Improving Climate Change Acceptance Among U.S. Conservatives Through Value-Based Message Targeting

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.

The “Gateway Belief” illusion: reanalyzing the results of a scientific-consensus messaging study

“…Subjects who were told that "97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening" did increase their estimates of the "percentage of climate scientists [who] have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." But consistent with the result in Dixon, Hmielowski and Ma [2017] and Deryugina and Shurchkov [2016], the degree to which those subjects increased their "support for public action" -2 points on a 101-point scale -was not significant, in statistical or practical terms, compared to the responses of the VLFM control group subjects.…”

“…169-172], a result also reported by Bolsen and Druckman [2017]. The reported VLFM finding would also be in direct conflict with Dixon, Hmielowski and Ma [2017], who found that exposing subjects to a 97%-consensus message had no significant effect; and with Deryugina and Shurchkov [2016], who found that the immediate impact of a consensus message on beliefs in human-caused climate change did not translate into greater support for climate mitigation policies -either immediately or in a six-month follow up study, in which subjects' beliefs in human-caused climate change no longer differed significantly from their pre-message beliefs.…”

“…Unlike Deryugina and Shurchkov [2016], Cook and Lewandowsky [2016], Bolsen and Druckman [2017], and Dixon, Hmielowski and Ma [2017], VLFM did not collect data on their subjects' actual beliefs in human-caused climate change. But on a 101-point measure of "belief in climate change" that made no reference to cause, VLFM subjects who viewed a consensus message and those who read about a Star Wars cartoon series both increased their "after message" responses by small amounts.…”

“…Finally, Dixon, Hmielowski and Ma [2017], attempted a partial replication of VLFM. They report that "consensus messages were ineffective at influencing beliefs about climate change" [p. 526].…”

Party Elites or Manufactured Doubt? The Informational Context of Climate Change Polarization

“…They seek out and absorb information from experts that share their cultural predispositions (Kahan et al, 2011). Other scholars have shown that resistance to climate science is, to some degree, rooted in opposition to regulation, and that by shifting discourse to emphasize market-friendly solutions to mitigation we can lower conservative resistance to climate science (Campbell & Kay, 2014;Dixon et al, 2017). The implication of this line of research is that we might be able to reduce polarization by framing debates or proposing solutions in ways that are compatible with conservative values.…”