Communicating Republicans’ Level of Support for Climate Policy Briefly Increases Personal Support in the United States

Abstract

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.

Keywords

climate change public opinion energy policy experiment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrighetto

Vriens

(2022). A research agenda for the study of social norm change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 380(2227), 20200411.

Ballew

M. T.

Rosenthal

S. A.

Goldberg

M. H.

Gustafson

Kotcher

J. E.

Maibach

E. W.

Leiserowitz

(2020). Beliefs about others’ global warming beliefs: The role of party affiliation and opinion deviance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101466.

Barnfield

Szewach

Stockli

Stoeckel

Thompson

Phillips

Lyons

Merola

Reifler

. (2024). Information on public climate attitudes has lasting effects on second-order beliefs, but limited and ephemeral effects on first-order beliefs. [Unpublished manuscript].

Ban Rohring

E. J.

Akerlof

K. 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.

Bergquist

Thiel

Goldberg

M. H.

van der Linden

(2023). Field interventions for climate change mitigation behaviors: A second-order meta-analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(13), e2214851120.

Bolsen

Leeper

T. J.

Shapiro

M. A.

(2014). Doing what others do: Norms, science, and collective action on global warming. American Politics Research, 42(1), 65–89.

Carey

J. M.

Guess

A. M.

Loewen

P. J.

Merkley

Nyhan

Phillips

J. B.

Reifler

(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.

Carey

J. M.

Nyhan

Phillips

J. B.

Reifler

(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.

Chong

Druckman

J. N.

(2010). Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 663–680.

10.

Cialdini

R. B.

Demaine

L. J.

Sagarin

B. J.

Barrett

D. W.

Rhoads

Winter

P. L

. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social influence, 1(1), 3–15.

11.

Cialdini

R. B.

Jacobson

R. P.

(2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1–8.

12.

Cialdini

R. B.

Trost

M. R.

(1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vols. 1 & 2, pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.

13.

Cole

J. C.

Ehret

P. J.

Sherman

D. K.

Van Boven

(2022). Social norms explain prioritization of climate policy. Climatic Change, 173(1–2), 10.

14.

Constantino

S. M.

Sparkman

Kraft-Todd

G. T.

Bicchieri

Centola

Shell-Duncan

Vogt

Weber

E. 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.

Coppock

Ekins

Kirby

(2018). The long-lasting effects of newspaper op-eds on public opinion. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 13(1), 59–87.

16.

Druckman

J. N.

Klar

Krupnikov

Levendusky

Ryan

J. B.

(2022). (Mis)estimating affective polarization. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 1106–1117.

17.

Egan

P. J.

Mullin

(2017). Climate change: US public opinion. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 209–227.

18.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(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.

Geiger

Swim

J. K

. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 79–90.

20.

Gerber

A. S.

Gimpel

J. G.

Green

D. P.

Shaw

D. 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.

Goldberg

M. H.

Gustafson

(2023). A framework for understanding the effects of strategic communication campaigns. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 17(1), 1–20.

22.

Goldberg

M. H.

Gustafson

van der Linden

Rosenthal

S. A.

Leiserowitz

(2022). Communicating the scientific consensus on climate change: Diverse audiences and effects over time. Environment and Behavior, 54(7–8), 1133–1165.

23.

Goldberg

M. H.

van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Maibach

(2020). Perceived social consensus can reduce ideological biases on climate change. Environment and Behavior, 52(5), 495–517.

24.

Gustafson

Goldberg

M. H.

Bergquist

Lacroix

Rosenthal

S. A.

Leiserowitz

(2022). The durable, bipartisan effects of emphasizing the cost savings of renewable energy. Nature Energy, 7(11), 1023–1030.

25.

Hamilton

L. C.

(2016). Public awareness of the scientific consensus on climate. Sage Open, 6(4), 1–11.

26.

Hill

S. J.

Vavreck

Zaller

(2013). How quickly we forget: The duration of persuasion effects from mass communication. Political Communication, 30(4), 521–547.

27.

Hogg

M. A.

Reid

S. A.

(2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30.

28.

Iyengar

Lelkes

Levendusky

Malhotra

Westwood

S. J.

(2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.

29.

Jaeger

C. M.

Schultz

P. W.

(2017). Coupling social norms and commitments: Testing the underdetected nature of social influence. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 199–208.

30.

Jin

Cloudt

Choi

Jia

Klar

(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.

Kaaronen

R. O.

Strelkovskii

(2020). Cultural evolution of sustainable behaviors: Pro-environmental tipping points in an agent-based model. One Earth, 2(1), 85–97.

32.

Kennedy

Johnson

(2020, February 28). More Americans see climate change as a priority, but Democrats are much more concerned than Republicans. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/28/more-americans-see-climate-change-as-a-priority-but-democrats-are-much-more-concerned-than-republicans/

33.

Keohane

R. O.

Victor

D. G

. (2016). Cooperation and discord in global climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 570–575.

34.

Klar

Krupnikov

(2016). Independent politics. Cambridge University Press.

35.

Larson

J. M

. (2021). Networks of conflict and cooperation. Annual Review of Political Science, 24, 89–107.

36.

Lecheler

De Vreese

C. H.

(2011). Getting real: The duration of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 959–983.

37.

Levendusky

M. S.

Malhotra

(2016). (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 378–391.

38.

Leviston

Walker

Morwinski

(2013). Your opinion on climate change might not be as common as you think. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 334–337.

39.

Lewandowsky

van der Linden

(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.

Margetts

John

Hale

Yasseri

(2016). Political turbulence: How social media shape collective action. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400873555

41.

McCright

A. M.

Dunlap

R. 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.

Mildenberger

Tingley

(2019). Beliefs about climate beliefs: The importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. British Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 1279–1307.

43.

Otto

I. M.

Donges

J. F.

Cremades

Bhowmik

Hewitt

R. J.

Lucht

Rockström

Allerberger

McCaffrey

Doe

S. S. P.

Lenferna

Morán

van Vuuren

D. P.

Schellnhuber

H. J.

(2020). Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(5), 2354–2365.

44.

Pillai

R. M.

Fazio

L. K.

(2021). The effects of repeating false and misleading information on belief. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 12(6), e1573.

45.

Pronin

. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(1), 37–43.

46.

Robinson

R. J.

Keltner

Ward

Ross

(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.

Sabherwal

Pearson

A. R.

Sparkman

(2021). Anger consensus messaging can enhance expectations for collective action and support for climate mitigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101640.

48.

Sokoloski

Markowitz

E. M.

Bidwell

(2018). Public estimates of support for offshore wind energy: False consensus, pluralistic ignorance, and partisan effects. Energy Policy, 112, 45–55.

49.

Sparkman

Geiger

Weber

E. 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 Linden

. (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 Zomeren

Postmes

Spears

. (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.

Wang

Brown-Devlin

(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.

0.00 MB

0.19 MB