IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v170y2022i3d10.1007_s10584-022-03321-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Denial and distrust: explaining the partisan climate gap

Author

Listed:
  • Dylan Bugden

    (Washington State University)

Abstract

Nowhere is the partisan politicization of science more pronounced than on the subject of climate change, with Republican and Democratic voters divided on whether climate change exists and how to address it. Existing research tends to explain the partisan climate gap through a process of manufactured doubt, with a network of corporate and conservative organizations using their considerable resources to spread denial about climate science among conservative and Republican voters. I argue that this explanation is incomplete and inconsistent with recent sociological research on scientific conflicts. I explore an alternative hypothesis for the partisan climate gap: distrust in science. I apply a Kitagawa-Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis to a large non-probability sample of Democrats and Republicans (n = 1808) to examine the relative contributions of climate science denial and scientific distrust to the partisan climate gap. Results show that lower levels of trust in science among Republicans explain a larger amount of the partisan climate gap than does climate science denial, though the magnitude of the difference in relative contribution varies by specific policy. These findings suggest that understanding the partisan climate gap requires extending our view beyond the climate change countermovement and toward a broader examination of the anti-scientific dimensions of the US conservative movement. I conclude by discussing how focusing on distrust, in conjunction with science denial, can enrich the study of climate change and science communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Dylan Bugden, 2022. "Denial and distrust: explaining the partisan climate gap," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-23, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:170:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-022-03321-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-022-03321-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-022-03321-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-022-03321-2?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huddy, Leonie & Mason, Lilliana & Aarøe, Lene, 2015. "Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(1), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Robert Brulle, 2014. "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(4), pages 681-694, February.
    3. Lawrence C. Hamilton & Joel Hartter & Kei Saito, 2015. "Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, August.
    4. Susanne C. Moser, 2016. "Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 345-369, May.
    5. Matthew J. Hornsey & Emily A. Harris & Paul G. Bain & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 622-626, June.
    6. Dan Kahan, 2012. "Why we are poles apart on climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 488(7411), pages 255-255, August.
    7. Ben Jann, 2008. "The Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition for linear regression models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 8(4), pages 453-479, December.
    8. Abel Gustafson & Seth A. Rosenthal & Matthew T. Ballew & Matthew H. Goldberg & Parrish Bergquist & John E. Kotcher & Edward W. Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2019. "The development of partisan polarization over the Green New Deal," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(12), pages 940-944, December.
    9. Timo Busch & Lena Judick, 2021. "Climate change—that is not real! A comparative analysis of climate-sceptic think tanks in the USA and Germany," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-23, January.
    10. Shanto Iyengar & Sean J. Westwood, 2015. "Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 690-707, July.
    11. James N. Druckman & Mary C. McGrath, 2019. "The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 111-119, February.
    12. Anton Gollwitzer & Cameron Martel & William J. Brady & Philip Pärnamets & Isaac G. Freedman & Eric D. Knowles & Jay J. Van Bavel, 2020. "Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 1186-1197, November.
    13. Lupia, Arthur, 2006. "How Elitism Undermines the Study of Voter Competence," MPRA Paper 349, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Joseph T. Ripberger & Carol L. Silva & Deven E. Carlson & Kuhika Gupta & Nina Carlson & Ani Ter-Mkrtchyan & Riley E. Dunlap, 2020. "Partisan asymmetry in temporal stability of climate change beliefs," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(4), pages 322-328, April.
    15. Matthew J. Hornsey, 2020. "Flux in scepticism raises hopes," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(4), pages 274-275, April.
    16. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Maxwell Boykoff, 2024. "Climate change countermovements and adaptive strategies: insights from Heartland Institute annual conferences a decade apart," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sam Crawley & Hilde Coffé & Ralph Chapman, 2022. "Climate Belief and Issue Salience: Comparing Two Dimensions of Public Opinion on Climate Change in the EU," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 307-325, July.
    2. Matthew T. Ballew & Jennifer R. Marlon & Matthew H. Goldberg & Edward W. Maibach & Seth A. Rosenthal & Emily Aiken & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2022. "Changing minds about global warming: vicarious experience predicts self-reported opinion change in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 1-25, August.
    3. Anne K. Armstrong & Marianne E. Krasny, 2020. "Tracing Paths from Research to Practice in Climate Change Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Voelkel, Jan G. & Stagnaro, Michael & Chu, James & Pink, Sophia Lerner & Mernyk, Joseph S. & Redekopp, Chrystal & Ghezae, Isaias & Cashman, Matthew & Adjodah, Dhaval & Allen, Levi, 2023. "Megastudy identifying effective interventions to strengthen Americans’ democratic attitudes," OSF Preprints y79u5, Center for Open Science.
    5. James N. Druckman, 2022. "Threats to Science: Politicization, Misinformation, and Inequalities," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 8-24, March.
    6. Hensel, Lukas & Witte, Marc & Caria, A. Stefano & Fetzer, Thiemo & Fiorin, Stefano & Götz, Friedrich M. & Gomez, Margarita & Haushofer, Johannes & Ivchenko, Andriy & Kraft-Todd, Gordon & Reutskaja, El, 2022. "Global Behaviors, Perceptions, and the Emergence of Social Norms at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 473-496.
    7. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    8. Erik O. Sterner & Tom Adawi & U. Martin Persson & Ulrika Lundqvist, 2019. "Knowing how and knowing when: unpacking public understanding of atmospheric CO2 accumulation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 49-67, May.
    9. Céline Nauges & Sarah Ann Wheeler & Kelly S. Fielding, 2021. "The relationship between country and individual household wealth and climate change concern: the mediating role of control," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16481-16503, November.
    10. Sugandha Srivastav & Ryan Rafaty, 2023. "Political Strategies to Overcome Climate Policy Obstructionism," Papers 2304.14960, arXiv.org.
    11. Megan Ayers & Jennifer R. Marlon & Matthew T. Ballew & Edward W. Maibach & Seth A. Rosenthal & Connie Roser-Renouf & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2024. "Changes in Global Warming’s Six Americas: an analysis of repeat respondents," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(6), pages 1-21, June.
    12. Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Christian Mumenthaler & Tobia Spampatti & Tobias Brosch, 2020. "Ideology as Filter: Motivated Information Processing and Decision-Making in the Energy Domain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-19, October.
    13. Srivastav, Sugandha & Rafaty, Ryan, 2021. "Five Worlds of Political Strategy in the Climate Movement," INET Oxford Working Papers 2021-07, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    14. Amy M. Wolaver & John A. Doces, 2021. "The impact of COVID‐19 and political identification on framing bias in an infectious disease experiment: The frame reigns supreme," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2459-2471, November.
    15. Knollenborg, Leonard & Sommer, Stephan, 2021. "Diverging beliefs on climate change and climate policy in Germany: The role of political orientations," Ruhr Economic Papers 909, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    16. Anne-Sophie Neyra, 2022. "“Polish People Are Starting to Hate Polish People”—Uncovering Emergent Patterns of Electoral Hostility in Post-Communist Europe," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-26, November.
    17. Stone, Daniel, 2018. ""Unmotivated Bias" and Partisan Hostility: Empirical Evidence," SocArXiv hr5ba, Center for Open Science.
    18. Sabrina J Mayer & Luana Russo, 2024. "What one is not: a new scale to measure Negative Party Identity in multiparty systems," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 2887-2906, June.
    19. Dominik Duell & Justin Mattias Valasek, 2018. "Social Polarization and Partisan Voting in Representative Democracies," CESifo Working Paper Series 7040, CESifo.
    20. Rotem Botvinik-Nezer & Matt Jones & Tor D. Wager, 2023. "A belief systems analysis of fraud beliefs following the 2020 US election," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1106-1119, July.

    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:spr:climat:v:170:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-022-03321-2. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.springer.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.