Their Economy and Our Health: Communicating Climate Change to the Divided American Public
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Motivated Reasoning
1.2. Issue Framing
1.3. Distance Framing
1.4. Current Research
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample
2.2. Stimuli
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Political Ideology
2.3.2. Environmental Value
2.3.3. Belief in Climate Science
2.3.4. Risk Perception
2.3.5. Policy Support
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Issue and Distance Framing
4.2. Message Framing and Motivated Reasoning
4.3. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- Close-distance, economy: https://youtu.be/zyYMdxUQag4
- Close-distance, public health: https://youtu.be/pn0Xrk5vr0U
- Far-distance, economy: https://youtu.be/NlTFpnlfIAc
- Far-distance, public health: https://youtu.be/4-swqGhqg0w
References
- Druckman, J.N.; McGrath, M.C. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; McCright, A.M. A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2008, 50, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; McCright, A.M.; Yarosh, J.H. The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the US. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2016, 58, 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maibach, E.W.; Nisbet, M.; Baldwin, P.; Akerlof, K.; Diao, G. Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kahan, D.M.; Peters, E.; Wittlin, M.; Slovic, P.; Ouellette, L.L.; Braman, D.; Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taber, C.S.; Lodge, M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am. J. Political Sci. 2006, 50, 755–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 108, 480–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Entman, R.M. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun. 1993, 43, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuldt, J.P.; Konrath, S.H.; Schwarz, N. “Global warming” or “climate change”? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opin. Q. 2011, 75, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Campbell, T.H.; Kay, A.C. Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 107, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chu, H.; Yang, J.Z. Taking climate change here and now–mitigating ideological polarization with psychological distance. Global Environ. Chang. 2018, 53, 174–181. [Google Scholar]
- Hart, P.S.; Nisbet, E.C. Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun. Res. 2012, 39, 701–723. [Google Scholar]
- Wolsko, C.; Ariceaga, H.; Seiden, J. Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2016, 65, 7–19. [Google Scholar]
- Jost, J.T.; Federico, C.M.; Napier, J.L. Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009, 60, 307–337. [Google Scholar]
- Mullinix, K.J. Partisanship and preference formation: Competing motivations, elite polarization, and issue importance. Political Behav. 2016, 38, 383–411. [Google Scholar]
- Egan, P.J.; Mullin, M. Climate change: US public opinion. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2017, 20, 209–227. [Google Scholar]
- Petrovic, N.; Madrigano, J.; Zaval, L. Motivating mitigation: When health matters more than climate change. Clim. Chang. 2014, 126, 245–254. [Google Scholar]
- Feinberg, M.; Willer, R. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jost, J.T.; Glaser, J.; Kruglanski, A.W.; Sulloway, F.J. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychol. Bull. 2003, 129, 339. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Haidt, J. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion; Pantheon Books: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kahan, D.M.; Jenkins-Smith, H.; Tarantola, T.; Silva, C.L.; Braman, D. Geoengineering and climate change polarization: Testing a two-channel model of science communication. ANNALS Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2015, 658, 192–222. [Google Scholar]
- Fiorina, M.P.; Abrams, S.J. Political polarization in the American public. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2008, 11, 563–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brehm, J.W.; Cohen, A.R. Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
- Hornsey, M.J.; Harris, E.A.; Bain, P.G.; Fielding, K.S. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adger, W.N.; Butler, C.; Walker-Springett, K. Moral reasoning in adaptation to climate change. Environ. Politics 2017, 26, 371–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dietz, T.; Stern, P.C.; Guagnano, G.A. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1998, 30, 450–471. [Google Scholar]
- Dietz, T.; Fitzgerald, A.; Shwom, R. Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 335–372. [Google Scholar]
- Warr, B.; Ayres, R.; Eisenmenger, N.; Krausmann, F.; Schandl, H. Energy use and economic development: A comparative analysis of useful work supply in Austria, Japan, the United Kingdom and the US during 100 years of economic growth. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1904–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boden, T.A.; Marland, G.; Andres, R.J. Global, Regional, and National fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions; Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krantz, S.A.; Monroe, M.C. Message framing matters: Communicating climate change with forest landowners. J. For. 2015, 114, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McCright, A.M.; Charters, M.; Dentzman, K.; Dietz, T. Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2016, 8, 76–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonald, R.I.; Chai, H.Y.; Newell, B.R. Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’of climate change: An integrative review. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 44, 109–118. [Google Scholar]
- Emanuel, K.; Sundararajan, R.; Williams, J. Hurricanes and global warming: Results from downscaling IPCC AR4 simulations. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2008, 89, 347–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldberg, M.; Gustafson, A.; Rosenthal, S.; Maibach, E.; Leiserowtiz, A. For the First Time, the Alarmed are Now the Largest of Global Warming’s Six Americas; Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University and George Mason University: New Haven, CT, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Myers, T.A.; Nisbet, M.C.; Maibach, E.W.; Leiserowitz, A.A. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Clim. Chang. 2012, 113, 1105–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gollust, S.E.; Lantz, P.M.; Ubel, P.A. The polarizing effect of news media messages about the social determinants of health. Am. J. Public Health 2009, 99, 2160–2167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kurdi, B.; Lozano, S.; Banaji, M.R. Introducing the open affective standardized image set (OASIS). Behav. Res. Methods 2017, 49, 457–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shook, N.J.; Fazio, R.H. Political ideology, exploration of novel stimuli, and attitude formation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychology. 2009, 45, 995–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carraro, L.; Castelli, L.; Macchiella, C. The automatic conservative: Ideology-based attentional asymmetries in the processing of valenced information. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e26456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanai, R.; Feilden, T.; Firth, C.; Rees, G. Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Curr. Biol. 2011, 21, 677–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Janoff-Bulman, R. To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychol. Inq. 2009, 20, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feinberg, M.; Willer, R. Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 22, 34–38. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X.; Vedlitz, A.; Shi, L. Examining the determinants of public environmental concern: Evidence from national public surveys. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 39, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rickard, L.N.; Yang, Z.J.; Schuldt, J.P. Here and now, there and then: How “departure dates” influence climate change engagement. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 38, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 957–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brügger, A.; Dessai, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Morton, T.A.; Pidgeon, N.F. Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 1031–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 117, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Eyal, T.; Sagristano, M.D.; Trope, Y.; Liberman, N.; Chaiken, S. When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 45, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ledgerwood, A.; Trope, Y.; Chaiken, S. Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 99, 32–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Qualtrics. Available online: http://www.qualtrics.com (accessed on 1 October 2017).
- Hauser, D.J.; Schwarz, N. Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behav. Res. Methods 2016, 48, 400–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clifford, S.; Jewell, R.M.; Waggoner, P.D. Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Res. Politics 2015, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, X.; Leiserowitz, A.A.; Maibach, E.W.; Roser-Renouf, C. Attention to science/environment news positively predicts and attention to political news negatively predicts global warming risk perceptions and policy support. J. Commun. 2011, 61, 713–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moideration and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Predictors | Risk Perception | Policy Support |
---|---|---|
Intercept | 2.79 | 4.02 |
Issue 1 | −0.03 | 0.7 * |
Distance 2 | 0.14 | 0.32 |
Issue × Distance | −0.72 * | −1.31 ** |
Ideology | 0.27 *** | 0.35 *** |
Ideology × Issue | 0.01 | −0.11 |
Ideology × Distance | −0.01 | −0.03 |
Ideology × Issue × Distance | 0.09 | 0.19 * |
ANOVA | F (7, 845) = 47.42 *** | F (7, 845) = 33.8 *** |
R2 | 0.28 | 0.22 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.28 | 0.21 |
Predictors | Risk Perception | Policy Support |
---|---|---|
Intercept | 5.31 | 7.29 |
Issue 1 | 0.02 | 0.26 |
Distance 2 | −0.19 | −0.11 |
Issue × Distance | 0.16 | 0.04 |
Environmental Value (EV) | −0.60 *** | −0.76 *** |
EV × Issue | 0.02 | 0.00 |
EV × Distance | 0.13 | 0.13 |
EV × Issue × Distance | −0.22 * | −0.23 |
ANOVA | F (7, 846) = 70.78 *** | F (7, 846) = 76.97 *** |
R2 | 0.37 | 0.39 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.36 | 0.38 |
Predictors | Risk Perception | Policy Support |
---|---|---|
Intercept | 1.38 | 2.44 |
Issue 1 | 0.24 | 0.76 * |
Distance 2 | 0.47 | 0.24 |
Issue × Distance | −1.11 ** | −1.35 * |
Belief in Climate Science (BCS) | 0.48 *** | 0.58 *** |
BCS × Issue | −0.02 | −0.08 |
BCS × Distance | −0.06 | −0.01 |
BCS × Issue × Distance | 0.15 * | 0.17 |
ANOVA | F (7, 846) = 114.59 *** | F (7, 846) = 92.31 *** |
R2 | 0.49 | 0.43 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.48 | 0.43 |
Economy—Close | Economy—Far | Public Health—Close | Public Health—Far | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate 1 | 95% CI 2 | Estimate 1 | 95% CI 2 | Estimate 1 | 95% CI 2 | Estimate 1 | 95% CI 2 | |
Ideology → Risk Perception (direct effect) | 0.03 | (−0.04, 0.09) | 0.13 | (0.06, 0.19) | 0.06 | (−0.003, 0.13) | 0.04 | (−0.04, 0.12) |
Ideology → Environmental value → Risk Perception | 0.06 | (0.003, 0.12) | 0.04 | (−0.01, 0.09) | 0.08 | (0.02, 0.14) | 0.09 | (0.03, 0.15) |
Ideology → Science Belief → Risk Perception | 0.18 | (0.12, 0.25) | 0.13 | (0.08, 0.18) | 0.15 | (0.08, 0.22) | 0.19 | (0.12, 0.26) |
Economy—Close | Economy—Far | Public Health—Close | Public Health—Far | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate 1 | 95% CI 2 | Estimate 1 | 95% CI 2 | Estimate 1 | 95% CI 2 | Estimate 1 | 95% CI 2 | |
Ideology → Policy support (direct effect) | 0.07 | (−0.02, 0.16) | 0.12 | (0.03, 0.20) | −0.05 | (−0.13, 0.04) | −0.05 | (−0.15, 0.06) |
Ideology → Environmental value → Policy Support | 0.09 | (0.02, 0.17) | 0.06 | (−0.01, 0.13) | 0.17 | (0.11, 0.23) | 0.14 | (0.08, 0.22) |
Ideology → Science Belief → Policy Support | 0.19 | (0.10, 0.28) | 0.20 | (0.13, 0.27) | 0.13 | (0.06, 0.22) | 0.24 | (0.15, 0.32) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chu, H.; Yang, J. Their Economy and Our Health: Communicating Climate Change to the Divided American Public. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7718. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217718
Chu H, Yang J. Their Economy and Our Health: Communicating Climate Change to the Divided American Public. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(21):7718. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217718
Chicago/Turabian StyleChu, Haoran, and Janet Yang. 2020. "Their Economy and Our Health: Communicating Climate Change to the Divided American Public" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 21: 7718. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217718