Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Americans polarized on climate change despite decreasing uncertainty in climate science. Explanations focused on organized climate skeptics and ideologically driven motivated reasoning are likely insufficient. Instead, Americans may have formed their attitudes by using party elite cues. We analyze the content of over 8,000 print, broadcast, and cable news stories. We find that coverage became increasingly partisan as climate change rose in salience, but climate skeptics received scant attention. Democratic messages were more voluminous and consistently pro–climate science, while Republican messages have been scarcer and ambiguous until recently. This suggests Republican voters took cues from Democratic elites to reject climate science.

Keywords

climate change mass media polarization climate denial media portrayal of science psychology of communication environmental communication public perception of political issues political parties

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achen

C. H.

Bartels

L. M.

(2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Althaus

Edy

J. A.

Entman

R. M.

Phalen

(1996). Revising the indexing hypothesis: Officials, media, and the Libya crisis. Political Communication, 13, 407-421.

Amdur

Rabe

B. G.

Borick

(2014). Public views on a carbon tax depend on the proposed use of revenue: A report from the National Surveys on Energy and Environment. Retrieved from http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2012-fall-fracking.pdf

Anderegg

W. R. L.

Prall

J. W.

Harold

Schneider

S. H.

(2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 107, 12107-12109.

Barber

Pope

J. C.

(2018). Does party trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America (Working paper). Manuscript submitted for publication.

Bennett

W. L.

(1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations. Journal of Communication, 40, 103-125.

Berinsky

A. J.

(2009). In time of war: Understanding American public opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Boykoff

M. T.

Boykoff

J. M.

(2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of U.S. mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38, 1190-1204.

Campbell

T. H.

Kay

A. C.

(2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 809-824.

10.

Carmichael

J. T.

Brulle

R. J.

(2017). Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: An integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013. Environmental Politics, 26, 232-252.

11.

Cohen

G. L.

(2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808-822.

12.

Conover

P. J.

Feldman

(1989). Candidate perceptions in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 917-940.

13.

Converse

(1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter

(Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.

14.

Conway

E. M.

Oreskes

(2010). Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.

15.

Dalton

R. J.

Beck

P. A.

Huckfeldt

(1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 92, 111-126.

16.

Dixon

Hmielowski

(2017). Improving climate change acceptance among U.S. conservatives through value-base message targeting. Science Communication, 39, 520-534.

17.

Drutman

(2017). Political divisions in 2016 and beyond: Tensions between and within the two parties (Report from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group). Retrieved from https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

18.

Dunlap

R. E.

Jacques

P. J.

(2013). Climate change denial books and conservative think tanks: exploring the connection. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 699-731.

19.

Dunlap

R. E.

McCright

A. M.

(2011). Organized climate change denial. In Dryzek

J. S.

Norgaard

R. B.

Schlosberg

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (Vol. 1, pp. 144-160). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

20.

Dunlap

R. E.

McCright

A. M.

Yarosh

J. H.

(2016). The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58, 4-23.

21.

Farrell

(2016a). Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 113, 92-97.

22.

Farrell

(2016b). Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Climate Change, 6, 370-374.

23.

Feldman

Maibach

E. W.

Roser-Renouf

Leiserowitz

(2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. International Journal of Press/Politics, 17:1, 3-31.

24.

Gentzkow

Shapiro

J. M.

(2010). What drives media slant? Evidence from U.S. daily newspapers. Econometrica, 78(1), 35-71.

25.

Green

D. P.

Palmquist

Schickler

(2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

26.

Guber

D. L.

(2013). A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 93-115.

27.

Hart

P. S.

Nisbet

E. C.

(2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policy. Communication Research, 39, 701-723.

28.

Iyengar

Sood

Lelkes

(2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405-431.

29.

Jacques

P. J.

Dunlap

R. E.

Freeman

(2008). The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism. Environmental Politics, 17, 349-385.

30.

Kahan

D. M.

(2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgement and Decision Making, 8, 407-424.

31.

Kahan

D. M.

Jenkins-Smith

Braman

(2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147-174.

32.

Kam

(2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163-182.

33.

Kinder

D. R.

Kalmoe

N. P.

(2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

34.

Krosnick

J. A.

Holbrook

A. L.

Visser

P. S.

(2000). The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 239-260.

35.

Lenz

(2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

36.

Lodge

Taber

(2014). The rationalizing voter. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Lupia

(1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63-76.

38.

Lupia

McCubbins

(1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Mildenberger

Leiserowitz

(2017). Public opinion on climate change: Is there an economy-environment tradeoff? Environmental Politics, 26, 801-824.

40.

NASA. (2018). Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming. Retrieved from https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

41.

Nicholson

S. P.

(2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 52-66.

42.

Pew Research Center. (2016). The politics of climate. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/

43.

Pew Research Center. (2017). Network news fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/network-news/

44.

Popkin

S. L.

(1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

45.

Tesler

(2017). Elite domination of public doubts about climate change (not evolution). Political Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1380092

46.

Zaller

(1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Party Elites or Manufactured Doubt? The Informational Context of Climate Change Polarization

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References