This research examined whether framing a natural disaster as the product of climate change impacts attitudes toward disaster victims and humanitarian relief. Participants (n = 211) read an article about a famine caused by severe droughts, with one condition attributing the droughts to climate change and the other condition made no mention of climate change. All participants then responded to measures of justifications for or against providing aid, attitudes toward the possibility of donating, and climate change beliefs. As predicted, those high in climate change skepticism reported greater justifications for not helping the victims when the disaster was attributed to climate change. Additional moderated mediation analyses showed there was an indirect effect of climate change framing on attitudes toward donating through donation justifications.
de GrootJ. I. M.StegL.PoortingaW. (2013). Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 33, 307–317. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01845.x
2.
GrometD. M.KunreutherH.LarrickR. P. (2013). Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 9314–9319. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218453110
3.
GuberD. L. (2013). A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 93–115. doi:10.1177/0002764212463361
4.
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, 701–723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646
5.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360
6.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
7.
HayesA. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1–22.
8.
IPCC. (2013). Contribution of working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In StockerT. F.QinD.PlattnerG.-K.TignorM.AllenS. K.BoschungJ.NauelsA.XiaY.BexV.MidgleyP. M. (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324
9.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgement and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.
10.
KahanD. M.BramanD.SlovicP.GastilJ.CohenG. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87–90. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.341
11.
KahanD. M.Jenkins-SmithH.BramanD. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174.
12.
KahanD. M.PetersE.WittlinM.SlovicP.OuelletteL. L.BramanD.MandelG. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735. doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE1547
13.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
14.
LeidnerB.CastanoE.ZaiserE.Giner-SorollaR. (2010). Ingroup glorification, moral disengagement, and justice in the context of collective violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1115–1129. doi:10.1177/0146167210376391
15.
LiuB. S.DittoP. H. (2013). What dilemma? Moral evaluation shapes factual belief. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 316–323. doi:10.1177/1948550612456045
16.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politication of climate change and polarizatin in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
17.
RohS.McComasK. A.RickardL. N.DeckerD. J. (2015). How motivated reasoning and temporal frames may polarize opinions about wildlife disease risk. Science Communication, 37, 340–370. doi:10.1177/1075547015575181
18.
RuckerD. D.PreacherK. J.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 359–371. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x
ZagefkaH.NoorM.BrownR.HopthrowT.Randsley de MouraG. (2012). Eliciting donations to disaster victims: Psychological considerations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 221–230. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2012.01378.x
24.
ZagefkaH.NoorM.BrownR.Randsley de MouraG.HopthrowT. (2011). Donating to disaster victims: Responses to natural and humanly caused events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 353–363. doi:10.1002/ejsp.781
25.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and trusts about mediation analysis. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206. doi:10.1086/651257
