Everyday partisans evaluate policies partly by following partisan cues, fomenting polarization. However, there is debate over the influence of partisan cues in “real-world,” nonlaboratory contexts. An experiment with a real climate change initiative in the 2016 Washington State election tested whether partisan cues influenced climate policy polarization. In a primary study, 504 prospective voters were randomly assigned to view veridical policy endorsements by partisan elites; this study was followed by a preregistered conceptual replication (N = 1,178). Democrats supported the climate policy more than Republicans. But this difference was greater when Democrats endorsed the policy (with Republican opposition) than when Republicans endorsed the policy (with Democratic opposition). Neither knowledge nor belief in climate change reduced these polarizing effects, and greater policy knowledge was associated with increased polarization. Further, the effect of partisan cues on normative perceptions mediated the effect of partisan cues on policy support.
American National Election Studies. (2012). User’s Guide and Codebook for the ANES 2012 Time Series Study. Retrieved fromelectionstudies.org
2.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N.CookF. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235–262. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0
3.
BordR. J.O’ConnorR. E.FisherA. (2000). In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change?Public Understanding of Science, 9, 205–218. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/301
4.
BoudreauC.MackenzieS. A. (2014). Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 48–62. doi:10.1111/ajps.12054
5.
BullockJ. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105, 496–515. doi:10.1017/S0003055411000165
6.
BullockJ. G.GerberA. S.HillS. J.HuberG. A. (2015). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10, 519–578. doi:10.1561/100.00014074
7.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1980). The American voter. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative context: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.
10.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
11.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
12.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 57–79. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000500
13.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D.MertigA. G.Emmet JonesR. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176
14.
EhretP. J.SparksA. C.ShermanD. K. (2017). Support for environmental protection: An integration of ideological-consistency and information-deficit models. Environmental Politics, 26, 253–277. doi:10.1080/09644016.2016.1256960
15.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 75–191.
16.
FisherD. R.WaggleJ.LeifeldP. (2013). Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the U.S. climate change debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 70–92. doi:10.1177/0002764212463360
17.
FranssonN.GarlingT. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 369–382. doi:10.1006/jevp.1999.0141
18.
FrickJ.KaiserF. G.WilsonM. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1597–1613. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015
19.
GilovichT.GriffinD.KahnemanD. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgement. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GreenD.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
GreeneS. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20, 393–403. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00150
22.
HamiltonL. C.SaitoK. (2015). A four-party view of US environmental concern. Environmental Politics, 24, 212–227. doi:10.1080/09644016.2014.976485
23.
HarveyC. (2016, 117). The battle over Washington state’s carbon tax has gotten even weirder. The Washington Post. Retrieved fromhttp://www.washingtonpost.com
24.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
HoweP. D.MildenbergerM.MarlonJ. R.LeiserowitzA. (2015). Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change, 5, 596–603. doi:10.1038/nclimate2583
26.
HurlstoneM. J.LewandowskyS.NewellB. R.SewellB. (2014). The effect of framing and normative messages in building support for climate policies. PLoS One, 9, 1–19. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114335
27.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038
28.
KahanD. M. (2012). Why we are poles apart on climate change. Nature, 488, 255–255. doi:10.1038/488255a
29.
KahanD. M.BramanD. (2006). Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale Law & Policy Review, 24, 149–172.
30.
KahanD. M.Jenkins-SmithH.BramanD. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147–174. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
31.
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
32.
KahnemanD. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.
33.
KeyV. O. (1966). The responsible electrorate: Rationality in presidential voting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
LeiserowitzA.FeinbergG.RosenthalS.SmithN.AndersonA.Roser-RenoufC.MaibachE. (2014). What’s in a name? Global warming vs. climate change. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, Yale University and George Mason University. doi:10.7326/M13-2834
35.
LockeS. (1999). Golem science and the public understanding of science: From deficit to dilemma. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 75–92. doi:10.1088/0963-6625
36.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011a). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1163–1172. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003
37.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011b). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
38.
NieN. H.VerbaS.PetrocikJ. R. (1976). The changing American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
PearsonA. R.SchuldtJ. P.Romero-CanyasR. (2016). Social climate science: A new vista for psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 632–650. doi:10.1177/1745691616639726
40.
PerkinsH. W. (Ed.). (2003). The social norms approach to preventing school and college substance abuse. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41.
PlumerB. (2013, 314). Could Republicans ever support a carbon tax? Bob Inglis thinks so. The Washington Post. Retrieved fromhttp://www.washingtonpost.com
42.
PriceV.ZallerJ. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternaitve measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133–164.
43.
ProninE.BergerJ.MoloukiS. (2007). Alone in a crowd of sheep: Asymmetric perceptions of conformity and their roots in an introspection illusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 585–595. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.585
44.
SchwartzJ. (2017, 22). “A conservative climate solution”: Republican group calls for carbon tax. New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com
45.
SkocpolT. (2013). Naming the problem: What it will take to counter extremism and engage Americans in the fight against global warming. The Politics of America’s Fight Against Global Warming, 1–142.
46.
SmithC. T.RatliffK. A.NosekB. A. (2012). Rapid assimilation: Automatically integrating new information with existing beliefs. Social Cognition, 30, 199–219. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.2.199
47.
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuagnanoG. A.KalofL. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81–97. doi:10.2307/2083693
48.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaivor. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
49.
Van BovenL.EhretP. J.ShermanD. K. (in press). Psychological barriers to bipartisan support for climate policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinon. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52.
ZimanJ. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16, 99–105. doi:10.1177/016224399101600106
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.
