IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcli/v8y2018i5d10.1038_s41558-018-0122-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experimental effects of climate messages vary geographically

Author

Listed:
  • Baobao Zhang

    (Yale University)

  • Sander van der Linden

    (University of Cambridge)

  • Matto Mildenberger

    (University of California Santa Barbara)

  • Jennifer R. Marlon

    (Yale University)

  • Peter D. Howe

    (Utah State University)

  • Anthony Leiserowitz

    (Yale University)

Abstract

Social science scholars routinely evaluate the efficacy of diverse climate frames using local convenience or nationally representative samples1–5. For example, previous research has focused on communicating the scientific consensus on climate change, which has been identified as a ‘gateway’ cognition to other key beliefs about the issue6–9. Importantly, although these efforts reveal average public responsiveness to particular climate frames, they do not describe variation in message effectiveness at the spatial and political scales relevant for climate policymaking. Here we use a small-area estimation method to map geographical variation in public responsiveness to information about the scientific consensus as part of a large-scale randomized national experiment (n = 6,301). Our survey experiment finds that, on average, public perception of the consensus increases by 16 percentage points after message exposure. However, substantial spatial variation exists across the United States at state and local scales. Crucially, responsiveness is highest in more conservative parts of the country, leading to national convergence in perceptions of the climate science consensus across diverse political geographies. These findings not only advance a geographical understanding of how the public engages with information about scientific agreement, but will also prove useful for policymakers, practitioners and scientists engaged in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Suggested Citation

  • Baobao Zhang & Sander van der Linden & Matto Mildenberger & Jennifer R. Marlon & Peter D. Howe & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2018. "Experimental effects of climate messages vary geographically," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(5), pages 370-374, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcli:v:8:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1038_s41558-018-0122-0
    DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0122-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0122-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41558-018-0122-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. A. K. Enamul Haque & Heman D. Lohano & Pranab Mukhopadhyay & Mani Nepal & Fathimath Shafeeqa & Shamen P. Vidanage, 2019. "NDC pledges of South Asia: are the stakeholders onboard?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 237-244, July.
    2. Andrew M. Linke & Frank D. W. Witmer & John O’Loughlin, 2020. "Do people accurately report droughts? Comparison of instrument-measured and national survey data in Kenya," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1143-1160, October.
    3. Tessa Buchanan & James Ackland & Sam Lloyd & Sander Linden & Lee de-Wit, 2022. "Clear consensus among international public for government action at COP26: patriotic and public health frames produce marginal gains in support," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-8, February.
    4. Tristan J B Cann & Iain S Weaver & Hywel T P Williams, 2021. "Ideological biases in social sharing of online information about climate change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-25, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcli:v:8:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1038_s41558-018-0122-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.