Partisan Cueing and Polarization in Public Opinion About Climate Change

Abstract

Despite an accumulation of scientific evidence on both the causes and consequences of climate change, U.S. public opinion on the subject has splintered sharply along party lines. While a vast majority of Democrats now believe that global warming is real, that its effects will happen within their lifetime, and that human activity is the dominant cause, Republicans have grown increasingly skeptical, creating a yawning gap that complicates efforts to communicate the urgency of the problem and the need for aggressive action. When attitudes harden and diverge, it is often driven by the behavior of political elites, who shape the frames and mental models that people use to interpret events. Scholars have long observed that people resort instinctively to heuristics to ease the burden of making decisions, especially on issues like climate, where there is an obvious disconnect between scientific understanding and mass competence. Those cues, however, are often unreliable and prone to cognitive bias. When voters act upon signals provided by their preferred political party and by selective exposure to preferred media outlets, they may do so mechanically, with little regard for the accuracy of the evidence that they receive, or they may ignore and distort information in a way that reinforces preexisting assumptions. In the end, beliefs about climate change are as complex as the issue itself, which suggests that awareness of the problem and an understanding of its effects will not translate automatically—or even easily—into increased concern, issue salience, or policy preferences. The “pictures in our heads,” to borrow Walter Lippmann’s famous phrase, are shaped less by factual knowledge than by a variety of other factors more difficult to control—by personal experience and assorted real-world cues (such as the weather), but also by opinion leaders, media narratives, and political rhetoric, each of which provides a competing frame of reference with the power to filter and mislead. Because climate change has become so heavily laden with values and so absorbed into partisan identity, it will be nearly impossible to build social consensus through conventional means. Once a “hard” issue for all, which seemed to demand sophisticated calculation or technical expertise, it has now become an “easy” one for many, where the reactions that it prompts are familiar, stable, and symbolic, increasingly polarized, immune to rational argument, and vulnerable to manipulation by elites.

“It’s Global Warming, Stupid”: Aggressive Communication Styles and Political Ideology in Science Blog Debates About Climate Change

“…When it comes to climate change mitigation, the debate has often been seen as polarized (Bolsen & Shapiro, 2018; Hmielowski et al, 2014) and aggressive communication is frequently observed (König & Jucks, 2019), and the factors leading to this antagonistic situation include how the mainstream media cover the story to achieve greater viewership and the policy decision-making process which may leave others feeling disenfranchised (Howarth & Sharman, 2017). Meanwhile, researchers also pointed out that because climate change has been absorbed with partisan identity, this issue is very heavily laden with values, and it is “nearly impossible to build social consensus through conventional means” (Guber, 2017, p.2). The nature of this partisan also gives rise to hostile media perceptions (Hansen & Kim, 2011).…”

The Impact of Message Source on the Effectiveness of Communications About Climate Change

“…One form of protection of social identity is the use of partisan motivated reasoning (for a review, see Druckman, Leeper, & Slothuus, 2018;Kahan, 2015;Lodge & Taber, 2013). This process can occur when people possess strong opinions that guide their reasoning strategies, or because of partisan cue-taking that simplifies and reduces the amount of information and effort necessary to form an opinion in a given context (Bartels, 2002;Bolsen, Druckman, & Cook, 2014;Cohen, 2003;Goren, Federico, & Kittilson, 2009;Guber, 2017;Kunda, 1990;Lelkes, Malka, & Bakker, 2018;Malka & Lelkes, 2010). Partisans in pursuit of value-affirming information may therefore turn to sources who share their group identity or cultural worldviews in seeking out or interpreting any new information about climate change (Benegal & Scruggs, 2018;Feinberg & Willer, 2013;Hmielowski, Feldman, Myers, Leiserowitz, & Maibach, 2014;Kahan et al, 2011) Perception of consensus, particularly within one's close social network, also influences people to align their beliefs with what they perceive to be the majority point of view (Goldberg et al, 2019;Jost, 2018;van der Linden, 2015).…”

A New Dark Age? Truth, Trust, and Environmental Science

“…Similarly, a variety of factors have also been associated with mistrust. For instance, in some countries, climate change scepticism or denialism has historically been correlated with conservative ideology-particularly in countries such as the United States, where environmental issues are drawn into polarized political contexts, resulting in attitudes and preferences for action becoming sorted by political identity (46,53). Rejection of climate change evidence is also most pronounced among people with broad distrust of elite social institutions (54) and in countries with a high level of economic development and dependence on fossil resources (55), factors that further confound the role of political ideology.…”