Download AAPOR - Scientific Consensus

Emphasis framing and Americans’
perception of scientific consensus:
Scientists agree on “climate change”
but not “global warming”
Jonathon P. Schuldt, Sungjong Roh, & Norbert Schwarz
AAPOR
Boston, MA
May 17, 2013
background
existence beliefs
✤
✤
✤
Near unanimous agreement among scientists that
human activities have caused global warming
Public is less certain (Pew, 2012):
✤ Overall: 26% see “no evidence”
✤ By politics: 51% of conservative Republicans vs.
7% of liberal Democrats
Partisan divide reliable from 2001–2010
(McCright & Dunlap, 2011)
background
perceived scientific consensus
✤
✤
✤
Theoretically, public opinion should align with scientific
consensus (e.g., Gross, 1994)
However, partisan attempts to obfuscate perceived
consensus (Oreskes & Conway, 2010)
Evidence that perceived consensus predicts support
for climate policy (Ding et al., 2011)
perceived consensus on global warming,
by political party (Gallup, 2013)
“Just your impression, which one of the following statements do you think is most accurate – most scientists believe that global warming is occurring, most scientists believe that global warming is NOT occurring, or most scientists are unsure about whether global warming is occurring or not?” “global warming”/“climate change”
✤
✤
Not synonymous but treated so
✤
in opinion polls (e.g., PIPA, 2005)
✤
in news coverage (e.g., New York Times, 10/29/2010)
Emphasis frames? (Druckman, 2001)
✤
Activate distinct cognitive associations, e.g.,
✤
✤
Heat-related imagery (Leiserowitz, 2006)
Heat-related causes and anthropogenic associations
(Whitmarsh, 2009)
hypotheses
✤
Although often used interchangeably, “global warming”/
“climate change” framing may shift public opinion
✤
✤
✤
Personal existence beliefs (Krosnick et al., 2006)
Beliefs about scientific consensus (“meta-beliefs”)
(Ding et al., 2011)
Framing effects may hinge on political orientation
✤
✤
Republicans may resist anthropogenic connotations
(McCright & Dunlap, 2000)
Motivated reasoning by climate partisans
(e.g., Hart & Nisbet, 2012)
initial experiment
✤
✤
National survey experiment (N = 2,267) (April-June, 2009)
(ALP; completion rate = 78.1%)
Reported belief when framed as “global warming” or
“climate change” (ABC News/Stanford/Time, 2006):
You may have heard about the idea that the world’s temperature may have been going up (changing) over the past 100 years, a phenomenon sometimes called “global warming” (“climate change”). What is your personal opinion regarding whether or not this has been happening? {1 = DeLinitely has not been happening; 7 = DeLinitely has been happening}
✤
Political affiliation:
✤
{Democrat, Republican, Independent, Other/None of the above}
Schuldt, Konrath, & Schwarz (2011),
Public Opinion Quarterly
results
percent endorsing high belief (≥ 5)
GW
CC
p
n
Democrats
86.9% 86.4%
ns
803
Republicans
44.0% 60.2%
< .001
732
ns
514
Independents 69.5% 74.0%
Other
68.3% 77.1%
ns
212
Overall
67.7% 74.0%
< .01
2261
Schuldt, Konrath, & Schwarz (2011),
Public Opinion Quarterly
% High belief
(≥ 5)
results
GW
CC
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
39% reduction
in partisan
divide
Democrats
Frame: F(1,2253) = 10.76, p < .01
Politics: F(3,2253) = 121.89, p < .001
Frame x Politics: F(3,2253) = 5.32, p = .01
Republicans
Schuldt, Konrath, & Schwarz (2011),
Public Opinion Quarterly
present experiment
✤
✤
National survey experiment (N = 2,041) (Aug-Sept, 2012)
(GfK’s KnowledgePanel; completion rate = 66.5%)
Measures:
✤ Belief in “global warming” or “climate change”
✤ Perceived scientific consensus (Gallup, 2013)
✤ Policy support (Washington Post/ABC News, 2010):
Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming [climate change]? {1 = Should; 2 = Should not}
Do you think you feel that way very strongly or somewhat strongly? {1 = Very strongly; 2 = Somewhat strongly}
results
personal existence beliefs
GW
CC
% High belief
(≥ 5)
100
90
80
36% reduction
in partisan
divide
70
60
50
40
Democrats
Frame: t(2024) = 3.83, p < .001
Politics: t(2024) = 15.86, p < .001
Frame x Politics: t(2024) = 2.50, p < .05
Republicans
results
GW
CC
%N
perceived scientific consensus
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Believe
Frame: b(2011) = –.45, p = .02
Don’t believe
(N = 2011)
Unsure
results
GW
CC
perceived scientific consensus
%N
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Believe Don’t believe Unsure
Democrats
(N = 956)
Politics: b(2011) = –1.01, p < .001
Frame x Politics: ns
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Believe Don’t believe Unsure
Republicans
(N = 1063)
results
policy support
Scientists believe
Scientists don’t believe or unsure
“Should regulate”
(%N)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Democrats
Politics x Consensus: t(2001) = 1.87, p = .06
Republicans
implications & future directions
✤
Motivated reasoning? (e.g., Hart & Nisbet, 2012)
✤
✤
✤
We find no effect of self-affirmation manipulation
(Cohen, Aronson, & Steele, 2000)
The partisan divide
✤
Data suggest smaller divide on “climate change”
✤
A more subtle frame for those seeking progressive climate policy?
Exploring psychological mechanisms
✤
✤
What concepts do “global warming” and “climate change”
bring to mind?
Does concept activation depend on partisanship?
references
✤
✤
✤
✤
✤
✤
Cohen, G.L., Aronson, J., & Steele, C.M. (2000).
When beliefs yield to evidence: Reducing biased
evaluations by affirming the self. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1151-1164.
Ding, D., Maibach, E., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C.,
& Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for climate policy
and societal action are linked to perceptions
about scientific agreement. Nature Climate
Change, 1, 462-466.
Druckman, J.N. (2001). The implications of
framing effects for citizen competence. Political
Behavior, 23, 225-256.
Gross, A.G. (1994). The roles of rhetoric in the
public understanding of science. Public
Understanding of Science, 3, 3-23.
Hart, P.S., & Nisbet, E.C. (2012). Boomerang
effects in science communication: How motivated
reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion
polarization about climate mitigation policies.
Communication Research, 6, 701-723.
Krosnick, J.A., Holbrook, A.L., Lowe, L., & Visser,
P.S. (2006). The origins and consequences of
democratic citizens’ policy agendas: A study of
popular concern about global warming. Climatic
Change, 77, 7-43.
✤
✤
✤
✤
✤
✤
Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk
perception and policy preferences: The role of
affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77,
45-72.
McCright, A.M., & Dunlap, R.E. (2000).
Challenging global warming as a social problem:
An analysis of the conservative movement’s
counterclaims. Social Problems, 47, 499-522.
McCright, A.M., & Dunlap, R.E. (2011). The
politicization of climate change and polarization in
the American public’s views of global warming,
2001-2011. The Sociological Quarterly, 52,
155-194.
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of
Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the
Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global
Warming. Bloomsbury Publishing, USA.
Schuldt, J.P., Konrath, S., & Schwarz, N. (2011).
“Global warming” or “climate change”? Whether
the planet is warming depends on question
wording. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 115-124.
Whitmarsh, L. (2009). What’s in a name?
Commonalities and differences in public
understanding of “climate change” and “global
warming.” Public Understanding of Science, 18,
401-420.