How issue frames shape beliefs about the importance of climate change policy across ideological and partisan groups

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 7, 2017, Pages

  Singh, Shane P ^a   Swanson, Meili ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; ATTITUDE; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; ENVIRONMENT; LINGUISTICS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; POLICY; POLITICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PUBLIC OPINION; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE; CLIMATE CHANGE; CULTURE; ENVIRONMENT; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; POLICY; POLITICS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; PUBLIC OPINION; SECURITY MEASURES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85026198073     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181401     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. National Public Radio. Nearly 200 nations adopt climate agreement at COP21 talks in Paris 2015 [cited 2015 December 12]. Available from: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/12/459464621/final-draft-of-world-climate-agreement-goes-to-a-vote-in-paris-saturday.
2. Warner K. Climate change induced displacement: Adaptation policy in the context of the unfccc climate negotiations. Geneva: Division of International Protection, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; 2011.
3. Gallup. Climate change not a top worry in U.S. 2014 [cited 2017 May 20]. Available from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx.
4. Keohane RO. The global politics of climate change: Challenge for political science. PS: Political Science & Politics. 2015; 48(1):19–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096514001541
5. Soroka S, Wlezien C. Degrees of democracy: Politics, public opinion and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
6. Stimson JA, Mackuen MB, Erikson RS. Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review. 1995; 89(3):543–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082973
7. Krosnick J, Kinder DR. Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review. 1990; 84(2):497–512.
8. Jacoby WG. Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science. 2000; 44(4):750–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669279
9. Berinsky AJ, Kinder DR. Making sense of issues through media frames: Understanding the Kosovo crisis. Journal of Politics. 2006; 68(3):640–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00451.x
10. Nisbet MC. Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 2009; 51(2):12–23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
11. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Tarantola T, Silva CL, Braman D. Geoengineering and climate change polarization: Testing a two-channel model of science communication. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2015; 658(1):192–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559002
12. Maibach EW, 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. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-299 PMID: 20515503
13. Yarnal B, O’Connor RE, Shudak R. The impact of local versus national framing on willingness to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: A case study from central pennsylvania. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability. 2003; 8(4):457–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830306668
14. Schuldt JP, Konrath SH, Schwarz N. "Global warming" or "climate change"? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2011; 75(1):115–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq073.
15. Petrovic N, Madrigano J, Zaval L. Motivating mitigation: When health matters more than climate change. Climatic Change. 2014; 126(1):245–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1192-2
16. Aklin M, Urpelainen J. Debating clean energy: Frames, counter frames, and audiences. Global Environmental Change. 2013; 23(5):1225–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.007
17. Bernauer T, McGrath L. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nature Climate Change. 2016; 6(7):680–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2948
18. Myers TA, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz AA. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change. 2012; 113(3):1105–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
19. Severson AW, Coleman EA. Moral frames and climate change policy attitudes. Social Science Quarterly. 2015; 96(5):1277–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12159
20. Wiest SL, Raymond L, Clawson RA. Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Global environmental change. 2015; 31(5):187–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006
21. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2000; 26(11):1421–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263009
22. The United States Department of Defense. National security implications of climate-related risks and a changing climate. 2015.
23. The White House. National security strategy. 2015.
24. Kamradt-Scott A, McInnes C. The securitisation of pandemic influenza: Framing, security and public policy. Global Public Health. 2012; 7(Sup2):S95–S110. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2012.725752 PMID: 23039054
25. Lahav G, Courtemanche M. The ideological effects of framing threat on immigration and civil liberties. Political Behavior. 2012; 34(3):477–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9171-z
26. Lu H, Schuldt JP. Compassion for climate change victims and support for mitigation policy. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2016; 45(1):192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.007
27. Pfattheicher S, Sassenrath C, Schindler S. Feelings for the suffering of others and the environment: Compassion fosters proenvironmental tendencies. Environment and Behavior. 2016; 48(7):929–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515574549
28. Bueno de Mesquita B, Downs GW, Smith A, Cherif FM. Thinking inside the box: A closer look at democracy and human rights. International Studies Quarterly. 2005; 49(3):439–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2005.00372.x
29. Aschemann-Witzel J, Grunert KG. Influence of ‘soft’ versus ‘scientific’ health information framing and contradictory information on consumers’ health inferences and attitudes towards a food supplement. Food Quality and Preference. 2015; 42(1):90–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.01.008
30. Yang FY, Anderson OR. Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education. 2003; 25(2):221–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126739
31. Kolsto SD. Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education. 2006; 28(14):1689–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878
32. van der Linden SL, Leiserowitz AA, Feinberg GD, Maibach EW. The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10(2):e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489 PMID: 25714347
33. Gross K, D’Ambrosio L. Framing emotional response. Political Psychology. 2004; 25(1):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00354.x
34. Bechtel MM, Hainmueller J, Hangartner D, Helbling M. Reality bites: The limits of framing effects for salient and contested policy issues. Political Science Research and Methods. 2015; 3(3):683–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.39
35. Hamilton LC, Hartter J, Lemcke-Stampone M, Moore DW, Safford TG. Tracking public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10(9):e0138208. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138208 PMID: 26422694
36. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly. 2011; 52(2):155–94.
37. Gauchat G. Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review. 2012; 77(2):167–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225
38. Hamilton LC. Conservative and liberal views of science, does trust depend on topic? (regional issue brief no. 45). Durham: Carsey School of Public Policy, University of New Hampshire; 2015.
39. Molden DC, Higgins ET. Motivated thinking. In: Holyoak KJ, Morrison RG, editors. The cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 295–317.
40. Taber CS, Lodge M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science. 2006; 50(3):755–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
41. Nyhan B, Reifler J. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior. 2010; 32(2):303–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
42. Hart PS, Nisbet EC. Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research. 2012; 39(6):701–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
43. Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.Com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis. 2012; 20(3):351–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057
44. Goodman JK, Cryder CE, Cheema A. Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of mechanical turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2013; 26(3):213–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753
45. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2011; 6(1):3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 PMID: 26162106
46. Huff C, Tingley D. “Who are these people?” evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics. 2015; 2(3):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015604648
47. Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG, Fielding KS. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change. 2016; 6:622–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2943
48. Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis. 2012; 32(6):957–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x PMID: 21992607
49. Leiserowitz AA. American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis. 2005; 25 (6):1433–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x PMID: 16506973
50. Räthzel N, Uzzell D. Changing relations in global environmental change. Global Environmental Change. 2009; 19(3):326–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.001
51. Bolsen T, Druckman JN, Cook FL. How frames can undermine support for scientific adaptations: Politicization and the status-quo bias. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2014; 78(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft044
52. Druckman JN. On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics. 2001; 63(4):1041–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00100
53. Riffkin R. Unemployment rises to top problem in the U.S. 2014 [cited 2014 March 2]. Available from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167450/unemployment-rises-top-problem.aspx.
54. Stokes B. Americans’ foreign policy priorities for 2014 2013 [cited 2014 March 3]. Available from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/31/americans-foreign-policy-priorities-for-2014/.
55. Eurobarometer. [cited 2014 March 2]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_379_360_en.htm-369.
56. Gill J. The insignificance of null hypothesis significance testing. Political Research Quarterly. 1999; 52 (3):647–74.
57. Kellstedt PM, Zahran S, Vedlitz A. Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis. 2008; 28(1):113–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x PMID: 18304110
58. Liberman N, Trope Y, McCrea S, Sherman SJ. The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2007; 43(1):143–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.009
59. Trope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal. Psychological Review. 2003; 110(3):403–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403 PMID: 12885109
60. Hochschild J, Einstein KL. ‘It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so’: Misinformation and democratic politics. British Journal of Political Science. 2015; 45(3):467–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341400043X