Reframing the Climate Change Debate to Better Leverage Policy Change: An Analysis of Public Opinion and Political Psychology

Climate stories: Why do climate scientists and sceptical voices participate in the climate debate?

“…Nearly all SVs expressed an underlying interest in the impact of climate policies on the economy despite explicit disagreement with the politicisation of the scientific debate. That SVs were preoccupied with political and economic factors is unsurprising given the extensive identification of a relationship between political viewpoint and opinion regarding climate change (Clements, 2012; O’Sullivan and Emmelhainz, 2014), but the fact that this viewpoint was held concurrent with a desire to depoliticise scientific debate reinforces understandings that challenges to the linear, objective model of scientific enquiry are viewed as undesirable. CSs were acutely aware, and often made uncomfortable by, recognition that much debate centred on policy disagreement rather than the science itself.…”

“…Leveraging overlapping opinions, such as consensus regarding particular scientific claims, can reduce climate policy conflict (O'Sullivan & Emmelhainz, 2014) and exposure to ideologically dissimilar viewpoints has also been found to reduce public dissemination of extreme opinions (Wojcieszak & Rojas, 2011). …”

“…Exposure to others’ opinions is a known driver of public and individual opinion formation (Moussaid et al, 2013), and critically, explicit recognition of opinion overlaps has been shown to increase positive attitudes across disputing groups (Dovidio et al, 2012). Leveraging overlapping opinions, such as consensus regarding particular scientific claims, can reduce climate policy conflict (O’Sullivan and Emmelhainz, 2014), and exposure to ideologically dissimilar viewpoints has also been found to reduce public dissemination of extreme opinions (Wojcieszak and Rojas, 2011).…”

Reducing Group Alignment in Factual Disputes? The Limited Effects of Social Identity Interventions

“…Although there are some limits to this strategy as well (Landrum, Lull, Akin, Hasell, & Jamieson, 2017), in-group messengers are on balance more persuasive than their counterparts. In the context of climate change, for example, highlighting the Pentagon’s response could help leverage the high regard for the military among American Conservatives (O’Sullivan & Emmelhainz, 2014). Demonstrating agreement among a diverse set of experts can likewise reduce perceived identity threat (Kahan et al, 2011).…”

Responsible communication

“…2014: 341). Toiseksi sopeutumiseen voidaan liittää laajoja ja yleisesti tavoittelemisen arvoisia asioita, kuten ruokaturvan saavuttaminen, kansanterveyden edistäminen, valtion kokonaisturvallisuuden ylläpitäminen sekä yleinen riskienhallinta (Moser 2018;O'Sullivan & Emmelhainz 2014;Romsdahl 2020). Aiemmissa tutkimuksissa esimerkiksi terveyskehykset on todettu toimivaksi strategiaksi viestiä ilmastonmuutoksesta (Kreslake ym.…”