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

backgroundexistence 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)

backgroundperceived 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?”  

✤ 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)

“global warming”/“climate change”

✤ 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)

hypotheses

✤ 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

initial experiment

Schuldt, Konrath, & Schwarz (2011), Public Opinion Quarterly

resultspercent endorsing high belief (≥ 5)

GW CC p n

Democrats 86.9% 86.4% ns 803

Republicans 44.0% 60.2% < .001 732

Independents 69.5% 74.0% ns 514

Other 68.3% 77.1% ns 212

Overall 67.7% 74.0% < .01 2261

GWCC

30405060708090

100

Democrats Republicans

% H

igh

belie

f

(≥ 5

)

Frame: F(1,2253) = 10.76, p < .01Politics: F(3,2253) = 121.89, p < .001Frame x Politics: F(3,2253) = 5.32, p = .01

39% reduction in partisan

divide

Schuldt, Konrath, & Schwarz (2011), Public Opinion Quarterly

results

✤ 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}

present experiment

405060708090

100

Democrats Republicans

GWCC

% H

igh

belie

f

(≥ 5

)GWCC

Frame: t(2024) = 3.83, p < .001Politics: t(2024) = 15.86, p < .001Frame x Politics: t(2024) = 2.50, p < .05

36% reduction in partisan

divide

resultspersonal existence beliefs

resultsperceived scientific consensus

01020304050607080

Believe Don’t believe Unsure

GWCC

% N

Frame: b(2011) = –.45, p = .02 (N = 2011)

resultsperceived scientific consensus

Democrats(N = 956)

Republicans(N = 1063)

0102030405060708090

100

Believe Don’t believe Unsure0

102030405060708090

100

Believe Don’t believe Unsure

GWCC

% N

Politics: b(2011) = –1.01, p < .001Frame x Politics: ns

2030405060708090

100

Democrats Republicans

Scientists believeScientists don’t believe or unsure

“Sho

uld

regu

late

”(%

N)Scientists believeScientists don’t believe or unsure

Politics x Consensus: t(2001) = 1.87, p = .06

resultspolicy support

✤ 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?

implications & future directions

✤ 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.

references