Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half

Abstract

Pluralistic ignorance—a shared misperception of how others think or behave—poses a challenge to collective action on problems like climate change. Using a representative sample of Americans (N = 6119), we examine whether Americans accurately perceive national concern about climate change and support for mitigating policies. We find a form of pluralistic ignorance that we describe as a false social reality: a near universal perception of public opinion that is the opposite of true public sentiment. Specifically, 80–90% of Americans underestimate the prevalence of support for major climate change mitigation policies and climate concern. While 66–80% Americans support these policies, Americans estimate the prevalence to only be between 37–43% on average. Thus, supporters of climate policies outnumber opponents two to one, while Americans falsely perceive nearly the opposite to be true. Further, Americans in every state and every assessed demographic underestimate support across all polices tested. Preliminary evidence suggests three sources of these misperceptions: (i) consistent with a false consensus effect, respondents who support these policies less (conservatives) underestimate support by a greater degree; controlling for one’s own personal politics, (ii) exposure to more conservative local norms and (iii) consuming conservative news correspond to greater misperceptions.

Scaling Up Change: A Critical Review and Practical Guide to Harnessing Social Norms for Climate Action

“…In such cases, correcting or updating respondents' expectations may lead them to change their behaviors (e.g., Andreoni et al, 2021;Schroeder & Prentice, 1998). In the context of climate change, individuals often misperceive and underestimate concern about climate change among their peers and the general public and, as a consequence, are less likely to discuss or otherwise act on the topic (Leviston et al, 2013;Sokoloski et al, 2018;Sparkman et al, 2022). Such pluralistic ignorance also extends to political elites' beliefs about their constituencies (Mildenberger & Tingley, 2019).…”

A Bayesian decision-theoretic framework for studying motivated reasoning

“…These misperceptions can influence people to report beliefs that are possibly out of sync with their internal credences, in turn establishing a social norm that prevents people from updating their reported beliefs about polarizing social issues. For instance, nearly three-fourths of Americans support climate change mitigation policies, but the general public believes that the proportion is closer to one-third (Sparkman, Geiger, & Weber, 2022). Many people-specifically conservatives-may therefore believe that climate change is real and would support policies designed to deal with it, but fear potential social consequences of reporting so.…”

Communicating ocean and human health connections: An agenda for research and practice

“…While counter campaigns are nothing new, communicators have an incredible amount of control over their channels of choice in today's media landscape, which can lead to echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs and introduce people to misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (293-296). These activities can undermine factual messaging and lead to behavior that inhibits action, such as underestimating public support for climate policy (297). There are, however, five common categories of climate misinformation -that the problem is not real; the problem is not harmful or serious; people do not have a role in creating or contributing to the problem; society cannot do anything to avoid the worst outcomes; and experts in the field do not agree on the facts (298)-and strategies used to deliver it to audiences (203).…”