The terms global warming and climate change are often used interchangeably, but recent research finds “global warming” has become more emotive and more polarizing, resulting in less advocacy by some subpopulations. We explore the robustness of this framing effect based on the expectation that people with stronger partisan identities tend to have more deep-seated climate change beliefs. We use multiple methods and measures to study framing across a range of attitude scales designed to measure climate change beliefs, degree of knowledge about climate change, and intentions to take corrective actions. We find stronger framing effects for political Independents and those who are disengaged from climate change issues, indicating that polarization overrides framing at the extremes, and those with moderate beliefs are more susceptible to labeling and framing effects, especially when beliefs are inconsistent with one’s political identity. We conclude by urging communicators to appreciate the heterogeneity of their target audience.
AkerlofK.BruffG.WitteJ. (2011). Audience segmentation as a tool for communicating climate change: Understanding the differences and bridging the divides. Park Science, 28(1), 56-64.
2.
AkerlofK.MaibachE. W. (2011). A rose by any other name . . . ? What members of the general public prefer to call “climate change.”Climatic Change, 106, 699-710. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0070-4
3.
AzenR.BudescuD. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129-148. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.129
4.
BaumeisterR. F.NewmanL. S. (1994). Self-regulation of cognitive inference and decision processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 3-19. doi:10.1177/0146167294201001
5.
Ben-ShakharG.Bar-HillelM.BiluY.SheflerG. (1998). Seek and ye shall find: Test results are what you hypothesize they are. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 235-249. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(1998120)11:4<235::AID-BDM299>3.0.CO;2-X
6.
BordR. J.O’ConnorR. E.FisherA. (2000). In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change?Public Understanding of Science, 9, 205-218. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/301
7.
BostromA.BöhmG.O’ConnorR. E. (2013). Targeting and tailoring climate change communications. WIREs Climate Change, 4, 447-455. doi:10.1002/wcc.234
8.
BroeckerW. S. (1975). Climatic change: Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?Science, 189(4201), 460-463. doi: 10.1126/science.189.4201.460
9.
BroomellS. B.BudescuD. V.PorH.-H. (2015). Personal experience with climate change predicts intentions to act. Global Environmental Change, 32, 67-73. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.001
10.
Center for Research on Environmental Decisions. (2009). The psychology of climate change communication: A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public. Retrieved from http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/index.html
11.
CharneyJ. G.ArakawaA.BakerD. J.BolinB.DickinsonR. E.GoodyR. M.WunschC.I. (1979). Carbon dioxide and climate: A scientific assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
12.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment, 50(5), 26-35. doi:10.3200/ENVT.50.5.26-35
13.
DunlapR. E.XiaoC.McCrightA. M. (2001). Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10(4), 23-48. doi:10.1080/714000580
14.
EganP. J.MullinM. (2012). Turning personal experience into political attitudes: The effect of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming. Journal of Politics, 74(3), 796-809. doi:10.1017/S0022381612000448
15.
EinhornH. J.HogarthR. M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychological Review, 92, 433-461. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.433
16.
ElaadE.GintonA.Ben-ShakharG. (1994). The effects of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners’ decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 279-292. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960070405
17.
FeyginaI.JostJ. T.GoldsmithR. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326-338. doi:10.1177/0146167209351435
18.
FiorinaM.AbramsS. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563-588. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836
19.
GiffordR.ComeauL. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change Part A: Human and Policy Dimensions, 21, 1301-1307. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.004
20.
HamiltonL. C. (2008). Who cares about polar regions? Results from a survey of U.S. public opinion. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research, 40, 671-678. doi:10.1657/1523-0430(07-105)%5BHAMILTON%5D2.0.CO;2
21.
HamiltonL. C. (2011). Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change, 104(2), 231-242. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9957-8
22.
HartP.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646
23.
HeathY.GiffordR. (2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38, 48-71. doi:10.1177/0013916505277998
24.
HineD.ReserJ.MorrisonM.PhillipsW.NunnP.CookseyR. (2014). Audience segmentation and climate change communication: Conceptual and methodological considerations. WIREs Climate Change, 5, 441-459. doi:10.1002/wcc.279
25.
HineD. W.ReserJ. P.PhillipsW. J.CookseyR.MarksA. G.NunnP.. . . GlendonA. (2013). Identifying climate change interpretive communities in a large Australian sample. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 229-239. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.08.006
26.
HolyoakK. J.SimonD. (1999). Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 128, 3-31. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.1.3
27.
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.BainP. G.FieldingK. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622-626. doi:10.1038/nclimate2943
JangS. M.HartP. S. (2015). Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Global Environmental Change, 32, 11-17. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.010
30.
JoiremanJ.TrueloveH. B.DuellB. (2010). Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global warming. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 358-367. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.004
31.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407-424.
32.
KahanD. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology, 36, 1-43. doi:10.1111/pops.12244
KahanD. M.PetersE.WittlinM.OuelletteL. L.SlovicP.BramanD.MandelG. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732-735.
35.
KellstedtP. M.ZahranS.VedlitzA. (2008), Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global Warming and climate Change in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28, 113-126. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x
36.
KerrN. L. (1992). Efficacy as a causal and moderating variable in social dilemmas. In LiebrandW. B. G.MessickD. M.HenkA. M. (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 59-80). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
37.
KronrodA.GrinsteinA.WathieuL. (2012). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive?Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 95-102. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0416
38.
KrosnickJ. A.VisserP. S.HolbrookA. L. (2000). The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion. Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 239-260. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/303
39.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
40.
LeiserowitzA.FeinbergG.RosenthalS.SmithN.AndersonA.Roser-RenoufC.MaibachE. (2014). What’s in a name? Global warming vs. climate change. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
41.
LevinI. P.SchneiderS. L.GaethG. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
42.
LiY.JohnsonE. J.ZavalL. (2011). Local warming daily temperature change influences belief in global warming. Psychological Science, 22(4), 454-459. doi:10.1177/0956797611400913
43.
LorenzoniI.HulmeM. (2009). Believing is seeing: Laypeople’s views of future socio-economic and climate change in England and in Italy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 383-400. doi:10.1177/0963662508089540
MaibachE. W.LeiserowitzA.Roser-RenoufC.MertzC. K. (2011). Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: An audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PloS ONE, 6(3), e17571. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017571
47.
MaxwellS. E.DelaneyH. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (Vol. 1). Psychology Press.
48.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155-194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
49.
O’ConnorR. E.BordR. J.YarnalB.WiefekN. (2002). Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?Social Science Quarterly, 83, 1-17. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00067
50.
PlassG. N. (1956). The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Tellus, 8(2), 140-154. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x
51.
RaimiK. T.LearyM. R. (2014). Belief superiority in the environmental domain: Attitude extremity and reactions to fracking. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 76-85. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.05.005
SimonD.PhamL. B.LeQ. A.HolyoakK. J. (2001). The emergence of coherence over the course of decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1250-1260. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.5.1250
54.
SpenceA.PidgeonN. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change Part A: Human and Policy Dimensions, 20, 656-667. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
TonerK.LearyM. R.AsherM. W.Jongman-SerenoK. P. (2013). Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority. Psychological Science, 24, 2454-2462. doi:10.1177/0956797613494848
VillarA.KrosnickJ. A. (2011). Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: Does word choice matter?Climatic Change, 105, 1-12. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9882-x
59.
WeberE. U. (2010). What shapes perceptions of climate change?WIREs Climate Change, 1, 332-342. doi:10.1002/wcc.41
60.
WhitmarshL. (2009). What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming.”Public Understanding of Science, 18, 401-420. doi:10.1177/0963662506073088
61.
WibeckV. (2014). Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change—some lessons from recent literature. Environmental Education Research, 20, 387-411. doi:10.1080/13504622.2013.812720
62.
ZavalL.KeenanE.JohnsonE.WeberE. (2014). How warm days increase belief in global warming. Nature Climate Change, 4, 143-147. doi:10.1038/nclimate2093
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
