Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Environmental Psychology›Climate Change Attitude Scale
Process / pipelineclimate change beliefs and risk perception

Climate Change Attitude Scale

Also known as: CCAS, Climate Attitude Scale

The Climate Change Attitude Scale (CCAS) measures individuals' beliefs about climate change causation, severity, and human responsibility, as well as attitudes toward climate action and climate policy. Developed by Li and Monroe (2019) as an extension of general environmental attitude scales, the CCAS focuses specifically on climate change perceptions—whether individuals believe climate change is real, anthropogenic (human-caused), severe, and actionable. The scale is essential for tracking public opinion on climate, identifying populations skeptical of climate science, evaluating climate communication campaign effectiveness, and examining links between climate beliefs and policy support or climate action.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

CCAS
CFASECSNEP ScalePEBS

When to use it

Use the CCAS when tracking public opinion shifts following climate events, policy announcements, or media campaigns; evaluating effectiveness of climate communication in shifting beliefs and policy support; comparing climate attitudes across regions, nations, or demographic groups to understand geographic and cultural variation in climate acceptance; examining whether climate communication successfully increases belief in human causation or severity; predicting support for specific climate policies; and researching psychological and ideological determinants of climate skepticism vs. acceptance.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Focused specifically on climate change allows for nuanced measurement of climate beliefs distinct from general environmentalism; someone can be generally pro-environment but climate-skeptical
  • Captures multiple belief dimensions (reality, causation, severity, action efficacy) enabling identification of specific belief gaps—critical for tailoring communication (someone accepting climate reality may need messaging on human causation or policy efficacy)
  • Demonstrates strong predictive validity for climate policy support and voting behavior (r = 0.60–0.75 with pro-climate voting and policy support); substantially outperforms general environmental concern for predicting climate-specific political behavior
  • Sensitive to media and event effects; CCAS shows documented shifts following climate disasters, policy changes, or major media campaigns, making it responsive for impact evaluation
  • Reliable psychometric properties with good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.78–0.85) and cross-cultural validity; validated in 15+ languages with stable factor structure
Limitations
  • Vulnerable to political polarization effects; in highly polarized contexts, CCAS responses reflect political identity more than genuine belief assessment, reducing measurement validity and increasing social desirability bias
  • Does not measure knowledge accuracy; respondents can score high on CCAS (expressing climate concern and support) without understanding climate mechanisms or policy efficacy. Combine with climate knowledge assessment if mechanism understanding is important.
  • Policy attitudes measured by CCAS are abstract; actual willingness to sacrifice for climate action (pay carbon tax, support cap-and-trade with costs) often significantly lower than stated policy support suggests
  • Temporal stability limited to 6–12 months; climate attitudes can shift with media cycles and political events, requiring baseline measurement prior to communication interventions
  • Subject to context effects; CCAS in environmental focus group or after climate news spike shows inflation of scores compared to neutral contexts. Always report administration context.

Frequently asked

Why do people high on CCAS often refuse to make lifestyle changes for climate?

Stated policy support ≠ personal behavior sacrifice. Many respondents endorse abstract climate action ('government should act') while resisting personal costs (accepting carbon taxes, reducing flights). This reflects what researchers call 'expressed concern without behavioral commitment'—distinguished by measuring actual behavioral intention and willingness to sacrifice alongside CCAS.

How much does political ideology affect CCAS responses?

Substantially. Conservative respondents average 28–36 on CCAS; progressives 55–62. Much of this gap reflects ideology, not objective climate facts. Use depolarized language, measure beliefs separately from policy attitudes, and test measurement equivalence across ideological groups to ensure you're measuring climate belief not partisan identity.

Does CCAS predict actual climate behavior change?

Moderately (r = 0.35–0.50). High CCAS predicts reported behavior change and policy support better than general environmental concern, but practical barriers and competing priorities often prevent behavior adoption despite belief. Combine CCAS with measures of behavioral intention, efficacy beliefs, and structural enablers (transit, renewable options) for better behavior prediction.

How stable is CCAS over time?

Moderate stability (test-retest r = 0.65–0.75 over 3 months, declining to r = 0.50–0.60 over 12 months). Climate attitudes are more stable than general environmental concern but responsive to media events and new information. Always assess baseline and account for time between measurement occasions when evaluating intervention effects.

Sources

  1. Li, H., & Monroe, M. C. (2019). Development and validation of the Climate Change Attitude Scale (CCAS). Climatic Change, 152(3–4), 601–613. link ↗
  2. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., & Roser-Renouf, C. (2009). Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Yale University. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Climate Change Attitude Scale. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/environmental-psychology/climate-change-attitude-scale

Related methods

CFASECSNEP ScalePEBS

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • CFASEnvironmental Psychology↔ compare
  • ECSEnvironmental Psychology↔ compare
  • NEP ScaleEnvironmental Psychology↔ compare
  • PEBSEnvironmental Psychology↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

ECSNEP Scale

Similar methods

CFASECSEnvironmental Attitudes ScaleSCSNEP ScalePEBSNew Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP)GPIS

Related reference concepts

Environmental Issues & AttitudesAttitude MeasuresClimate Change and HealthClimate Change and Environmental HealthConsumer Opinion & Attitude TestingClimate Change and Forcing

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — CCAS (Climate Change Attitude Scale). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/environmental-psychology/climate-change-attitude-scale · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Hui Li, Marianne C. Monroe
Subfamily
climate change beliefs and risk perception
Year
2019
Type
Self-report belief and attitude scale
Related methods
CFASECSNEP ScalePEBS
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account