There is a growing divide in how conservatives and liberals in the USA understand the issue of global warming. Prior research suggests that the American public's reliance on partisan media contributes to this gap. However, researchers have yet to identify intervening variables to explain the relationship between media use and public opinion about global warming. Several studies have shown that trust in scientists is an important heuristic many people use when reporting their opinions on science-related topics. Using within-subject panel data from a nationally representative sample of Americans, this study finds that trust in scientists mediates the effect of news media use on perceptions of global warming. Results demonstrate that conservative media use decreases trust in scientists which, in turn, decreases certainty that global warming is happening. By contrast, use of non-conservative media increases trust in scientists, which, in turn, increases certainty that global warming is happening.

No 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.

Using an online experiment with a national sample, this study tests the effects of political efficacy messages on two types of climate-related political participation via the discrete emotions of hope, fear, and anger and compares these effects across ideological groups. Relative to a message that discusses only negative climate impacts, messages that emphasize the internal, external, or response efficacy of political actions to address climate change are found to influence hope and fear but not anger, and these effects vary by political ideology. Furthermore, exposure to efficacy information indirectly increases participation via hope—even, in some cases, among conservatives.

This study investigates how U.S. network television news stories have conveyed threat and efficacy information about climate change, both directly and indirectly, through the discussion and framing of climate change impacts and actions. Results show that while impacts and actions are discussed independently in a majority of broadcasts, they are rarely discussed in the same broadcast. Moreover, while news coverage frequently conveys the threat of climate change, it provides an inconsistent efficacy message, often including both positive and negative efficacy cues. Finally, impacts are framed primarily in terms of environmental consequences, whereas actions are framed in terms of political conflict.