Psychological Barriers to Bipartisan Public Support for Climate Policy

被引:125
|
作者
Van Boven, Leaf [1 ]
Ehret, Phillip J. [2 ]
Sherman, David K. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Colorado Boulder, Dept Psychol & Neurosci, UCB 345, Boulder, CO 80309 USA
[2] Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Dept Psychol & Brain Sci, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
climate change; environment; social cognition; judgment; intergroup relations; attitudes; application; policy; PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE; SELF-AFFIRMATION; PARTISAN POLARIZATION; NAIVE REALISM; SOCIAL NORMS; ALCOHOL-USE; PARTY; BELIEFS; SCIENCE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1177/1745691617748966
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:492 / 507
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Perception Matters: The Pitfalls of Misperceiving Psychological Barriers to Climate Policy
    Weber, Elke U.
    [J]. PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2018, 13 (04) : 508 - 511
  • [2] CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT OF CIVIL-RIGHTS PUBLIC-POLICY - FROM BIPARTISAN TO PARTISAN CONVERGENCE
    MILLER, CM
    WALTON, H
    [J]. CONGRESS & THE PRESIDENCY-A JOURNAL OF CAPITAL STUDIES, 1994, 21 (01): : 11 - 27
  • [3] How robust is public support for unilateral climate policy?
    Bernauer, Thomas
    Gampfer, Robert
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2015, 54 : 316 - 330
  • [4] Policy sequencing can increase public support for ambitious climate policy
    Montfort, Simon
    Fesenfeld, Lukas
    Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle
    Ingold, Karin
    [J]. POLICY AND SOCIETY, 2023, 42 (04) : 454 - 477
  • [5] Barriers and Enablers for Integrating Public Health Cobenefits in Urban Climate Policy
    Negev, Maya
    Zea-Reyes, Leonardo
    Caputo, Livio
    Weinmayr, Gudrun
    Potter, Clive
    de Nazelle, Audrey
    [J]. ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 43 : 255 - 270
  • [6] Co-dynamics of climate policy stringency and public support
    Konc, Theo
    Drews, Stefan
    Savin, Ivan
    van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M.
    [J]. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2022, 74
  • [7] Natural disasters, salience and public support for climate change policy
    McCoy, Shawn J.
    McDonough, Ian K.
    Tra, Constant
    [J]. EMPIRICAL ECONOMICS, 2024, 67 (04) : 1691 - 1704
  • [8] Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy
    Bernauer T.
    McGrath L.F.
    [J]. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6 (7) : 680 - 683
  • [9] Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy
    Bernauer, Thomas
    McGrath, Liam F.
    [J]. NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, 2016, 6 (07) : 680 - 683
  • [10] BIPARTISAN CLIMATE ACTION
    BAGLEY, C. H. A. R. L. E. S. M. J. R.
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 2019, 321 (02) : 7 - 7