Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T02:50:21.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying the most important predictors of support for climate policy in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2020

MATTHEW H. GOLDBERG ,
ABEL GUSTAFSON ,
MATTHEW T. BALLEW ,
SETH A. ROSENTHAL  and
ANTHONY LEISEROWITZ
MATTHEW H. GOLDBERG*
Affiliation:
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
ABEL GUSTAFSON
Affiliation:
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
MATTHEW T. BALLEW
Affiliation:
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
SETH A. ROSENTHAL
Affiliation:
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
ANTHONY LEISEROWITZ
Affiliation:
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
*
*Correspondence to: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reducing global warming will require enacting strong climate policies, which is unlikely to happen without public support. While prior research has identified varied predictors of climate change policy support, it is unclear which predictors are strongest for the American electorate as a whole, and which predictors are strongest for Democrats and Republicans. In a nationally representative sample of registered voters (n = 2063), we use relative weight analysis to identify the strongest predictors of public climate policy support. We find that, among registered voters in the USA, the five most important predictors of climate policy support are: worry about global warming; risk perceptions; certainty that global warming is happening; belief that global warming is human-caused; and general affect toward global warming. Collectively, these five variables account for 51% of the variance in policy support. Results split by political party indicate that pro-climate injunctive norms and global warming risk perceptions are the variables that differ most between Republicans and Democrats, accounting for significantly more variance in policy support among Republicans. These findings can inform policymakers and advocates seeking to build public support for climate action.

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 5 , Special Issue 4: Behavioural Climate Policy , October 2021 , pp. 480 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrahamse, W. and Steg, L. (2013), ‘Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis’, Global Environmental Change, 23(6): 1773–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agnone, J. (2007), ‘Amplifying public opinion: The policy impact of the US environmental movement’, Social Forces, 85(4): 1593–1620.Google Scholar
Ballew, M.T., Goldberg, M.H., Rosenthal, S.A., Cutler, M.J. and Leiserowitz, A. (2019), ‘Climate Change Activism among Latino and White Americans’, Frontiers in Communication, 3(58): 1–15.Google Scholar
Ballew, M.T., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., Rosenthal, S.A., Kotcher, J.E., Marlon, J.R., Lyon, E., Goldberg, M.H. and Maibach, E.W. (2019), ‘Climate Change in the American Mind: Data, Tools, and Trends’, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 61(3): 4–18.Google Scholar
Brick, C. and Lai, C.K. (2018), ‘Explicit (but not implicit) environmentalist identity predicts pro-environmental behavior and policy preferences’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 58, 8–17.Google Scholar
Caprara, G.V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M. and Barbaranelli, C. (2006), ‘Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice’, Political Psychology, 27(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R. and Kallgren, C.A. (1990), ‘A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J.T. (2017), ‘Are conservatives more sensitive to threat than liberals? It depends on how we define threat and conservatism’, Social Cognition, 35(4): 354–373.Google Scholar
Damasio, A.R. (1994), Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. G.P. Putnam: New York.Google Scholar
Ding, D., Maibach, E.W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C. and Leiserowitz, A. (2011), ‘Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement’, Nature Climate Change, 1(9): 462–466.Google Scholar
Dixon, G., Bullock, O. and Adams, D. (2019), ‘Unintended Effects of Emphasizing the Role of Climate Change in Recent Natural Disasters’, Environmental Communication, 13(2): 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehret, P.J., Sparks, A.C. and Sherman, D.K. (2017), ‘Support for environmental protection: an integration of ideological-consistency and information-deficit models’, Environmental Politics, 26(2): 253–277.Google Scholar
Feldman, L., Maibach, E.W., Roser-Renouf, C. and Leiserowitz, A. (2012), ‘Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC’, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1): 3–31.Google Scholar
Goldberg, M.H., Gustafson, A., Ballew, M.T., Rosenthal, S.A. and Leiserowitz, A. (2019a), ‘A Social Identity Approach to Engaging Christians in the Issue of Climate Change’, Science Communication, 41(4): 442–463.Google Scholar
Goldberg, M.H., van der Linden, S., Ballew, M.T., Rosenthal, S.A., Gustafson, A. and Leiserowitz, A. (2019b), ‘The Experience of Consensus: Video as an Effective Medium to Communicate Scientific Agreement on Climate Change’, Science Communication, 41(5): 659–673.Google Scholar
Goldberg, M.H., van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. and Maibach, E. (2020), ‘Perceived Social Consensus Can Reduce Ideological Biases on Climate Change’, Environment and Behavior, 52: 495–517.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, R.E., Feygina, I. and Jost, J.T. (2013), The gender gap in environmental attitudes: a system justification perspective. In Research, action and policy: Addressing the gendered impacts of climate change, Springer, Dordrecht pp. 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, N.J., Cialdini, R.B. and Griskevicius, V. (2008), ‘A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels’, Journal of Consumer Research. 35, 472–482.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J. and Nosek, B.A. (2009), ‘Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5): 1029–1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gustafson, A., Rosenthal, S.A., Ballew, M.T., Goldberg, M.H., Bergquist, P., Kotcher, J., Maibach, E. and Leiserowitz, A. (2019), ‘The development of partisan polarization over the Green New Deal’, Nature Climate Change. doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0621-7Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018), Global warming of 1.5°C. Accessed April 30, 2019, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.Google Scholar
Johnson, J.W. (2000), ‘A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression’, Multivariate behavioral research, 35(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Jost, J.T. (2017), ‘Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology’, Political Psychology, 38(2): 167–208.Google Scholar
Jost, J.T., van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C. and Hardin, C.D. (2018), ‘Ideological asymmetries in conformity, desire for shared reality, and the spread of misinformation’, Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 77–83.Google Scholar
LeBreton, J.M., Ployhart, R.E. and Ladd, R.T. (2004), ‘A Monte Carlo comparison of relative importance methodologies’, Organizational Research Methods, 7(3): 258–282.Google Scholar
Leiserowitz, A. (2006), ‘Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values’, Climatic Change, 77(1–2): 45–72.Google Scholar
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Ballew, M., Goldberg, M. and Gustafson, A. (2018), Climate change in the American mind: December 2018. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.Google Scholar
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Ballew, M., Goldberg, M., Gustafson, A. and Bergquist, P. (2019a), Politics & Global Warming, April 2019. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.Google Scholar
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Bergquist, P., Ballew, M., Goldberg, M. and Gustafson, A. (2019b), Climate change in the American mind: April 2019. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.Google Scholar
Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C. and Leiserowitz, A. (2009), Global warming's six Americas 2009: An audience segmentation analysis. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.Google Scholar
McCright, A.M. (2010), ‘The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public’, Population and Environment, 32(1): 66–87.Google Scholar
McCright, A.M. and Dunlap, R.E. (2011a), ‘Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States’, Global Environmental Change, 21(4): 1163–1172.Google Scholar
McCright, A.M. and 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.Google Scholar
Myers, T.A., Maibach, E.W., Roser-Renouf, C., Akerlof, K. and Leiserowitz, A.A. (2013), ‘The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming’, Nature Climate Change, 3(4): 343–347.Google Scholar
Nabi, R.L., Gustafson, A. and Jensen, R. (2018), ‘Framing climate change: Exploring the role of emotion in generating advocacy behavior’, Science Communication, 40(4): 442–468.Google Scholar
O'Connor, R.E., Bord, R.J. and Fisher, A. (1999), ‘Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change’, Risk Analysis, 19(3): 461–471.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. (2017), In polarized era, fewer Americans hold a mix of conservative and liberal views. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/23/in-polarized-era-fewer-americans-hold-a-mix-of-conservative-and-liberal-views/Google Scholar
Piurko, Y., Schwartz, S.H. and Davidov, E. (2011), ‘Basic personal values and the meaning of left‐right political orientations in 20 countries’, Political Psychology, 32(4): 537–561.Google Scholar
Roser-Renouf, C., Maibach, E.W., Leiserowitz, A. and Zhao, X. (2014), ‘The genesis of climate change activism: From key beliefs to political action’, Climatic Change, 125(2): 163–178.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N. (2011), ‘Feelings-as-information theory’, Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1, 289–308.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D.G. (2004), ‘Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality’, Risk Analysis, 24(2): 311–322.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D.G. (2007), ‘The affect heuristic’, European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3): 1333–1352.Google Scholar
Smith, N. and Leiserowitz, A. (2014), ‘The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition’, Risk Analysis, 34(5): 937–948.Google Scholar
Spence, A., Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. (2012), ‘The psychological distance of climate change’, Risk Analysis, 32(6): 957–972.Google Scholar
Thaker, J., Howe, P., Leiserowitz, A. and Maibach, E. (2018), ‘Perceived Collective Efficacy and Trust in Government Influence Public Engagement with Climate Change-Related Water Conservation Policies’, Environmental Communication, 1–19.Google Scholar
Tonidandel, S. and LeBreton, J.M. (2011), ‘Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
Tonidandel, S. and LeBreton, J.M. (2015), ‘RWA web: A free, comprehensive, web-based, and user-friendly tool for relative weight analyses’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2): 207–216.Google Scholar
van der Linden, S. (2014), ‘On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: The case of climate change’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5): 430–440.Google Scholar
van der Linden, S. (2015), ‘The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112–124.Google Scholar
Weber, E.U. (2006), ‘Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet)’, Climatic Change, 77(1–2): 103–120.Google Scholar
Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H. and Seiden, J. (2016), ‘Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7–19.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R.B. (1980), ‘Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences’, American Psychologist, 35(2): 151–175.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Goldberg et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S3

Download Goldberg et al. supplementary material(File)
File 22.9 KB