9 Through Different Eyes: Intuitive and Cultural Worldviews as Predictors of Learning in a Climate Exhibit

Faculty Mentor: Lynne Zummo (Educational Psychology, University of Utah)

Subject/Problem

Rationale

Anthropogenic climate change poses escalating risks to various coupled human-ecological systems (e.g., Magnan et al., 2021; McMichael et al., 2006; USGCRP, 2018). Although scientific consensus on climate change is strong, public engagement remains inconsistent, in part because psychological and cultural barriers — among Gifford’s (2011) “dragons of inaction” — shape how people attend to and act on climate information. These dragons include various intuitive and cultural worldviews, a manifestation of broad systems of belief: religion, politics, philosophy, and more.

Given these interplaying factors, museums are uniquely positioned to advance climate education. As trusted institutions serving diverse audiences, they can bridge scientific consensus with varied perspectives, fostering inclusive dialogue (Centre for Sustainable Futures, MECCE Project, & NAAEE, 2024). For example, museums can use strategic framing that account for the intuitive, cultural, and psychological dimensions of learning that can surface readily in informal settings (Zummo et al., 2024). Given that museums have such potential for communicating science while providing space for conversations, empirical guidance on designing effective climate learning experiences is one of the most necessary and emergent fields in the learning sciences (Hamilton & Ronning, 2020; Janney et al., 2025). This study attempts to address a critical gap by examining how three sets of intuitive and cultural worldviews influence the uptake of strategic frames in the Natural History Museum of Utah’s climate exhibit, A Climate of Hope, informing the design of equitable, effective climate learning spaces across ideological lines.

Theoretical Framework

Our framework integrates three constructs as intuitive and cultural worldview constructs through which visitors interpret exhibit content. These constructs are Climate Concern (CC), Human Exceptionalism (HE), and Theistic Stewardship (TS).

Climate Concern (CC)

We operationalize CC via the Six Americas Super Short Survey (SASSY) segmentation. The theoretical dimensions of Climate Concern, as outlined by Leiserowitz et al. (2021) in their explanation of the Global Warming’s Six Americas framework, encompass attitudinal valence toward climate science (acceptance or rejection) and issue involvement (worry, personal importance, risk perception). This framework ultimately segments the U.S. public into six internally consistent audiences: Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive, with Alarmed being the most concerned and Dismissive being the least. Similarly, the SASSY classifies U.S. audiences into the same six segments based on four items assessing concern, a more cost-efficient and convenient option compared to Global Warming’s Six Americas 36 items. The SASSY items include questions on risk to future generations, personal importance, and perceived harm (Chryst et al., 2018), with ≥70% classification accuracy relative to the 36‑item Six Americas instrument. One finding from previous work with the Global Warming’s Six Americas revealed significant differences in climate literacy across segments, with Alarmed individuals passing climate literacy tests roughly ten times more often than Dismissive individuals (Leiserowitz & Smith, 2010). If segmentation relates to overall climate knowledge and literacy, it is also likely to predict the extent to which learners take up strategic frames in a museum setting.

Human Exceptionalism (HE)

HE is a worldview that posits humans as ontologically distinct from ecological systems and immune to the constraints that other organisms face (Kim et al., 2023). This worldview fosters an artificial divide between human and natural systems, reducing perceptions of environmental risk and undermining sustainable behaviors (Betz & Coley, 2022). HE relates to a broader theory of “cognitive construals” that shape science learning, rooted in intuitive beliefs about human supremacy (Coley & Tanner, 2012; Kim et al., 2023). Interventions emphasizing human-ecosystem interdependence may also mitigate HE’s effects, though its prevalence varies cross-culturally and with nature exposure (Anderson & Perrin, 2018; Kim et al., 2023). Visitors high in HE may discount messages emphasizing ecosystem vulnerability or encounter other barriers to climate learning, as this worldview positions humans as separate from — and often above — the natural world, reducing perceived relevance or urgency of environmental issues.

Theistic Stewardship (TS)

TS holds that humans are divinely charged with caring for and being stewards of the Earth, a belief prominent in Abrahamic traditions (Eom & Ng, 2023). Studies link TS to increased environmental policy support, willingness to donate to climate causes, and moralization of climate issues, driven by emotions like gratitude and obligation (Eom et al., 2021; Shin & Preston, 2019). By postulating environmental care as a sacred responsibility, TS can engage certain theological audiences with aligned strategic frames, broadening the reach of climate messaging.

Frame Uptake as Measure of Learning Outcome

We use the concept of “frame uptake” to understand climate learning. Frame uptake refers to how visitors integrate key strategic frames — Hope, Local, Community, and Gain — into discourse related to the A Climate of Hope exhibit (Zummo et al., 2024; Zummo et al., 2025). These “side door” frames were developed to engage diverse audiences by avoiding less effective approaches like fear, loss, or distance (Zummo et al., [in review]). Drawing on framing theory (Entman, 1993) and Bakhtin’s (1982) concept of heteroglossia — the coexistence of multiple voices within a text — we view museums as polyvocal spaces. We assess the extent to which visitors echo, adapt, or resist the exhibit’s intended frames, with evidence of frame uptake indicating that a visitor resonated with the exhibit’s design intentions and learning outcomes.

Overall

To inform the design of equitable and effective climate learning experiences across ideological lines, we examine how three worldview constructs — Climate Concern (CC), Human Exceptionalism (HE), and Theistic Stewardship (TS) — predict evidence of uptake of any of four exhibit frame (Hope, Local, Community, Gain) in the A Cliamte of Hope exhibit. Thus, we ask:

1. To what extent is a visitor’s level of Climate Concern (CC), Human Exceptionalism (HE), or Theistic Stewardship (TS) associated with their frame uptake?
2. Controlling for CC, to what extent do HE and TS independently predict differences in frame uptake?

Study Design and Procedure

Methodology

We used a mixed‑methods, cross‑sectional design combining qualitative coding, Bayesian item response theory (IRT), and logistic regression. Quantitative measures included Likert-scale survey items for HE, TS, and Climate Concern, binary-encoded frame uptake variables, and demographics.

Qualitative data comprised transcribed spoken and typed responses to an open-ended prompt about the exhibit’s main message, which was inductively coded to later become the binary frame uptake variables. Bayesian Item Response Theory (IRT) estimated latent HE and TS scores, creating a continuous score for each of these worldview constructs per visitor and increasing accuracy of later regression analyses via the employment of weakly informative priors.

Study Context and Participants

Data were collected at the A Climate of Hope exhibit at the Natural History Museum of Utah in Salt Lake City, from November 2024 to July 2025.

Data Collection

Using convenience sampling, one adult per group (N = 82, target N = 100) was recruited at exhibit entry points. Participants provided consent, were assigned unique IDs, and tracked through 17 exhibit stops. Upon exiting the exhibit, participants were asked a single open‑ended question: ‘In your own words, what was the main message of the exhibit?’ Interviewers transcribed responses (‘spoken’ modality). Participants then entered their response into the iPad survey directly (‘typed’ modality), which occasionally elaborated on the spoken answer. They also completed the rest of the survey items, which comprised of Likert scales: HE (7 items, α = .88, with Supremacy and Technology subscales, α= .80 and .80; Betz & Coley, 2022), TS (2 items, α = .93; Eom et al., 2021; Eom & Ng, 2023), and Climate Concern (4 SASSY items; Chryst et al., 2018). Demographics collected included age, gender, and ZIP code.

Data Analysis

All analyses were conducted in Python 3.12.7 using PyMC for Bayesian IRT, estimating HE and TS scores with weakly informative priors (HE: μ = −0.5, σ = 1.0; TS: μ = 0.5, σ = 1.0). Climate Concern items were mapped to SASSY segments through Chryst et al.’s (2018) scoring tool.

Qualitative responses were coded inductively, aligned to the predefined Hope, Local, Community, and Gain frames of the exhibit (κ = .82 spoken, .68 typed; based on Zummo et al., 2025). Logistic regression models predicted frame uptake from HE, TS, and Climate Concern, with univariate and multivariate specifications.

Table 1. Strategic frame codebook with definitions, examples, and κ values.

Assumption Checks and Model Specification

Logit‑linearity assumptions were verified via Akaike Information Criterion comparisons, with all AICs favoring the linear models over the Generalized Additive Model (GAM). For example, the GAM for spoken frame uptake and HE had an AIC of 114.59 compared to the linear AIC of 112.45. Sample size met Peduzzi et al.’s (1996) heuristic (≥10 events per predictor, per outcome).

Independence was ensured by unique IDs and single-participant sampling. Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs < 2) confirmed no multicollinearity (Johnston et al., 2018). Models reported unstandardized coefficients, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals.

Findings

RQ1: Is a visitor’s level of Climate Concern (CC), Human Exceptionalism (HE), or Theistic Stewardship (TS) associated with their frame uptake?

We identified a significant negative association between HE and spoken frame uptake. Climate concern showed a marginal positive trend for typed frame uptake, while TS had no significant effect on either outcome.

Table 2. Univariate logistic regression results for all predictors and outcomes

RQ2: Controlling for CC, do HE and TS independently predict differences in frame uptake?

The key finding of RQ2 mirrored that of RQ1: HE remained a significant negative predictor of spoken frame uptake in the combined model after adjusting for CC (β = -0.64, OR = 0.53, p = 0.036). No predictors reached significance for typed frame uptake, although CC retained a marginal positive trend (β = 0.55, OR = 1.74, p = 0.100). Likelihood ratio tests comparing the combined models to their respective null models yielded p-values of 0.14 and 0.28 for the spoken and typed frame uptake models, respectively, indicating that neither model provided a statistically significant improvement in fit at the conventional α = 0.05 level. This suggests that, as a group, these predictors do not substantially enhance the explanation of frame uptake beyond chance.

A Pearson correlation matrix revealed a significant negative relationship between HE and climate concern (r = -0.47, p < 0.001) and between HE and spoken frame uptake (r = -0.25, p = 0.026), reinforcing HE’s negative association with frame uptake. A significant positive correlation between HE and TS (r = 0.28, p = 0.012) and between spoken and typed frame uptake (r = 0.25, p = 0.025) was found, as well as a marginal positive correlation between climate concern and typed frame uptake (r = 0.18, p = 0.098).

Interpretations & Contributions to the Teaching and Learning of Science

These findings demonstrate the significant influence of worldview constructs on climate learning. Examining Climate Concern (CC), Human Exceptionalism (HE), and Theistic Stewardship (TS) as interpretive constructs, we found that HE was significantly and negatively associated with spoken frame uptake, suggesting that individuals who view humans as separate from or superior to nature are less receptive to exhibit messaging. This aligns with prior research identifying HE as a cognitive barrier to perceiving environmental risks and adopting sustainable behaviors (Betz & Coley, 2022; Kim et al., 2023). In contrast, the marginal positive relationship between CC and typed frame uptake suggests that climate-concerned visitors may be more responsive to the exhibit’s intended frames, paralleling Leiserowitz and Smith’s (2010) findings that climate literacy is highest among the Alarmed segment of the Six Americas. TS showed no significant relationship with frame uptake, indicating that while stewardship beliefs may influence environmental attitudes (Eom et al., 2021), they may not directly shape learning in this context.

This study stresses both the challenges and opportunities of designing climate exhibits for diverse worldviews. Museums can refine their approaches by countering Human Exceptionalism (HE) through narratives that emphasize human interdependence with ecosystems. At the same time, they can leverage existing Climate Concern (CC) by presenting data-driven, solution-oriented content that resonates with audiences already predisposed toward climate literacy. Further research should explore the influence of Theistic Stewardship (TS) on climate learning, including testing alternative exhibit frames beyond Hope, Local, Gain, and Community to identify those that may particularly engage faith- based audiences.

In closing, these findings affirm the value of aligning science communication with audience worldviews. By confronting barriers such as HE and leverage existing predispositions like CC, museums can become transformative spaces for inclusive, impactful climate education — bridging science with culture and helping overcome the “dragons of inaction” (Gifford, 2011).

Bibliography

Anderson, K., & Perrin, C. (2018). “Removed from Nature”: The Modern Idea of Human Exceptionality. Environmental Humanities, 10(2), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-7156827

Bakhtin, M. M. (1982). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson, Trans.). University of Texas Press.

Betz, N., & Coley, J. D. (2022). Human Exceptionalist Thinking about Climate Change. Sustainability, 14(15), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159519

Centre for Sustainable Futures, MECCE Project, & NAAEE. (2024). Mapping the Landscape of Nonformal Climate Change Communication and Education across the United States. Monitoring and Evaluating Climate Communication and Education Project and North American Association of Environmental Education.

Chryst, B., Marlon, J., van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., & Roser-Renouf, C. (2018). Global Warming’s “Six Americas Short Survey”: Audience Segmentation of Climate Change Views Using a Four Question Instrument. Environmental Communication, 12(8), 1109–1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1508047

Coley, J. D. & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Common Origins of Diverse Misconceptions: Cognitive Principles and the Development of Biology Thinking. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-06-0074

Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

Eom, K. & Ng, S. T. (2023). The Potential of Religion for Promoting Sustainability: The Role of Stewardship. Topics in Cognitive Science, 15(3), 480–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12641

Eom, K., Tok, T. Q. H., Saad, C. S., & Kim, H. S. (2021). Religion, environmental guilt, and pro- environmental support: The opposing pathways of stewardship belief and belief in a controlling god. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101717

Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566

Hamilton, P., & Christian Ronning, E. (2020). Why Museums? Museums as Conveners on Climate Change. Journal of Museum Education, 45(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2020.1720375

Janney, B., Zummo, L., Lohani, M., Sanchez-Torres, S., & Bertuzzi, D. (n.d.). Fostering Hope: Exploring Climate Change Learning in an Informal Museum Setting. Visitor Studies, 28(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2024.2446135

Johnston, R., Jones, K., & Manley, D. (2018). Confounding and collinearity in regression analysis: A cautionary tale and an alternative procedure, illustrated by studies of British voting behaviour. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1957–1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0584-6

Kim, J. J. H., Betz, N., Helmuth, B., & Coley, J. D. (2023). Conceptualizing Human–Nature Relationships: Implications of Human Exceptionalist Thinking for Sustainability and Conservation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 15(3), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12653

Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., Marlon, J., & Maibach, E. (2021a). Global Warming’s Six Americas: A review and recommendations for climate change communication. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.007

Leiserowitz, A. & Smith, N. (2010) Knowledge of Climate Change Across Global Warming’s Six Americas. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.