Literature DB >> 29961412

Psychological Barriers to Bipartisan Public Support for Climate Policy.

Leaf Van Boven1, Phillip J Ehret2, David K Sherman2.   

Abstract

Psychological scientists have the expertise-and arguably an obligation-to help understand the political polarization that impedes enactment of climate policy. Many explanations emphasize Republican skepticism about climate change. Yet results from national panel studies in 2014 and 2016 indicate that most Republicans believe in climate change, if not as strongly as Democrats. Political polarization over climate policy does not simply reflect that Democrats and Republicans disagree about climate change but that Democrats and Republicans disagree with each other. The results of a national panel experiment and of in-depth interviews with four former members of Congress suggest that Democrats and Republicans-both ordinary citizens and policymakers-support policies from their own party and reactively devalue policies from the opposing party. These partisan evaluations occur both for policies historically associated with liberal principles and politicians (cap-and-trade) and for policies associated with conservative principles and politicians (revenue-neutral carbon tax). People also exaggerate how much other Democrats and Republicans are swayed by partisanship. This foments false norms of partisan opposition that, in turn, influence people's personal policy support. Correcting misperceived norms of opposition and decoupling policy evaluation from identity concerns would help overcome these seemingly insurmountable barriers to bipartisan support for climate policy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  application; attitudes; climate change; environment; intergroup relations; judgment; policy; social cognition

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29961412     DOI: 10.1177/1745691617748966

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci        ISSN: 1745-6916


  9 in total

1.  Reflections on an interdisciplinary collaboration to inform public understanding of climate change, mitigation, and impacts.

Authors:  Wändi Bruine de Bruin; M Granger Morgan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The role of partisan conflict in environmental sustainability targets of the United States.

Authors:  Seyi Saint Akadiri; Andrew Adewale Alola
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Social norms explain prioritization of climate policy.

Authors:  Jennifer C Cole; Phillip J Ehret; David K Sherman; Leaf Van Boven
Journal:  Clim Change       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 5.174

4.  Communicating expert consensus increases personal support for COVID-19 mitigation policies.

Authors:  John R Kerr; Sander van der Linden
Journal:  J Appl Soc Psychol       Date:  2021-08-18

5.  Resolving Conflicts Between People and Over Time in the Transformation Toward Sustainability: A Framework of Interdependent Conflicts.

Authors:  Johann M Majer; Matthias Barth; Hong Zhang; Marie van Treek; Roman Trötschel
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-04-15

6.  When election expectations fail: Polarized perceptions of election legitimacy increase with accumulating evidence of election outcomes and with polarized media.

Authors:  Marrissa D Grant; Alexandra Flores; Eric J Pedersen; David K Sherman; Leaf Van Boven
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Political coherence and certainty as drivers of interpersonal liking over and above similarity.

Authors:  Federico Zimmerman; Gerry Garbulsky; Dan Ariely; Mariano Sigman; Joaquin Navajas
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 14.136

8.  The Evolving Field of Risk Communication.

Authors:  Dominic Balog-Way; Katherine McComas; John Besley
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 4.000

9.  Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries.

Authors:  Alexandra Flores; Jennifer C Cole; Stephan Dickert; Kimin Eom; Gabriela M Jiga-Boy; Tehila Kogut; Riley Loria; Marcus Mayorga; Eric J Pedersen; Beatriz Pereira; Enrico Rubaltelli; David K Sherman; Paul Slovic; Daniel Västfjäll; Leaf Van Boven
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 11.205

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.