can be found at www.surveysampling.com (now https://www.dynata.com/) to recruit a nationally representative sample of 1,500 Americans (50.7% women) who completed study materials during the general election from August 16-September 9, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). The age distribution was as follows: 18-24 (12.9%), 25-34 (17.6%), 35-44 (17.5%), 45-54 (19.5%), 55-65 (15.6%) and older than 65 (16.9%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (82.5%), Black/African American (7.7%), Latino (5.9%) and “Other” (4.0%). Concerning religion, 67.6% identified as Christian, 17.1% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 15.3% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to education 35.1% indicated “high school only or lower,” 31.4 % indicated “some college,” and 33.6% indicated having received a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. 2424 participants were directed to the survey, 1885 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22%).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies. Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 385 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 1500 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 67 minutes on average (MD: 51min).

2 Descriptives

2.1 Means, SD, Range, & SE

Table 1: Descriptives
Descriptives for Climate Conspiracy
mean sd se
Denialists_mean 5.17 2.70 0.07
Warmists_mean 4.45 2.37 0.06
Climate_Consp 4.81 1.35 0.03
Note:
n = 1500, median = 5, min = 1, max = 9
Table 2: Descriptives – Item Level
Descriptives for Climate Conspiracy at Item Level
mean sd se
Denialists1 5.17 2.70 0.07
Warmists1 4.45 2.37 0.06
Climate_Consp 4.81 1.35 0.03
Denialists_mean 5.17 2.70 0.07
Warmists_mean 4.45 2.37 0.06
Note:
All items: n = 1500, median = 5, min = 1, max = 9. Climate_Consp: median = 5, min = 1, max = 9. Denialists_mean: median = 5, min = 1, max = 9. Warmists_mean: median = 5, min = 1, max = 9

2.2 Response Distribution

Figure 1: Proportion of each construct of Climate Conspiracy at item level: Denialists
Figure 2: Proportion of each construct of Climate Conspiracy at item level: Warmists
Figure 3: Denialists
Figure 4: Warmists

2.3 Correlations

2.3.1 Correlation Plots

Figure 5: Bivariate Spearman correlations: Climate Conspiracy
Figure 6: Bivariate Spearman correlations: Denialists
Figure 7: Bivariate Spearman correlations: Warmists

Note. Upper triangle shows Spearman’s rank-order correlations. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

2.3.2 PIDF

Figure 8: Bivariate Spearman correlations by party identity: Climate Conspiracy
Figure 9: Bivariate Spearman correlations by party identity: Denialists
Figure 10: Bivariate Spearman correlations by party identity: Warmists

Note. Upper triangle shows Spearman’s rank-order correlations by party identity. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

2.3.3 Correlation Matrix

3 Demographics

3.1 Social Class

Figure 11: Denialists
Figure 12: Warmists
Figure 13: Denialists
Figure 14: Warmists

Note on the Raincloud Plots

  • Statistical summary (top): Welch’s t-test (or ANOVA) results, effect size, confidence intervals, p-values, and sample sizes are shown above each plot.
  • Bayesian analysis (bottom): Log Bayes factor and credible intervals are reported below each plot.
Table 3
Table 4: Warmists as grouped by SES
(a)
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 -0.01 0.97
Lower Middle Class 298 -0.01 1.01
Middle Middle Class 679 -0.05 0.97
Upper Middle Class 395 0.11 1.05
Rich 90 -0.04 1.00
(b)
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 0.00 1.02
Lower Middle Class 298 -0.05 0.99
Middle Middle Class 679 -0.02 1.01
Upper Middle Class 395 0.03 0.99
Rich 90 0.19 0.97

3.2 Gender

Figure 15: Climate Conspiracy Facets, as grouped by Gender: Denialists
Figure 16: Climate Conspiracy Facets, as grouped by Gender: Warmists
Figure 17: Denialists
Figure 18: Warmists
Table 5
Table 6: Warmists as grouped by Gender
(a)
Gender N Mean SD
Female 760 0.16 0.94
Male 740 -0.16 1.03
(b)
Gender N Mean SD
Female 760 -0.12 0.94
Male 740 0.12 1.04

3.3 Age

Figure 19: Denialists
Figure 20: Warmists
Figure 21: Denialists
Figure 22: Warmists
Table 7
Table 8: Warmists as grouped by Age
(a)
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 0.04 0.92
25-34 years 264 0.25 0.90
35-44 years 263 0.06 1.01
45-54 years 292 -0.05 1.01
55-64 years 234 0.08 1.02
65+ 254 -0.36 1.01
(b)
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 -0.21 0.91
25-34 years 264 -0.18 0.95
35-44 years 263 0.01 1.02
45-54 years 292 -0.04 0.99
55-64 years 234 0.02 1.00
65+ 254 0.35 1.02

3.4 Education

Figure 23: Denialists
Figure 24: Warmists
Figure 25: Denialists
Figure 26: Warmists
Table 9
Table 10: Warmists as grouped by Education
(a)
Education N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 0.06 1.04
High School 475 -0.11 0.95
Some College 471 0.00 1.01
Bachelor 310 0.11 1.02
Graduate 193 0.08 1.05
(b)
Education N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 0.01 0.99
High School 475 -0.02 0.99
Some College 471 -0.06 1.02
Bachelor 310 0.09 1.00
Graduate 193 0.04 0.98

3.5 Income Levels

Figure 27: Denialists
Figure 28: Warmists
Figure 29: Denialists
Figure 30: Warmists
Table 11
Table 12: Warmists as grouped by Income Levels
(a)
Income Levels N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 178 -0.05 1.00
$15,000-$24,999 180 -0.02 1.02
$25,000-$34,999 176 -0.05 1.03
$35,000-$49,999 227 0.09 0.95
$50,000-$74,999 292 0.03 1.00
$75,000-$99,999 192 0.02 0.98
$100,000-$149,999 160 0.00 1.05
$150,000 + 95 -0.14 0.99
(b)
Income Levels N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 178 -0.01 1.03
$15,000-$24,999 180 0.00 1.02
$25,000-$34,999 176 -0.11 1.02
$35,000-$49,999 227 -0.05 0.96
$50,000-$74,999 292 -0.01 0.97
$75,000-$99,999 192 0.00 1.01
$100,000-$149,999 160 0.08 1.01
$150,000 + 95 0.24 0.99

3.6 Ethnicity

Figure 31: Denialists
Figure 32: Warmists

Note on the Okabe-Ito color palette. The Okabe-Ito color palette (seen above) is a set of colorblind-friendly categorical colors available in R. We are using this palette for graphs with non-ordered variables (e.g., groups, categories) for accessibility.

Figure 33: Denialists
Figure 34: Warmists
Table 13
Table 14: Warmists as grouped by Ethnicity
(a)
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 -0.03 1.01
Black/African American 115 0.15 0.93
Latino 88 0.20 0.96
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 0.27 0.85
Native American 13 -0.35 0.84
Other 18 -0.06 0.97
(b)
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 0.05 1.00
Black/African American 115 -0.35 0.94
Latino 88 -0.08 1.02
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 -0.16 0.88
Native American 13 -0.29 0.95
Other 18 -0.17 1.08

3.7 Occupation

Figure 35: Denialists
Figure 36: Warmists
Figure 37: Denialists
Figure 38: Warmists
Table 15
Table 16: Warmists as grouped by Occupation
(a)
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 0.04 1.00
Retired 268 -0.23 1.01
Unemployed 146 0.12 0.99
Parent 104 -0.02 0.92
Disabled 98 -0.06 1.05
Student 85 0.21 0.92
Full-time caregiver 31 0.05 0.96
(b)
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 -0.05 1.00
Retired 268 0.27 0.99
Unemployed 146 -0.17 0.97
Parent 104 0.10 0.94
Disabled 98 0.05 1.09
Student 85 -0.27 0.88
Full-time caregiver 31 -0.05 0.85

3.8 Area

Figure 39: Denialists
Figure 40: Warmists
Figure 41: Denialists
Figure 42: Warmists
Table 17
Table 18: Warmists as grouped by Area
(a)
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 0.09 1.01
Rural 545 -0.16 0.96
(b)
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 -0.06 0.99
Rural 545 0.11 1.01

3.9 Religious Affiliation

Figure 43: Denialists
Figure 44: Warmists
Figure 45: Denialists
Figure 46: Warmists
Table 19
Table 20: Warmists as grouped by Religious Affiliation
(a)
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 -0.17 0.97
Muslim 9 -0.06 0.91
Jewish 52 0.33 0.99
Atheist/Agnostic 230 0.59 0.95
Not listed, No religion 195 0.09 0.92
(b)
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 0.12 0.98
Muslim 9 -0.14 0.88
Jewish 52 0.04 1.11
Atheist/Agnostic 230 -0.45 0.95
Not listed, No religion 195 -0.13 0.97

3.10 Section Summary

  Climate Conspiracy
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.70 4.41 – 4.99 <.001
Age -0.00 -0.05 – 0.04 .902
Income 0.00 -0.04 – 0.04 .963
Education 0.13 0.05 – 0.20 .001
Gender (Male) -0.18 -0.32 – -0.04 .011
Observations 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted .014 / .011

4 Political Behavior

4.1 Political Orientation

Correlation with General Conservatism, Economic Conservatism, Social Conservatism

Figure 47: Denialists
Figure 48: Warmists
Figure 49: Denialists
Figure 50: Warmists
Figure 51: Denialists
Figure 52: Warmists

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

Table 21: Climate Conspiracy and Political Orientation
Table 22: Climate Conspiracy models and Demographics

4.2 Partisanship

Figure 53: Denialists
Figure 54: Warmists
Table 23: Mean Denialists by Party Identity (raw means)
Party Identity N Mean SD
Strong Democrat 351 6.92 2.53
Democrat 223 5.93 2.34
Leaning Democrat 124 6.73 2.04
Independent 84 5.24 2.30
Leaning Republican 111 3.89 2.53
Republican 255 4.26 2.23
Strong Republican 318 3.31 2.12
Table 24: Mean Warmists by Party Identity (raw means)
Party Identity N Mean SD
Strong Democrat 351 3.10 2.15
Democrat 223 3.87 2.20
Leaning Democrat 124 3.50 1.86
Independent 84 4.65 2.04
Leaning Republican 111 5.16 2.36
Republican 255 5.18 1.94
Strong Republican 318 5.79 2.26
Table 25: Climate Conspiracy & Party Identity (7-point)
Table 26: Climate Conspiracy & Party Identity with Controls

4.3 Religiosity

Figure 55: Denialists
Figure 56: Warmists
Figure 57: Denialists
Figure 58: Warmists

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

Figure 59: Denialists
Figure 60: Warmists

4.4 Candidate Preferences

Figure 61: Denialists
Figure 62: Warmists
Table 27: Candidate Preference and Denialists [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 -0.57 0.82
Hillary Clinton 371 0.48 0.89
Bernie Sanders 362 0.53 0.87
Ted Cruz 122 -0.68 0.85
Jeb Bush 83 -0.07 0.84
Gary Johnson 68 -0.04 0.85
Rand Paul 44 -0.60 0.80
Table 28: Candidate Preference and Warmists [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 0.40 0.96
Hillary Clinton 371 -0.33 0.87
Bernie Sanders 362 -0.51 0.89
Ted Cruz 122 0.62 0.98
Jeb Bush 83 0.31 0.79
Gary Johnson 68 0.04 0.77
Rand Paul 44 0.58 0.97
Table 29: Candidate Preference and Denialists [raw means]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 3.63 2.23
Hillary Clinton 371 6.49 2.41
Bernie Sanders 362 6.61 2.35
Ted Cruz 122 3.34 2.29
Jeb Bush 83 4.99 2.26
Gary Johnson 68 5.07 2.29
Rand Paul 44 3.55 2.17
Table 30: Candidate Preference and Warmists [raw means]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 5.41 2.27
Hillary Clinton 371 3.67 2.07
Bernie Sanders 362 3.24 2.10
Ted Cruz 122 5.93 2.31
Jeb Bush 83 5.18 1.87
Gary Johnson 68 4.54 1.83
Rand Paul 44 5.82 2.29

4.5 Party Preferences

Figure 63: Denialists
Figure 64: Warmists
Table 31: Party Preference and Denialists [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democratic Party 560 0.55 0.92
Republican Party 508 -0.44 0.82
Libertarian Party 100 -0.15 0.93
Green Party 40 0.89 0.68
Tea Party 68 -1.14 0.59
Constitution Party 14 -1.07 0.72
None 120 -0.05 0.89
Don't know 90 -0.04 0.77
Table 32: Party Preference and Warmists [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democratic Party 560 -0.45 0.90
Republican Party 508 0.37 0.88
Libertarian Party 100 0.20 1.01
Green Party 40 -0.84 0.78
Tea Party 68 0.86 1.09
Constitution Party 14 0.56 1.02
None 120 0.06 0.92
Don't know 90 0.00 0.85
Table 33: Party Preference and Denialists [raw means]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democratic Party 560 6.66 2.48
Republican Party 508 3.97 2.23
Libertarian Party 100 4.76 2.53
Green Party 40 7.58 1.84
Tea Party 68 2.10 1.58
Constitution Party 14 2.29 1.94
None 120 5.05 2.40
Don't know 90 5.06 2.09
Table 34: Party Preference and Warmists [raw means]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democratic Party 560 3.39 2.12
Republican Party 508 5.34 2.09
Libertarian Party 100 4.93 2.38
Green Party 40 2.48 1.84
Tea Party 68 6.50 2.58
Constitution Party 14 5.79 2.42
None 120 4.60 2.19
Don't know 90 4.46 2.00

4.6 Voting

Table 35

    4.7 Voting & Party Identity

    Figure 65: Denialists
    Figure 66: Warmists
    Table 36: Denialists and Party Identity
    Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
    Strong Republican 282 7
    Republican 166 24
    Leaning Republican 58 7
    Independent 17 16
    Leaning Democrat 10 65
    Democrat 27 129
    Strong Democrat 4 323
    Table 37: Warmists and Party Identity
    Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
    Strong Republican 282 7
    Republican 166 24
    Leaning Republican 58 7
    Independent 17 16
    Leaning Democrat 10 65
    Democrat 27 129
    Strong Democrat 4 323
    Table 38
    Figure 67: Denialists
    Figure 68: Warmists

    4.8 Likeability

    Figure 69: Denialists
    Figure 70: Warmists
    Figure 71: Denialists
    Figure 72: Warmists

    Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

    Figure 73: Denialists
    Figure 74: Warmists
    Figure 75: Denialists
    Figure 76: Warmists

    Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

    Figure 77: Denialists
    Figure 78: Warmists
    Figure 79: Denialists
    Figure 80: Warmists

    Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

    5 Politico-Psychological correlates of Climate Conspiracy


    5.1 Ideologies and Partisanship

    Figure 81: Denialists
    Figure 82: Warmists

    5.2 Populism, Nationalism, Nativism, and Patriotism

    Figure 83: Denialists
    Figure 84: Warmists



    5.3 Political Psychology

    Figure 85: Denialists
    Figure 86: Warmists

    5.4 Social Justice Concerns, Empathy, and Prejudice

    Figure 87: Denialists
    Figure 88: Warmists



    5.5 Values

    Figure 89: Denialists
    Figure 90: Warmists



    5.6 Pot-Pourri

    Figure 91: Denialists
    Figure 92: Warmists



    5.7 Positive and Negative correlates of Climate Conspiracy

    Figure 93: Denialists
    Figure 94: Warmists
    Figure 95: Denialists
    Figure 96: Warmists

    6 Elastic Net Analysis

    Figure 97: Elastic net predicting Climate Conspiracy: Political Psychology
    Figure 98: Elastic net predicting Climate Conspiracy: Ideology & Partisanship
    Figure 99: Elastic net predicting Climate Conspiracy: Demographics
    Figure 100: Elastic net predicting Climate Conspiracy: Attitudes
    Figure 101: Elastic net predicting Climate Conspiracy: Everything
    Table 39: Elastic Net Summary
    Elastic Net R² for predicting Climate Conspiracy
    Variable Group # Predictors R²
    Political Psychology 5 .054
    Ideology & Partisanship 5 .034
    Demographics 5 .015
    Attitudes 6 .176
    Everything 21 .179