What, Me Worry? The Role of Affect in Information Seeking and Avoidance

Guided by the risk information-seeking and processing model, this study examines positive and negative affect separately in their influence on information-seeking intentions and avoidance through structural equation analyses. The highlight is that information avoidance seems to be driven by positive affect, while information seeking seems to be more heavily influenced by negative affect. Another interesting finding is that informational subjective norms are positively related to both seeking and avoidance, which suggests that one’s social environment has the potential to strongly influence the way he or she handles climate change information. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

If climate change were a dude, via bird and moon

Democrats and Republicans don’t inhabit totally different worlds. Maybe they just don’t take survey questions very seriously.

Dr. Eric Chivian suggests we transpose environmental problems in terms of health.

Anger, confrontation and provocation

Jonathan Green, suggesting that this is the foundation of the populist business model.

A Note for Word Placement Specialists

Tom C,

Thank you for answering one of the three questions I asked.

Sadly, your answer only asserts what you believe. There is no justification, no evidence, only some kind of proof by assertion. It would be interesting to know why you think that Steve’s not doing a political hit job at CA.

There are lots of claims in #581. Susbtantiating these claims should take some time to do, more so for a guy that works as much as you do. Take your:

> There is substantial evidence that the WMP was not confined to a portion of the nothern hemisphere.

That must mean you did study that question. You read papers about that. Perhaps you collected data and ran some code too?

And there’s also this other claim:

> I also find it highly implausible that a local climate abberation would persist for some 200-300 years.

Now, is that an argument? Sounds like one. If that’s an argument, you read it somewhere, perhaps. Where?

And then we get to this:

> The existence of the MWP does not argue against current warming being anthropogenic in origin. It does argue against alarm.

I’m not sure how the existence of the MWP (which I don’t think is being questioned by Overpeck, by the way, only the myths about it) argues against alarm. Would you expand on that line of reasoning?

But I sure am hearing you loud and clear why you think all this vocabulary business matters:

> [I]f you are promoting alarm, it must be “gotten rid of”, “dealt a mortal blow” etc.

So that was the point of Deming’s quote, ain’t it?

Now, what I find interesting that what you’re claiming here is never stated on CA, and only dogwhistled. By chance Big Dog can rely on Me Toos like you.

In any case, maybe all this is a vocabulary thing. So let’s make make sure we do agree about the meaning of the term “political hit job”. Here’s an instance that some found a political hit job against [Judith Curry, not Stephan Lewandowsky].


Do you think this is a political hit job? Why?

And since you do seem to believe that L’s study is a political job, why? You have read it, I presume. And ran its code. And reached your conclusion independently from anything that was said.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps your work prevents you from paying any kind of due diligence. Perhaps you don’t have the time to justify any your claims in #581 and to answer my questions. Perhaps your job is only to play the Knight of Ni game while inserting the appropriate words and the appropriate memes, after all.

I don’t understand why word placement specialists waste their time using ad hominems like you do. After all, its motivational effect goes against their very lines of business.

I thought that Convervative mind framers were more disciplined. Maybe that’s just a myth that ought to be destroyed too.

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)

Community of meaning

Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson,in The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, about Fox News, broadcasting consistent narratives.

Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words ‘the American people’ provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don’t need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it’s very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.

Harold Pinter, in his Nobel speech, trying to connect Art, Truth, and Politics
Older posts RSS