text: complex changes in the state of the climate [7], which may be caused by natural process, external forces, 
  or human interventions [8]. By randomly assigning respondents to climate change or global warming 
  questionnaires, scholars conﬁrmed that the diﬀerent connotations contained in the two deﬁnitions are 
  likely to evoke distinct interpretations of the causes and impacts of the global climate issue [9], which 
  may inhibit collaboration and joint eﬀorts to mitigate the global challenge. 
  
  Public preference between climate change and global warming is even more apparent when 
  considering the ideology spectrum [10]. Some scholars concluded that conservatives, who are 
  less concerned with environmental issues, tended to use global warming as a narrative strategy 
  because global warming has a more direct connection with temperature rise, making it easier to ﬁnd 
  contradictory cues such as freezing weather or heavy snowstorms to deny global climate change 
  facts [11]. The associations between global warming and human activities may contribute to more 
  controversies as well [12], connecting global warming more with the “hoax” frame [5] and evoking 
  greater negative sentiment [13]. 
  
  Although these existing studies have often attempted to identify the diﬀerences between these two 
  terminologies, only a particular few perspectives, such as sentiment, ideological preference, or cause 
  and eﬀect, were examined in each study [3,9,13]. However, the associate network model introduced by 
  psychologists suggests that human recognition and memory have a network-shaped architecture [14], 
  where individual understanding of particular objects is connected with numerous other objects in 
  the mind. According to the associate network model, individual understanding of the global climate 
  concern is a network composed of numerous inter-connected concepts, in which climate change and 
  global warming. As the two terminologies concern the primary mechanism of the global climate issue, 
  the preference between the two understandings may represent two distinct climate discourses by 
  diﬀerently organizing numerous climate concepts. Examining the diﬀerences between two discourses 
  with an associative perspective may provide communicators with unique insights into narrowing the 
  cognitive discrepancy. The temporal dimension was lacking in existing studies, necessitating the study 
  of how concepts associated with each other have evolved with time. 