(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Development and validation of MACK-12: A short multidimensional climate knowledge scale [1]

['Katherine Labonté', 'Marketing Department', 'Faculty Of Business Administration', 'Université Laval', 'Quebec', 'Valériane Champagne St-Arnaud']

Date: 2025-12 

Accurate knowledge about climate change—including its causes, consequences, and solutions—plays a significant role in shaping pro-climate attitudes and behaviors, influencing voting behavior, policy support, personal lifestyle choices, and community-level actions. However, few validated tools exist to assess climate knowledge, particularly short questionnaires suitable for large-scale studies of psychological constructs and behaviors related to the climate crisis. This research addressed this gap in two ways. First, we developed and validated a short, multidimensional climate knowledge scale specific to Quebec: the 12-item Multidimensional Assessment of Climate Knowledge—Quebec version (MACK-12-QC). In Study 1, an initial set of 62 items covering greenhouse effect, causes and consequences of climate change, individual and collective solutions, and climate science was administrated to a representative sample of 2,000 adults in Quebec, Canada. Twelve items with high psychometric quality were selected for the final scale, ensuring coverage of all targeted dimensions. We demonstrated its reliability and validity using conventional metrics (e.g. Cronbach’s alpha, correlation with education level). Study 2 (n = 502) confirmed test-retest reliability and Study 3 (n = 2,513) demonstrated construct validity, showing correlations with constructs known or expected to be associated with climate change knowledge (climate change denial, environmental concern, perceived urgency to act, and climate-friendly actions). Second, to explore broader applicability, we proposed a general version of the scale, the MACK-12, replacing Quebec-specific items with more universal content. This scale can be used to assess climate knowledge across different populations, helping researchers and decision-makers identify knowledge gaps and design targeted communication strategies, policies, and behavior-change interventions. Its short, multidimensional format also makes it suitable for integration into large-scale observational studies alongside other psychological or sociopolitical measures.

Funding: This work was supported by the Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs du Gouvernement du Québec (Canada) (FO135054 to VCS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2025 Labonté, St-Arnaud. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

1. Introduction

Climate change’s accelerating impacts are now felt worldwide, affecting ecosystems, economies, and human societies [1]. Addressing this global crisis requires both scientific and technological solutions and widespread public understanding and engagement. While scientists and policymakers are crucial for climate mitigation and adaptation, the attitudes and behaviors of the general public are equally vital for success. Research shows that accurate knowledge about climate change—its causes, consequences, and solutions—can meaningfully contribute to shaping people’s pro-climate attitudes and behaviors. This knowledge can influence voting patterns, policy support, personal lifestyle choices, and community actions, all contributing to society’s collective response to climate change [2,3].

Research by Winterich et al. [4] and Kurowski et al. [5] demonstrates that greater climate change knowledge correlates with increased pro-climate consumer behaviors. In the same vein, after controlling for multiple psychological factors and sociodemographic variables, higher factual climate knowledge has been associated with lower carbon footprints, particularly in transport- and food-related choices [6]. Studies also show that better understanding of climate change’s causes and consequences leads to heightened concern and stronger support for climate-friendly policies [7–9]. Moreover, when people are well-informed about climate science, they are more likely to engage in environmental advocacy [10] and seek political involvement [11]. This body of evidence underscores the vital importance of climate knowledge for laypeople.

However, many scholars caution against overemphasizing climate knowledge’s role, noting that simply providing information about climate change is not enough to effectively engage the public [12–16]. While information plays an important role, engaging the public on climate change requires a multifaceted approach that addresses both psychological and structural barriers. Personal values are one example of psychological factors that can shape climate engagement: compared with individuals who hold strong egoistic values (i.e., concern for enhancing one’s personal resources), those with strong biospheric values (i.e., concern for nature and the environment) are more likely to acknowledge the reality of climate change, engage in pro-climate behaviors, and support climate policies [17]. Yet even among well-intentioned individuals, the perceived costs of different climate actions can limit their adoption. For instance, when choosing between public transportation and solo driving, individuals may prefer the latter if the former entails substantially longer commuting times, underscoring the importance of structural barriers. Despite the strong influence of psychological and structural factors on individuals’ actions, scholars generally agree that a baseline level of climate literacy among the public serves as a valuable tool in addressing climate change [18], although the diversity of conclusions about its role may partly reflect the inconsistent measurement of climate knowledge [19]. As Tobler et al. [20] explain, “climate-related knowledge represents an important, yet not sufficient, prerequisite for people’s willingness to accept climate protection measures or to change their behaviors.” (p. 191).

Studying how well laypeople understand climate change is a crucial research priority [19]. By identifying gaps between scientific consensus and public understanding, researchers can pinpoint misconceptions and areas where communication needs improvement [21,22]. When people lack accurate climate knowledge, they may be less likely to support essential policies and actions, hindering the implementation of effective climate strategies. Measuring public climate knowledge also helps shape more effective educational campaigns, media strategies, and outreach programs [23]. Yet experts continue to debate how best to assess climate knowledge—specifically, which concepts to measure and how to measure them.

1.1. Climate change knowledge: A multidimensional concept According to Azevedo and Marques [24], climate literacy comprises three key elements: knowledge of climate science, the ability to access and evaluate climate information, and positive attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation strategies. This definition integrates both objective components (knowledge and skills) and subjective elements (attitudes), highlighting climate literacy’s multidimensional nature. As Sato and Park [25] emphasize, “qualifying a person to be climate change literate should require a meticulous assessment of not one but multiple domains of climate change literacy” (pp. 11–12). Regarding climate knowledge specifically (as distinct from skills or attitudes), existing assessment tools vary considerably in their scope and focus on different dimensions of climate literacy [19]. Some tools emphasize the biophysical processes of climate change [e.g., 26], while others concentrate on specific causes [e.g., food practices, 27] and consequences [e.g., infectious diseases, 28]. In their comprehensive assessment of climate-related knowledge, Tobler et al. [20] identified four key dimensions. The first dimension, physical knowledge, encompasses scientific principles like the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide’s (CO 2 ) role. The second dimension focuses on knowledge about climate change and its causes, examining both its existence and human origins. The third dimension addresses knowledge of climate change consequences, including for instance increased extreme weather events and melting polar ice caps. The fourth dimension covers action-related knowledge, which includes strategies and practices for reducing CO 2 emissions. Building on this framework, Taddicken et al. [29] added a fifth dimension—procedural knowledge—which examines how climate knowledge is generated and the scientific uncertainties involved. As mentioned previously, most existing climate knowledge measurement tools only partially cover these five dimensions [19,25]. Moreover, the action knowledge dimension, when measured, typically focuses on individual behaviors. Many questionnaires, for instance, assess people’s understanding of how personal actions affect CO 2 emissions [e.g., 30–32]. However, solutions to the climate crisis go well beyond individual actions. They include collective-level decisions such as urban planning, public transit implementation, and eco-taxation [33–35]. Despite this, climate knowledge measurement tools rarely assess this broader type of knowledge [19,25]. Moreover, while most assessment tools in the literature focus primarily on global climate change knowledge (e.g., how CO₂ emissions are raising Earth’s temperature), understanding how populations comprehend local climate issues is equally important. Firstly, different regions of the world experience climate change impacts in distinct ways. In northern regions like Scandinavia, for instance, accelerated melting of glaciers and permafrost contributes to rising sea levels and threatens coastal communities [36]. Meanwhile, Mediterranean countries face increasingly frequent and intense heat waves. In 2024, Greece, Spain, Portugal, France, and Morocco suffered extreme weather events that led to fatalities, widespread wildfires, and public health emergencies [37]. Therefore, measurement tools that focus solely on global climate change consequences cannot assess whether people understand how climate change affects their local area. This limitation makes it impossible to determine if individuals truly comprehend the risks specific to their region. Secondly, greenhouse gas emissions patterns vary significantly across countries and regions. For example, some European countries—Portugal, France, and the UK—have much lower CO 2 emissions per capita than neighboring countries with comparable living standards, such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium. This difference stems from their energy choices: Portugal, France, and the UK generate most of their electricity from nuclear and renewable sources, while Germany relies on fossil fuels for about half of its electricity production [38]. Significant differences also exist between regions within the same country. In Canada, greenhouse gas emissions in the province of Quebec (9.1 tons of CO 2 equivalent per capita in 2022) are substantially lower than in the province of Saskatchewan (64.4 tons of CO 2 equivalent per capita during the same year). This distinction also stems from their energy source: Quebec relies primarily on hydroelectricity, while Saskatchewan depends mainly on natural gas [39]. As a result, climate knowledge assessment tools that focus solely on global causes or generic solutions cannot effectively measure whether people understand the most relevant actions for reducing emissions or adapting to climate change in their specific region.

1.2. Measuring climate change knowledge Research on objective climate knowledge assessment features questionnaires of various lengths, from brief scales with fewer than five items [e.g., 40, 41] to extensive ones with over 20 items [e.g., 26, 29]. While comprehensive questionnaires yield rich insights into target audiences, their administration is resource-intensive. Shorter questionnaires present a practical solution but—as noted earlier—often fail to cover all dimensions of climate knowledge. This creates a pressing need for concise yet multidimensional questionnaires that can effectively distinguish between varying levels of climate change knowledge at both global and local scales. Existing climate knowledge scales show considerable variation in how they phrase and structure items [19,25]. While some questionnaires ask respondents to select correct answers from multiple choices [e.g., 5, 26], others require them to evaluate statements [e.g., 20, 42]. In the latter approach, respondents typically rate their agreement with claims on a scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree [e.g., 29, 41]. This method, however, makes it difficult to separate objective knowledge from attitudes and beliefs [29]. Though some researchers have tried to address this by measuring awareness of expert consensus on climate change [e.g., 41], the challenge of distinguishing between actual knowledge and perceived expert consensus persists. Moreover, some researchers rely on self-assessment tools to evaluate participants’ climate knowledge [19]. For instance, Pilgreen et al. [43] measured subjective climate knowledge with two self-reported items on a five-point scale ranging from ‘not at all knowledgeable’ to ‘very knowledgeable’ (e.g., ‘How would you rate your knowledge of the issue of climate change?’). While such measures are practical, they also tend to conflate knowledge with confidence or attitudes, underscoring the need for validated tools that more accurately capture objective knowledge. To this end, researchers often use true/false statements rather than agreement scales to better measure objective knowledge. These questionnaires frequently include an “I don’t know” option to discourage random guessing [e.g., 8, 44]. However, this approach has drawbacks—less confident respondents might select “I don’t know” even when they know the answer, while less motivated participants might choose it as an easy way out [45]. To address this issue, researchers can ask respondents to rate their confidence in each answer, either through a separate question or as part of a Likert scale [e.g., 40, 42]. Regardless of their length, item types, and response options, few climate knowledge questionnaires have undergone rigorous validation [19]. Most are ad hoc instruments with unverified psychometric properties, and publications rarely include validation evidence for these measurement tools. Given the critical nature of climate change, using validated instruments is essential to ensure that climate-related research leads to interventions and policies based on accurate measurements of climate knowledge.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000600

Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/