İklı̇m Değı̇şı̇klı̇ğı̇ Rı̇sk Algısı Modelinin Türkiye Örnekleminde Test Edilmesi

Hilal Peker Dural; Mehmet Karasu; Betül Kanık; Yılmaz Orhun Gürlük

doi:10.35674/kent.1619117

EN TR

Testing the Climate Change Risk Perception Model in the Turkish Context

Abstract

This research aims to test van der Linden’s (2015) Climate Change Risk Perception Model in Türkiye, a non-Western culture, and expand its scope. For this purpose, the model was tested using data collected from 582 participants across Türkiye. The current study tested the original model and the effects of the newly added variables: the need for cognitive closure, responsibility attribution, and information valence. According to the results, the model is validated in Türkiye and accounts for 37% of the variance. Although the need for cognitive closure and responsibility attribution did not increase the explained variance, the information valence factor provided a significant explanation and increased the explained variance by approximately 2.5%. The research makes a unique contribution to the literature by testing the model in a non-Western culture and demonstrating the role of information valence in explaining climate change risk perception. The results will contribute to society by making climate change risk communication more effective and developing interventions to increase the likelihood of people exhibiting pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours.

Keywords

Risk Perception , Climate Change , Global Warming , Risk Communication , Information Valence , Need for Cognitive Closure , Responsibility Attributions

İklı̇m Değı̇şı̇klı̇ğı̇ Rı̇sk Algısı Modelinin Türkiye Örnekleminde Test Edilmesi

Öz

Bu araştırma van der Linden’in (2015) İklim Değişikliği Risk Algısı Modelini (İDRAM) Batı dışı bir kültür olan Türkiye’de test etmeyi ve kapsamını genişletmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla, Türkiye genelinden 581 katılımcıdan elde edilen verilerle model test edilmiştir. Mevcut çalışma, orijinal modeli ve yeni eklenen şu değişkenlerin etkilerini test etmiştir: Bilişsel kapanma ihtiyacı, sorumluluk atfı ve bilgi değerliği. Sonuçlara göre, model Türkiye örneklemine uyum göstermiştir ve açıklayıcılık oranı %37’dir. Bilişsel kapanma ihtiyacı ve sorumluluk atfı açıklanan varyansı artırmasa da bilgi değerliği faktörü modele önemli bir açıklama sağlamış ve Türkiye’deki örneklemde açıklanan varyansı yaklaşık %2,5 oranında artırmıştır. Araştırma, modeli Batı dışı bir kültürde test ederek ve bilgi değerliğinin iklim değişikliği risk algısını açıklamadaki rolünü göstererek literatüre katkı sağlamaktadır. Sonuçların, iklim değişikliği risk iletişimini daha etkili hâle getirerek ve insanların çevre yanlısı tutum ve davranışlar sergileme olasılığını artıracak müdahaleler geliştirerek topluma katkıda bulunması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

risk algısı , iklim değişikliği , küresel ısınma , risk iletişimi , bilgi değerliği , bilişsel kapanma ihtiyacı , sorumluluk atfı

Kaynakça

Akerlof, K., Maibach, E. W., Fitzgerald, D., Cedeno, A. Y. ve Neuman, A. (2013). Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so how, does it matter? Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.006
Ateş, D., Teksöz, G. ve Ertepınar, H. (2017). Exploring the role of future perspective in predicting Turkish university students’ beliefs about global climate change. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 8(1), 32-52. https://doi.org/10.1515/dcse-2017-0003
Baden, D. (2019). Solution-focused stories are more effective than catastrophic stories in motivating proenvironmental intentions. Ecopsychology, 11(4), 254-263. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2019.0023
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. ve Cook, F. L. (2014). Communication and collective actions: a survey experiment on motivating energy conservation in the US. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(1), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.2
Bornstein, M. H., Jager, J. ve Putnick, D. L. (2013). Sampling in developmental science: Situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Developmental Review, 33, 357-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.003
Bouman, T., Verschoor, M., Albers, C. J., Böhm, G., Fisher, S. D., Poortinga, W., ... ve Steg, L. (2020). When worry about climate change leads to climate action: How values, worry and personal responsibility relate to various climate actions. Global Environmental Change, 62, 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102061
Bradley, G. L., Babutsidze, Z., Chai, A. ve Reser, J. P. (2020). The role of climate change risk perception, response efficacy, and psychological adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: A two nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101410
Brizi, A. ve Biraglia, A. (2021). “Do I have enough food?” How need for cognitive closure and gender impact stockpiling and food waste during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-national study in India and the United States of America. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110396
Browne, M. W. ve Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
Brügger, A., Dessai, S., Devine-Wright, P., Morton, T. A. ve Pidgeon, N. F. (2015). Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nature Climate Change 5, 1031-1037. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2760

Budžytė, A. ve Balžekienė, A. (2018). Public perceptions of institutional responsibility in climate change risk in Baltic Nordic countries. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 7, 675-684. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2018.7.4(5)
Chang, J. J., Kim, S. H., Shim, J. C. ve Ma, D. H. (2016). Who is responsible for climate change? Attribution of responsibility, news media, and South Koreans’ perceived risk of climate change. Mass Communication and Society, 19(5), 566-584. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1180395
Cheng, P., Wei, J. ve Ge, Y. (2017). Who should be blamed? The attribution of responsibility for a city smog event in China. Natural Hazards, 85(2), 669-689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2597-1
Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K. ve Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510500181459
Cohen, N. ve Arieli, T. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48(4), 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311405698
De Groot, J. I. M. ve Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain environmental attitudes and beliefs: How to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330e354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social Structural and Social Psychological Bases of Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 450-471. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000402
Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C. ve Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(44), 18452-18456. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908738106
Donner, S. D. ve McDaniels, J. (2013). The influence of national temperature fluctuations on opinions about climate change in the US since 1990. Climatic Change, 118, 537-550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0690-3
Doyle, J. (2007). Picturing the clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the representational politics of climate change communication. Science as Culture, 16, 129-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430701368938
Elshirbiny, H. ve Abrahamse, W. (2020). Public risk perception of climate change in Egypt: A mixed methods study of predictors and implications. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 10(3), 242-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-020-00617-6
Etana, D., van Wesenbeeck, C. F. ve de Cock Buning, T. (2020). Socio-cultural aspects of farmers’ perception of the risk of climate change and variability in Central Ethiopia. Climate and Development, 13(2), 139-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1737796
Feinberg, M. ve Willer, R. (2011). Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychological Science 22(1), 34-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391911
Garson, G. D. (2006). Structural equation modelling. G. David Garson and Statistical Associates Publishing.
Gifford R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. The American Psychologist, 66(4), 290-302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
Gilbert, C. ve Lachlan, K. (2023). The climate change risk perception model in the United States: A replication study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 86, Article 101969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101969
Giorgi, F. (2006). Climate change hot-spots. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(8), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL025734
Giorgi, F. ve Lionello, P. (2008). Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Global and Planetary Change, 63(2-3), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.09.005
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. ve Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
Hidalgo, M. C. ve Pisano, I. (2010). Determinants of risk perception and willingness to tackle climate change. A pilot study, PsyEcology, 1(1), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1174/217119710790709595
Janoff-Bulman, R. (2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2-3), 120-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028581
Jost, J. T., Ledgerwood, A. ve Hardin, C. D. (2008). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 171-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00056.x
Kaiser, F. G. ve Fuhrer, U. (2003). Ecological behavior's dependency on different forms of knowledge. Applied Psychology, 52(4), 598-613. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00153
Kalch, A., Büschges, L., Homburg, S., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2021). Am I responsible? The joint effect of individual and social responsibility attributions and descriptive norms in media messages on climate mitigation intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101640
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R. ve Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1002-1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002610009
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.
Konda. (2021). İklim değişikliği algısı raporu [Climate change perception report]. İstanbul.
Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed-mindedness. Psychology Press.
Kruglanski, A. W. ve Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: ‘‘Seizing’’ and ‘‘freezing’’. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263-283.
Kurnaz, L. (2023). İklim değişikliği ve uyum süreçlerinde Türkiye [Turkiye in Climate Change and Adaptation Processes]. Dirençlilik Dergisi, 7(1), 199-208. https://doi.org/10.32569/resilience.1312684
Lacroix, K. ve Gifford, R. (2018). Psychological barriers to energy conservation behavior: The role of worldviews and climate change risk perception. Environment and Behavior, 50(7), 749-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517715296
Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., O, C-Y. ve Leiserowitz, A. A. (2015). Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change, 5, 1014-1020. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2728
Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery and values. Climatic Change, 77, 449-474. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103023
Leiserowitz, A., Carman, J., Buttermore, N., Wang, X., Rosenthal, S., Marlon, J. ve Mulcahy, K. (2021). International Public Opinion on Climate Change. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and Facebook Data for Good.
Liu, T., Zhang, H., Li, X. ve Zhang, H. (2020). Individual factors influencing risk perceptions of hazardous chemicals in China. Environmental Research, 186, 109523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109523
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. ve Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
Lombardi, D. ve Sinatra, G. M. (2012). College students’ perceptions about the plausibility of human-induced climate change. Research in Science Education, 42, 201-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9196-z
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S. ve Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17, 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004
Mannetti L., Pierro A. ve Kruglanski A. (2007). Who regrets more after choosing a non-status-quo option? Post decisional regret under need for cognitive closure. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 186-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2005.12.004
Marx, S. M., Weber, E. U., Orlove, B. S., Leiserowitz, A., Krantz, D. H., Roncoli, C. ve Phillips, J. (2007). Communication and mental processes: Experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Global Environmental Change, 17(1), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.10.004
Metropoll (2023). Türkiye’nin nabzı: Nisan 2023 [Turkey’s Pulse: April 2023]. Ankara.
Milfont, T. L. (2012). The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change: A one-year longitudinal study: Knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change over time. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 1003-1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01800.x
Özdem, Y., Dal, B., Öztürk, N., Sönmez, D. ve Alper, U. (2014). What is that thing called climate change? An investigation into the understanding of climate change by seventh-grade students’. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(4), 293-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2014.946323
Pidgeon, N. (1998). Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: why we do need risk perception research. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 59, 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00114-2
Pidgeon, N. (2012). Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. Climate Policy, 12(1), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2012.702982
Pratt, J. W. (1987). Dividing the indivisible: Using simple symmetry to partition variance explained. Proceedings of the second international conference in statistics içinde (ss. 245-260). University of Tampere.
Punzo, G., Panarello, D., Pagliuca, M. M., Castellano, R. ve Aprile, M. C. (2019). Assessing the role of perceived values and felt responsibility on pro-environmental behaviours: A comparison across four EU countries. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 311-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.006
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J. ve Solomon, S. (1999). A dual-process model of defense against conscious and unconscious death-related thoughts: an extension of terror management theory. Psychological Review, 106(4), 835-845. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.835
Raglan, G. B., Babush, M., Farrow, V.A., Kruglanski, A. W. ve Schulkin, J. (2014). Need to know: the need for cognitive closure impacts the clinical practice of obstetrician/gynecologists. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 14, 122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-014-0122-6
Roets, A. ve Van Hiel, A. (2007). Separating ability from need: Clarifying the dimensional structure of the need for closure scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 266-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294744
Roets, A. ve van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Sachdeva, R. (2022). Pandemic, perceived risk, and cognitive dissonance as antecedents to need for cognitive closure. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology (IJSSMET), 13(1), 1-20. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJSSMET.298676
Sinatra, G. M., Kardash, C. M., Taasoobshirazi, G. ve Lombardi, D. (2012). Promoting attitude change and expressed willingness to take action toward climate change in college students. Instructional Science, 40, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9166-5
Sjöberg, L. (2000). The methodology of risk perception research. Quality & Quantity 34, 407-418. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004838806793
Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. D. Golding ve S. Krimsky (Ed.), Social theories of risk içinde (ss. 117-153). Praeger.
Sobkow, A., Traczyk, J. ve Zaleskiewicz, T. (2016). The affective bases of risk perception: Negative feelings and stress mediate the relationship between mental imagery and risk perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 932. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00932
Steg, L. ve Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. ve Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322-348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002
Şahin, G. (2023). Psychological distance in climate change: The role of climate denial, contact with nature and political opinion. Journal of Disaster and Risk, 6(3), 1201-1217. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.1295230
Şenel, H. ve Güngör, B. (2009). Üniversite öğrencilerinin küresel ısınma hakkındaki bilgilerinin ve kavram yanılgılarının tespiti. [Determination of university students’ informations and misconceptions about global warming]. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 4(4), 1207-1225.
van der Linden S. (2014). On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: The case of climate change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 430-440. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2008
van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012
Weber E. U (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77, 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3
Webster D. A. ve Kruglanski A.W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049-1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049
Wolfe, S. E. ve Tubi, A. (2018). Terror Management Theory and mortality awareness: A missing link in climate response studies, WIREs Climate Change, 10(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.566
Xie, B., Brewer, M. B., Hayes, B. K., McDonald, R. I. ve Newell, B. R. (2019). Predicting climate change risk perception and willingness to act. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101331
Yılmaz O. (2015). An investigation of the reciprocal relationship between analytic thinking and political ideology [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
Yılmaz, V., Güleç, P. ve Ari, E. (2023). Impact of climate change information of university students in Turkey on responsibility and environmental behavior through awareness and perceived risk. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25, 7281-7297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02319-1
Zhu, D., Xie, X. ve Gan, Y. (2011). Information source and valence: How information credibility influences earthquake risk perception. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(2), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.09.005
Zittis, G., Almazroui, M., Alpert, P., Ciais, P., Cramer, W., Dahdal, Y., Fnais, M., Francis, D., Hadjinicolaou, P., Howari, F., Jrrar, A., Kaskaoutis, D. G., Kulmala, M., Lazoglou, G., Mihalopoulos, N., Lin, X., Rudich, Y., Sciare, J., … Lelieveld, J. (2022). Climate change and weather extremes in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Reviews of Geophysics, 60(2), e2021RG000762. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021RG000762

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

Mimarlık ve Çevre Psikolojisi

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Hilal Peker Dural ^*
0000-0002-3232-2763
Türkiye

Mehmet Karasu
0000-0002-6620-2807
Türkiye

Betül Kanık
0000-0003-1634-6690
Türkiye

Yılmaz Orhun Gürlük
0000-0002-1134-3776
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

22 Ocak 2026

Gönderilme Tarihi

13 Ocak 2025

Kabul Tarihi

24 Aralık 2025

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2026 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1619117

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA38EY92MU

APA

Peker Dural, H., Karasu, M., Kanık, B., & Gürlük, Y. O. (2026). İklı̇m Değı̇şı̇klı̇ğı̇ Rı̇sk Algısı Modelinin Türkiye Örnekleminde Test Edilmesi. Kent Akademisi, 19(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1619117

International Refereed and Indexed Journal of Urban Culture and Management | Kent Kültürü ve Yönetimi Uluslararası Hakemli İndeksli Dergi

Bilgi, İletişim, Kültür, Sanat ve Medya Hizmetleri (ICAM Network) www.icamnetwork.net

Executive Office: Ahmet Emin Fidan Culture and Research Center, Evkaf Neigh. No: 34 Fatsa Ordu
Tel: +90452 310 20 30 Faks: +90452 310 20 30 | E-Mail: (int): info@icamnetwork.net | (TR) bilgi@icamnetwork.net

Testing the Climate Change Risk Perception Model in the Turkish Context

Abstract

Keywords

İklı̇m Değı̇şı̇klı̇ğı̇ Rı̇sk Algısı Modelinin Türkiye Örnekleminde Test Edilmesi

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster