↓ Skip to main content

The ideological divide and climate change opinion: “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The ideological divide and climate change opinion: “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01458
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Jacquet, Monica Dietrich, John T. Jost

Abstract

The United States wields disproportionate global influence in terms of carbon dioxide emissions and international climate policy. This makes it an especially important context in which to examine the interplay among social, psychological, and political factors in shaping attitudes and behaviors related to climate change. In this article, we review the emerging literature addressing the liberal-conservative divide in the U.S. with respect to thought, communication, and action concerning climate change. Because of its theoretical and practical significance, we focus on the motivational basis for skepticism and inaction on the part of some, including "top-down" institutional forces, such as corporate strategy, and "bottom-up" psychological factors, such as ego, group, and system justification. Although more research is needed to elucidate fully the social, cognitive, and motivational bases of environmental attitudes and behavior, a great deal has been learned in just a few years by focusing on specific ideological factors in addition to general psychological principles.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Nepal 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 113 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 25%
Student > Master 21 18%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 4%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 26 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 28 24%
Psychology 23 19%
Environmental Science 10 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 32 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,023,129
of 32,435,668 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,190
of 41,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,214
of 399,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#67
of 365 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,435,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 41,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 365 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.