The impacts of political cues and practical information on climate change decisions

Adapting to climate change will require people to make measured decisions, informed by the science relevant to those choices. Communicating that science is complicated by the politicization of the topic. In two studies, we ask how political cues, designed to evoke individuals’ sense of identity as believers or nonbelievers in global warming, affect a hypothetical decision: buying a home vulnerable to coastal flooding exacerbated by global warming using the Zillow® real estate website. In both studies, we manipulate participants’ frame of reference by focusing them on risks due to ‘elevation’, ‘global warming’, or both, or mentioning neither. We also examine how immersion in practical details affects the power of these cues by manipulating whether participants have access to Risk Finder (http://sealevel.climatecentral.org), an interactive decision aid. Study 1 asks about global warming beliefs after their decision; Study 2 asks beforehand. Both find that immersion in practical information, using Risk Finder, overrode political identity cues. When framed in terms of both elevation and global warming and without explicit expression of global warming beliefs (Study 1), participants’ responses reflected their beliefs. The results suggest that communications should acknowledge political differences and then focus on practical decisions and the science that can inform them.

[1]  Seong-Joong Kim,et al.  Weakening of the stratospheric polar vortex by Arctic sea-ice loss , 2014, Nature Communications.

[2]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  A method to evaluate the usability of interactive climate change impact decision aids , 2014, Climatic Change.

[3]  P. Jones,et al.  Global warming and changes in drought , 2014 .

[4]  Cindy L. Bruyère,et al.  Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change , 2014, Climate Dynamics.

[5]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  The sciences of science communication , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  S. Jevrejeva,et al.  Projected Atlantic hurricane surge threat from rising temperatures , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Todd M. Gureckis,et al.  CUNY Academic , 2016 .

[8]  Teresa A. Myers,et al.  The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming , 2012, Nature Climate Change.

[9]  Gregory N. Mandel,et al.  The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks , 2012 .

[10]  P. Sol Hart,et al.  Boomerang Effects in Science Communication , 2012, Commun. Res..

[11]  Stefan Rahmstorf,et al.  A decade of weather extremes , 2012 .

[12]  J. Kok,et al.  The physics of wind-blown sand and dust , 2012, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[13]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks , 2011 .

[14]  N. Schwarz,et al.  “Global warming” or “climate change”? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording , 2011 .

[15]  G. Hegerl,et al.  Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes , 2011, Nature.

[16]  Matthew E. Kahn,et al.  Energy Conservation "Nudges" and Environmentalist Ideology: Evidence from a Randomized Residential Electricity Field Experiment , 2010 .

[17]  Y. Trope,et al.  Construal-level theory of psychological distance. , 2010, Psychological review.

[18]  Elke U. Weber,et al.  A Dirty Word or a Dirty World? , 2010, Psychological science.

[19]  E. Erdfelder,et al.  Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[20]  David J. Hardisty,et al.  A Dirty Word or a Dirty World? Attribute Framing, Political Affiliation, and Query Theory , 2009 .

[21]  A. Leiserowitz,et al.  Global Warming's Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis , 2009 .

[22]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement , 2009 .

[23]  Jennifer Crocker,et al.  Why Does Writing About Important Values Reduce Defensiveness? , 2008, Psychological science.

[24]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs , 2006 .

[25]  Nira Liberman,et al.  Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: consequences for insight and creative cognition. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  E. Kashima,et al.  Social Identity and Worldview Validation: The Effects of Ingroup Identity Primes and Mortality Salience on Value Endorsement , 2004, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[27]  R. Deshpandé,et al.  Identity salience and the influence of differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising response. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[28]  Guido Hertel,et al.  Priming in-group favoritism: The impact of normative scripts in the minimal group paradigm. , 2001 .

[29]  Claude M. Steele,et al.  When Beliefs Yield to Evidence: Reducing Biased Evaluation by Affirming the Self , 2000 .

[30]  P. Burke,et al.  Identity theory and social identity theory , 2000 .

[31]  R. Prislin,et al.  Motivated Cognitive Processing and Attitude Change , 1998 .

[32]  Lisa G. Aspinwall,et al.  Self-Affirmation Reduces Biased Processing of Health-Risk Information , 1998 .

[33]  R. Nickerson.  Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[34]  Z. Kunda,et al.  The case for motivated reasoning. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[35]  Steven L. Neuberg,et al.  A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation , 1990 .

[36]  C. Steele.  The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self , 1988 .

[37]  Chezy Ofir,et al.  Context Effects on Judgment under Uncertainty , 1984 .

[38]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion , 1984 .