The Mutual Reinforcement of Media Selectivity and Effects: Testing the Reinforcing Spirals Framework in the Context of Global Warming

Abstract

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.

An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks

“…Numerous studies have aimed to understand why the science of climate change continues to be challenged within policy circles, focusing on the media coverage of the issue (8)(9)(10), the role that conservative think tanks have played in creating a counter-movement (11)(12)(13)(14), and the ways the issue has been discussed by the US Congress (6,(15)(16). Within this literature, scholars have invoked the notion of echo chambers to describe how information has become a partisan choice, and how those choices bias toward sources that reinforce beliefs rather than challenge them, regardless of the source's legitimacy (17).…”

How Americans Respond to Information About Global Warming's Health Impacts: Evidence From a National Survey Experiment

“…A bedrock principle of public health practice is to inform people of the risks they face so that they can be productively involved in decisions about how best to manage those risks (Institute of Medicine, ; Maibach et al, ). Regrettably, partisan news coverage and misinformation campaigns about climate change created to protect the interests of fossil fuel companies have led to a stark polarization between liberals and conservatives about the issue, which in turn has led to political gridlock on climate solutions and is indirectly seriously harming the public's health (Dunlap et al, ; Dunlap & McCright, ; Feldman et al, , ; Merkley & Stecula, ). Ironically, many approaches to informing the American public about climate change, such as framing it as an environmental or complex scientific issue, have likely contributed to this polarization.…”

“Maybe Yes, Maybe No?”: Testing the Indirect Relationship of News Use through Ambivalence and Strength of Policy Position on Public Engagement with Climate Change

“…In accordance with previous research looking at media use and beliefs about climate change, we separate our media use variables into conservative and nonconservative content (Feldman et al, 2012;Feldman et al, 2014;Hmielowski et al, 2014). We have decided to separate our media use into conservative and nonconservative outlets based on content analyses looking at how news outlets cover the issue of climate change.…”