Emotions about climate change are the subject of a growing area of interdisciplinary scholarship. But so far scholars have not studied the emotions expressed by self-declared climate change skeptics; nor have social scientists turned to affect studies to develop nuanced understandings of the constellation of emotions related to fear. Our team conducted 33 interviews and 1000 surveys with self-identified skeptics living in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. The data demonstrates the variability in perspectives, ideologies, and behaviors among skeptics themselves in new and unique ways, including tracking skeptics’ emotions about climate change. This article focuses on worry and dread. We find that those who believe climate change is a hoax, and skeptics who are politically conservative, tend to express less of these two emotions, as do men who identify as skeptics. Religiosity, as measured by frequency of religious attendance, does not significantly correlate with worry and dread; however, specific religious beliefs related to climate change (e.g. “Climate change is punishment for our sins”) do seem to increase those two feelings. Negative firsthand environmental experiences are also associated with higher degrees of worry and dread. Perhaps most significantly, our data suggests that worry and dread correlate strongly with environmental concern and policy support.

Our interdisciplinary approach has several methodological advantages. First, affect studies encourages more nuance in emotion language, including more detailed definitions of emotions like worry and dread, which simmer over time, as opposed to discrete emotions like fear, which are shorter-lived. Second, sociological approaches remind us that emotions function within particular political, historical, and cultural contexts, which are fundamentally shaped by power structures. Finally, humanities scholars can provide useful input both in research design and the interpretation of results by helping craft survey questions and data codes, and by providing close attention to the language of the survey and interview responses. Combined with quantitative data, this multi-pronged methodology brings together forms of knowledge from the humanities and social sciences. Our approach serves as a model for new work in the growing field of empirical ecocriticism and expands the boundaries of the environmental humanities.

人们对气候变化的关注日益成为跨学科学术研究的主题。但是到目前为止，学者们还没有研究过自称是气候变化怀疑论者的情绪。社会科学家也没有转向影响研究以发展对与恐惧相关的情绪星座的细微差别的理解。我们的团队对居住在美国太平洋西北地区的自我认同的怀疑论者进行了33次访谈和1000次调查。数据显示出怀疑论者自身以新的独特方式在观点，意识形态和行为上的变化，包括追踪怀疑论者对气候变化的情绪。本文着重于担忧和恐惧。我们发现，那些相信气候变化是一个骗局的人，而那些在政治上比较保守的怀疑论者则倾向于较少表达这两种情绪，那些被认为是怀疑论者的人也是如此。用宗教出席的频率来衡量，宗教信仰与恐惧和恐惧没有显着相关；但是，与气候变化有关的特定宗教信仰（例如“气候变化是对我们罪恶的惩罚”）似乎确实增加了这两种感觉。负面的第一手环境经历也与更高的忧虑和恐惧感相关。也许最重要的是，我们的数据表明担忧和恐惧与环境关注和政策支持密切相关。负面的第一手环境经历也与更高的忧虑和恐惧感相关。也许最重要的是，我们的数据表明担忧和恐惧与环境关注和政策支持密切相关。负面的第一手环境经历也与更高的忧虑和恐惧感相关。也许最重要的是，我们的数据表明担忧和恐惧与环境关注和政策支持密切相关。

我们的跨学科方法具有多种方法学优势。首先，情感研究鼓励情感语言中的细微差别，包括对诸如焦虑和恐惧之类的情感的更详细定义，这些情感随着时间的流逝而逐渐消失，而与诸如恐惧之类的离散情感相比，它们的寿命较短。其次，社会学方法提醒我们，情绪在特定的政治，历史和文化环境中起作用，而这些环境从根本上是由权力结构决定的。最后，人文学者可以通过帮助编写调查问题和数据代码，以及密切关注调查语言和访谈回答，在研究设计和结果解释方面提供有用的输入。结合定量数据，这种多管齐下的方法论汇集了人文科学和社会科学的知识形式。我们的方法为经验主义生态批评不断发展的领域中的新工作提供了模型，并扩展了环境人文学科的范围。