Americans systematically underestimate the popularity of climate policy. Researchers have speculated that correcting second-order misperceptions, or beliefs about what others believe, could translate into even broader support as action comes to be seen as more politically feasible. Using a two-wave experiment (N≈1,600), we examine the effects of communicating the degree of policy support among Democrats, Republicans, or all Americans (i.e., norms). Republican and American norms increase perceived policy support from the relevant group; exposure to the Republican norm also increases policy support, and this effect is concentrated mostly among fellow Republicans. However, this effect does not persist over time.
AndrighettoG.VriensE. (2022). A research agenda for the study of social norm change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 380(2227), 20200411.
2.
BallewM. T.RosenthalS. A.GoldbergM. H.GustafsonA.KotcherJ. E.MaibachE. W.LeiserowitzA. (2020). Beliefs about others’ global warming beliefs: The role of party affiliation and opinion deviance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101466.
3.
BarnfieldM.SzewachP.StockliS.StoeckelF.ThompsonJ.PhillipsJ.LyonsBAMerolaV.ReiflerJ. (2024). Information on public climate attitudes has lasting effects on second-order beliefs, but limited and ephemeral effects on first-order beliefs. [Unpublished manuscript].
4.
Ban RohringE. J.AkerlofK. L. (2020). Perceptions of social consensus at the regional level relate to prioritization and support of climate policy in Maryland, USA. Regional Environmental Change, 20, 1–13.
5.
BergquistM.ThielM.GoldbergM. H.van der LindenS. (2023). Field interventions for climate change mitigation behaviors: A second-order meta-analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(13), e2214851120.
6.
BolsenT.LeeperT. J.ShapiroM. A. (2014). Doing what others do: Norms, science, and collective action on global warming. American Politics Research, 42(1), 65–89.
7.
CareyJ. M.GuessA. M.LoewenP. J.MerkleyE.NyhanB.PhillipsJ. B.ReiflerJ. (2022). The ephemeral effects of fact-checks on COVID-19 misperceptions in the United States, Great Britain and Canada. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(2), 236–243.
8.
CareyJ. M.NyhanB.PhillipsJ. B.ReiflerJ. (2022). Partisanship unmasked? The role of politics and social norms in COVID-19 mask-wearing behavior. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 10(3), 377–390.
9.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2010). Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 663–680.
10.
CialdiniR. B.DemaineL. J.SagarinB. J.BarrettD. W.RhoadsK.WinterP. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social influence, 1(1), 3–15.
11.
CialdiniR. B.JacobsonR. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1–8.
12.
CialdiniR. B.TrostM. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vols. 1 & 2, pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.
13.
ColeJ. C.EhretP. J.ShermanD. K.Van BovenL. (2022). Social norms explain prioritization of climate policy. Climatic Change, 173(1–2), 10.
14.
ConstantinoS. M.SparkmanG.Kraft-ToddG. T.BicchieriC.CentolaD.Shell-DuncanB.VogtS.WeberE. U. (2022). Scaling up change: a critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 23(2), 50–97.
15.
CoppockA.EkinsE.KirbyD. (2018). The long-lasting effects of newspaper op-eds on public opinion. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 13(1), 59–87.
16.
DruckmanJ. N.KlarS.KrupnikovY.LevenduskyM.RyanJ. B. (2022). (Mis)estimating affective polarization. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 1106–1117.
17.
EganP. J.MullinM. (2017). Climate change: US public opinion. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 209–227.
18.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
19.
GeigerN.SwimJ. K. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 79–90.
20.
GerberA. S.GimpelJ. G.GreenD. P.ShawD. R. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 135–150.
21.
GoldbergM. H.GustafsonA. (2023). A framework for understanding the effects of strategic communication campaigns. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 17(1), 1–20.
22.
GoldbergM. H.GustafsonA.van der LindenS.RosenthalS. A.LeiserowitzA. (2022). Communicating the scientific consensus on climate change: Diverse audiences and effects over time. Environment and Behavior, 54(7–8), 1133–1165.
23.
GoldbergM. H.van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2020). Perceived social consensus can reduce ideological biases on climate change. Environment and Behavior, 52(5), 495–517.
24.
GustafsonA.GoldbergM. H.BergquistP.LacroixK.RosenthalS. A.LeiserowitzA. (2022). The durable, bipartisan effects of emphasizing the cost savings of renewable energy. Nature Energy, 7(11), 1023–1030.
25.
HamiltonL. C. (2016). Public awareness of the scientific consensus on climate. Sage Open, 6(4), 1–11.
26.
HillS. J.LoJ.VavreckL.ZallerJ. (2013). How quickly we forget: The duration of persuasion effects from mass communication. Political Communication, 30(4), 521–547.
27.
HoggM. A.ReidS. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30.
28.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.
29.
JaegerC. M.SchultzP. W. (2017). Coupling social norms and commitments: Testing the underdetected nature of social influence. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 199–208.
30.
JinR.CloudtA.ChoiS.JiaZ.KlarS. (2023). The policy blame game: How polarization distorts democratic accountability across the local, state, and federal level. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 23(1), 1–25.
31.
KaaronenR. O.StrelkovskiiN. (2020). Cultural evolution of sustainable behaviors: Pro-environmental tipping points in an agent-based model. One Earth, 2(1), 85–97.
KeohaneR. O.VictorD. G. (2016). Cooperation and discord in global climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 570–575.
34.
KlarS.KrupnikovY. (2016). Independent politics. Cambridge University Press.
35.
LarsonJ. M. (2021). Networks of conflict and cooperation. Annual Review of Political Science, 24, 89–107.
36.
LechelerS.De VreeseC. H. (2011). Getting real: The duration of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 959–983.
37.
LevenduskyM. S.MalhotraN. (2016). (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 378–391.
38.
LevistonZ.WalkerI.MorwinskiS. (2013). Your opinion on climate change might not be as common as you think. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 334–337.
39.
LewandowskyS.van der LindenS. (2022). Interventions based on social norms could benefit from considering adversarial information environments: Comment on Constantino et al. (2022). Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 23(2), 43–49.
40.
MargettsH.JohnP.HaleS.YasseriT. (2016). Political turbulence: How social media shape collective action. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400873555
41.
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.
42.
MildenbergerM.TingleyD. (2019). Beliefs about climate beliefs: The importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. British Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 1279–1307.
43.
OttoI. M.DongesJ. F.CremadesR.BhowmikA.HewittR. J.LuchtW.RockströmJ.AllerbergerF.McCaffreyM.DoeS. S. P.LenfernaA.MoránN.van VuurenD. P.SchellnhuberH. J. (2020). Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(5), 2354–2365.
44.
PillaiR. M.FazioL. K. (2021). The effects of repeating false and misleading information on belief. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 12(6), e1573.
45.
ProninE. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(1), 37–43.
46.
RobinsonR. J.KeltnerD.WardA.RossL. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: “Naive realism” in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 404–417.
47.
SabherwalA.PearsonA. R.SparkmanG. (2021). Anger consensus messaging can enhance expectations for collective action and support for climate mitigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101640.
48.
SokoloskiR.MarkowitzE. M.BidwellD. (2018). Public estimates of support for offshore wind energy: False consensus, pluralistic ignorance, and partisan effects. Energy Policy, 112, 45–55.
49.
SparkmanG.GeigerN.WeberE. U. (2022). Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half. Nature Communications, 13(1), 4779.
50.
Van der LindenS. (2021). The Gateway Belief Model (GBM): A review and research agenda for communicating the scientific consensus on climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 7–12.
51.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2012). On conviction’s collective consequences: Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 52–71.
52.
WangB.Brown-DevlinN. (2022). Believe it or not? Examining how one’s own normative beliefs impact the perceived credibility of descriptive norms-based messages. Communication Research Reports, 39(4), 181–191.
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.
