Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-12
Predicting Responses to Climate Change Health Impact Messages From Political Ideology and Health Status: Cognitive Appraisals and Emotional Reactions as Mediators
The present study employed a longitudinal survey experiment with American adults to investigate whether cognitive and emotional appraisals of messages about climate change related health risks would mediate the relationships between participants’ individual differences (in political ideology and health) and their perceived harm to self and support for climate change policies. The study found that liberals and people with poorer health evaluated the messages as more useful and interesting and generated more negative emotions toward the negative health consequences of climate change. In turn, they reported higher perceived harm to self from climate change and stronger support for climate policies, compared to conservatives and people with better health.
AkerlofK.DelamaterP.BoulesC.UppermanC.MitchellC. (2015). Vulnerable populations perceive their health as at risk from climate change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(12), 15419–15433.
2.
ArianoR.CanonicaG. W.PassalacquaG. (2010). Possible role of climate changes in variations in pollen seasons and allergic sensitizations during 27 years. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 104(3), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2009.12.005
3.
BallewM. T.LeiserowitzA.Roser-RenoufC.RosenthalS. A.KotcherJ. E.MarlonJ. R.LyonE.GoldbergM. H.MaibachE. W. (2019). Climate change in the American mind: Data, tools, and trends. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 61(3), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2019.1589300
4.
BioccaF.DavidP.WestM. (2014). Continuous response measurement (CMR): A computerized tool for research on the cognitive processing of communication messages. In LangA. (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media messages (pp. 15–64). Routledge.
5.
BolsenT.KingslandJ.PalmR. (2018). The impact of frames highlighting coastal flooding in the USA on climate change beliefs. Climatic Change, 147(1–2), 359–368.
6.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1984). The need for cognition: Relationship to attitudinal processes. In McGlynnR. P.HarveyJ. H.MadduxJ. E.StoltenbergC. D. (Eds.), Social perception in clinical and counseling psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 113–140). Texas Tech Press.
7.
CampbellT. H.KayA. C. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963
8.
CarmichaelJ. T.BrulleR. J. (2017). Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: An integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013. Environmental Politics, 26(2), 232–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1263433
9.
CutlerM. J.MarlonJ. R.HoweP. D.LeiserowitzA. (2018). The influence of political ideology and socioeconomic vulnerability on perceived health risks of heat waves in the context of climate change. Weather, Climate, and Society, 10(4), 731–746.
10.
DakeK.WildavskyA. (1991). Individual differences in risk perception and risk-taking preferences. In GarrickB. J.GeklerW. C. (Eds.), The Analysis, Communication, and Perception of Risk (pp. 15–24). Springer.
11.
DennekampM.CareyM. (2010). Air quality and chronic disease: Why action on climate change is also good for health. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, 21(6), 115–121.
12.
DillardJ. P.PlotnickC. A.GodboldL. C.FreimuthV. S.EdgarT. (1996). The multiple affective outcomes of AIDS PSAs: Fear appeals do more than scare people. Communication Research, 23(1), 44–72.
13.
DunlopS. M.WakefieldM.KashimaY. (2010). Pathways to persuasion: Cognitive and experiential responses to health-promoting mass media messages. Communication Research, 37(1), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209351912
14.
EmeryL. F.RomerD.SheerinK. M.JamiesonK. H.PetersE. (2014). Affective and cognitive mediators of the impact of cigarette warning labels. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 16(3), 263–269.
15.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2016). Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism: The mediating role of emotions. Science Communication, 38(1), 99–127.
16.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2018). Climate change as a polarizing cue: Framing effects on public support for low-carbon energy policies. Global Environmental Change, 51, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.004
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(3), 326–338.
18.
FleuryM.CharronD. F.HoltJ. D.AllenO. B.MaaroufA. R. (2006). A time series analysis of the relationship of ambient temperature and common bacterial enteric infections in two Canadian provinces. International Journal of Biometeorology, 50(6), 385–391.
19.
GoldbergM. H.van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2019). Perceived social consensus can reduce ideological biases on climate change. Environment and Behavior, 52(5), 495–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519853302
20.
GustafsonA.RosenthalS. A.BallewM. T.GoldbergM. H.BergquistP.KotcherJ. E.MaibachE. W.LeiserowitzA. (2019). The development of partisan polarization over the Green New Deal. Nature Climate Change, 9(12), 940–944. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0621-7
21.
HamiltonL. C. (2008). Who cares about polar regions? Results from a survey of US public opinion. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 40(4), 671–678.
22.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
23.
HathawayJ.MaibachE. W. (2018). Health implications of climate change: A review of the literature about the perception of the public and health professionals. Current Environmental Health Reports, 5(1), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-018-0190-3
24.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
25.
JostJ. T.NosekB. A.GoslingS. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470672532.wbepp134
26.
JylhäM. (2009). What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model. Social Science & Medicine, 69(3), 307–316.
KotcherJ.MaibachE.MontoroM.HassolS. J. (2018). How Americans respond to information about global warming’s health impacts: Evidence from a national survey experiment. GeoHealth, 2, 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GH000154
29.
LeiserowitzA. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 45–72.
30.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.RosenthalS.KotcherJ.BergquistP.BallewM.GoldbergM.GustafsonA. (2019). Climate change in the American mind: April 2019. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University and George Mason University. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CJ2NS
31.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC. (2009). Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ climate change beliefs, attitudes, policy preferences, and actions. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, Yale University. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2667029
32.
LeventhalH.TremblyG. (1968). Negative emotions and persuasion. Journal of Personality, 36(1), 154–168.
33.
LevineA. S.KlineR. (2017). A new approach for evaluating climate change communication. Climatic Change, 142(1–2), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1952-x
34.
LippE. K.HuqA.ColwellR. R. (2002). Effects of global climate on infectious disease: The cholera model. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 15(4), 757–770.
MaibachE. W.KreslakeJ. M.Roser-renoufC.RosenthalS.FeinbergG.LeiserowitzA. A.HavenN. (2015). Do Americans understand that global warming is harmful to human health? Evidence from a national survey. Annals of Global Health, 81(3), 396–409. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aogh.2015.08.010
37.
MaibachE. W.NisbetM.BaldwinP.AkerlofK.DiaoG. (2010). Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 299. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-299
38.
McCrightA. M. (2010). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment, 32(1), 66–87.
39.
McCrightA. M. (2011). Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change. Climatic Change, 104(2), 243–253.
40.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194.
41.
MelilloJ. M.RichmondT.YoheG. W. (2014). Climate change impacts in the United States: The third national climate assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0Z31WJ2
42.
MyersT.NisbetM.MaibachE.LeiserowitzA. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113(3), 1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
43.
NabiR. (2002). Anger, fear, uncertainty, and attitudes: A test of the cognitive-functional model. Communication Monographs, 69(3), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750216541
44.
NabiR. L. (1999). A cognitive-functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions on information processing, attitude change, and recall. Communication Theory, 9(3), 292–320.
45.
NabiR. L. (2010). The case for emphasizing discrete emotions in communication research. Communication Monographs, 77(2), 153–159.
46.
NabiR. L. (2015). Emotional flow in persuasive health messages. Health Communication, 30(2), 114–124.
NisbetM. C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh058
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1915
51.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers.
52.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 87–136). Academic Press.
53.
Singh-ManouxA.MarmotM. G.AdlerN. E. (2005). Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status?. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67(6), 855–861. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000188434.52941.a0
54.
SmithN.LeiserowitzA. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 937–948.
55.
UpdegraffJ. A.RothmanA. J. (2013). Health message framing: Moderators, mediators, and mysteries. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(9), 668–679.
56.
USGCRP. (2016). The impacts of climate change on human health in the United States: A scientific assessment. CrimminsA.BalbusJ.GambleJ. L.BeardC. B.BellJ. E.DodgenD.EisenR. J.FannN.HawkinsM. D.HerringS. C.JantarasamiL.MillsD. M.SahaS.SarofimM. C.TrtanjJ.ZiskaL. (Eds.). U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 312. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX
57.
WildavskyA.DakeK. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why?. Daedalus, 119(4), 41–60.
58.
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs, 59(4), 329–349.
59.
WoodB. D.VedlitzA. (2007). Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 552–568.
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.
