There is a growing divide in how conservatives and liberals in the USA understand the issue of global warming. Prior research suggests that the American public's reliance on partisan media contributes to this gap. However, researchers have yet to identify intervening variables to explain the relationship between media use and public opinion about global warming. Several studies have shown that trust in scientists is an important heuristic many people use when reporting their opinions on science-related topics. Using within-subject panel data from a nationally representative sample of Americans, this study finds that trust in scientists mediates the effect of news media use on perceptions of global warming. Results demonstrate that conservative media use decreases trust in scientists which, in turn, decreases certainty that global warming is happening. By contrast, use of non-conservative media increases trust in scientists, which, in turn, increases certainty that global warming is happening.

This study tests a model of reinforcing spirals in the context of global warming, using a 2‐wave, within‐subjects panel survey with a representative sample of Americans. Results show that, within waves, conservative media use is negatively related to global warming belief certainty and support for mitigation policies, while nonconservative media use is positively associated with belief certainty and policy support. In addition, the results show that consuming conservative or nonconservative media at Wave 1 makes people more likely to consume those same media at Wave 2, partly as an indirect result of the media's effects on global warming belief certainty and policy preferences. Wave 2 media use, in turn, further strengthens audiences' global warming belief certainty and policy preferences.

No abstract

Although prior research has identified communication strategies for reducing climate change skepticism, recent research suggests such approaches can backfire. To explore this issue, we report on a preliminary study investigating two prominent messaging styles: consensus and targeted messages. While consensus messaging did not produce significant effects, targeted messages emphasizing free market solutions to climate change were effective at improving conservatives’ climate change acceptance. Furthermore, the inclusion of consensus information did not improve or diminish the effects of the targeted messages. These findings underscore the utility of targeted messaging in improving climate change acceptance among political conservatives.

This study extends political humor effects research by focusing on two distinct types of satire, juvenalian and horatian. Theoretical arguments grounded in the elaboration likelihood model culminated in the positing of a series of interactions between message (juvenalian, horatian, traditional opinion-editorial) and recipient ability (high, low) relative to three outcome variables: perceived humor, counterarguing, and attitudes concerning Hillary Clinton’s universal health care plan. An experiment was conducted during the 2008 Democratic primary election. The Message × Ability interactions revealed a need to step beyond the study of satire as monolithic; different types of satire produce divergent effects depending on the ability of the audience member. Future lines of research and the need for additional theory building are discussed.