Blog post

Don’t give up on engaging conservatives

Apr 14, 2014 by | 1 Comment

This guest post is by Paul Connor, a post­graduate researcher in social psy­cho­logy at the University of Melbourne. His research is cur­rently focused on cli­mate change com­mu­nic­a­tion and pro-environmental cul­tural change processes.

There is little doubt that the issue of cli­mate change has become increas­ingly polar­ised along polit­ical lines over the past decade. Yet des­pite this trend, it remains important for cli­mate advoc­ates to remember that this party-line split is far from abso­lute. In both Australia and the USA, for example, one in four con­ser­vative voters still accepts the basic tenets of cli­mate change sci­ence, and as the fol­lowing research sug­gests, there may be ways of tail­oring cli­mate mes­sages to increase their appeal to such audiences.

System-Sanctioned Change

In their 2010 paper, Irina Feygina of New York University and col­leagues explored the con­nec­tion between envir­on­mental atti­tudes and a psy­cho­lo­gical tend­ency known as ‘system jus­ti­fic­a­tion’. This is a  tend­ency strongly related to con­ser­vative polit­ical atti­tudes to defend society’s status quo and see ‘the way things are’ as ‘the ways things should be’. Across two exper­i­ments, res­ults showed system jus­ti­fic­a­tion to be cor­rel­ated with the denial of envir­on­mental prob­lems. Indeed, the extent to which people reported holding system jus­ti­fying beliefs largely (but not totally) explained the con­nec­tion between people’s polit­ical ori­ent­a­tion and their envir­on­mental denial.

Following this, Feygina and col­leagues presented people with a gen­eric mes­sage about the envir­on­ment, and some of them also a ‘system-sanctioned change’ mes­sage, which read:

Being pro-environmental allows us to pro­tect and pre­serve the American way of life. It is pat­ri­otic to con­serve the country’s nat­ural resources”.

While res­ults showed that there was no overall dif­fer­ence between the ‘system sanc­tioned’ mes­sage and the normal mes­sage in pro­moting pro-environmental inten­tions and beha­viours, the system-sanctioned mes­sage was sig­ni­fic­antly more effective among people high in system jus­ti­fic­a­tion. The authors con­cluded that: “…reframing envir­on­ment­alism as sup­porting (rather than under­mining) the American way or life elim­in­ates the neg­ative effect of system jus­ti­fic­a­tion on pro-environmental behavior”.

Co-Benefits Framing

A 2012 study by Paul Bain from the University of Queensland and col­leagues explored whether cli­mate change scep­tics could per­haps be sold on cli­mate change action by stressing its pos­sible co-benefits in addi­tion to mit­ig­ating cli­mate change. They presented a large sample of people (including 128 cli­mate scep­tics) one of three ‘per­sonal testi­mo­nials’ relating dif­ferent reasons for sup­porting cli­mate action.

The first sug­gested cli­mate action would create a friend­lier society (“I think it’d make us more con­sid­erate in other ways – like looking out for each other, and caring for people in the com­munity”). The second sug­gested it would pro­mote soci­etal devel­op­ment (“Taking action to reduce energy pol­lu­tion would lead to new sci­entific break­throughs and new indus­tries”). And the third sug­gested it would pre­vent envir­on­mental destruc­tion (“We’d be less affected by food and water shortages”).

As expected, res­ults showed that the testi­mo­nials pro­moting the co-benefits of cli­mate change action pro­duced sig­ni­fic­antly higher pro-environmental inten­tions among the scep­tics than the testi­mo­nial focused on envir­on­mental destruc­tion. Moreover, the co-benefits testi­mo­nials were also more effective in pro­du­cing envir­on­mental cit­izen­ship inten­tions even among the cli­mate change believers (though this effect did not reach stat­ist­ical significance).

Stressing the Consensus

Research indic­ates that the public vastly under­es­tim­ates the level of con­sensus around cli­mate change sci­ence. A 2011 study in the USA found that among its 751 par­ti­cipants, 66% could be clas­si­fied as ‘con­sensus not under­stood’. Moreover, the res­ults showed that there was a strong cor­rel­a­tion between people’s per­cep­tions of the sci­entific con­sensus around cli­mate change and their sup­port for cli­mate change policies, with people’s per­cep­tions of the sci­entific con­sensus were shown to explain nearly 60% of the vari­ance in their sup­port for cli­mate policies.

Extending upon these find­ings, Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Bristol and col­leagues invest­ig­ated the effects of increasing people’s per­cep­tions of the sci­entific con­sensus. They began by asking people how many out of 100 cli­mate sci­ent­ists they believed endorsed the con­sensus view. Following this, they provided half of the people with inform­a­tion about the fac­tual 97% sci­entific con­sensus on cli­mate change.

They then asked again about people’s cli­mate beliefs, as well as their endorse­ment of ‘free-market’ ideo­logy, which is known to be related to lower belief in cli­mate change. Results showed that providing the con­sensus inform­a­tion had a large effect.

On the follow-up ques­tioning, the group that received the con­sensus inform­a­tion showed sig­ni­fic­antly higher belief in cli­mate change than the group not provided the con­sensus inform­a­tion. In addi­tion, while endorse­ment of free market cap­it­alism dis­played its normal cor­rel­a­tion with lower belief in cli­mate change among the group who did not receive the con­sensus inform­a­tion, among the people who received the con­sensus inform­a­tion there was no such correlation.

The authors con­cluded that “the role of ideo­logy was drastic­ally atten­u­ated when par­ti­cipants were provided with inform­a­tion about the sci­entific con­sensus”. These studies indicate that cli­mate act­iv­ists do not neces­sarily need to give up on conservative-minded demo­graphics. Instead, they show us that by keeping in mind the argu­ments and frames that appeal to con­ser­vat­ives, the non-climate related bene­fits of cli­mate action, and the import­ance of an accurate under­standing of the sci­entific con­sensus, there are ways of subtly tail­oring com­mu­nic­a­tions that will be more effective among more con­ser­vative audiences.

Download COIN’s report on enga­ging with con­ser­vative audi­ences here.

1 Comment + Add Comment

  • “Following this, they provided half of the people with inform­a­tion about the fac­tual 97% sci­entific con­sensus on cli­mate change.”

    It’s actu­ally about 80–85%. (If you think sci­ence is decided by voting, that is.)

    For example, Doran and Zimmerman 2009 asked 10257 Earth sci­ent­ists for their opinion on two ques­tions: “1. When com­pared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global tem­per­at­ures have gen­er­ally risen, fallen, or remained rel­at­ively con­stant?” and “2. Do you think human activity is a sig­ni­ficant con­trib­uting factor in chan­ging mean global tem­per­at­ures?” and got 3146 replies. They report “Results show that overall, 90% of par­ti­cipants answered “risen” to ques­tion 1 and 82% answered yes to ques­tion 2.”

    They then go on to con­sider a smaller subset of 79 par­ti­cipants who pub­lish a lot in cli­mate sci­ence of who 75 answered ‘yes’ to ques­tion 2, (3 answered ‘no’ and 2 were not asked because they had answered ‘not risen’ to the first ques­tion.) That’s 95%.

    Thus, the cor­rect state­ment is: “The per­centage of sci­ent­ists who get more than half of their papers pub­lished in cli­mate sci­ence and who think global tem­per­at­ures have risen who also think human activ­ities are “a sig­ni­ficant con­trib­uting factor” is 97%. (Give or take about 5% due to the small sample size)”

    Bray and von Storch got a sim­ilar result, and other sur­veys of sci­ent­ists and met­eor­o­lo­gists have some­times got even lower results.

    It’s also worth noting that a majority of scep­tics think that man is “a sig­ni­ficant con­trib­uting factor”. That’s not what the argu­ment is about.

    If Lewandowsky can’t even get some­thing simple to measure like the opin­ions of sci­ent­ists right, why should anyone believe him on any­thing else?

Make a comment

Creative Commons 2011 - 2015, Talking Climate
A project by COIN & PIRC.
This website is a project of Climate Outreach

This website, a project of Climate Outreach (COIN), has been integrated into the new Climate Outreach website. Any updates since 21 October 2015 have been made to the new website only, not here, and this website will soon be deleted. Please bookmark our new website – we look forward to continuing to share the latest in climate communication research with you. We are now tweeting from @climateoutreach so please follow us there.