Multidimensional partisanship shapes climate policy support and behaviours
[ad_1]
Cook, J. et al. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 048002 (2016).
Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8252–8259 (2018).
Unruh, G. C. Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30, 317–325 (2002).
Sovacool, B. K., Hess, D. J. & Cantoni, R. Energy transitions from the cradle to the grave: a meta-theoretical framework integrating responsible innovation, social practices, and energy justice. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 75, 102027 (2021).
Compston, H. & Bailey, I. Climate policy strength compared: China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, and Japan. Climate Policy 16, 145–164 (2016).
Farrell, J. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 92–97 (2016).
Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011).
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G. & Fielding, K. S. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 622–626 (2016).
McCright, A. M., Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., Shwom, R. L., Brechin, S. R. & Allen, S. Ideology, capitalism, and climate: explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 21, 180–189 (2016).
Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8, 239–260 (2002).
Allen, S., Dietz, T. & McCright, A. M. Measuring household energy efficiency behaviors with attention to behavioral plasticity in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10, 133–140 (2015).
O’Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., Yarnal, B. & Wiefek, N. Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Soc. Sci. Q. 83, 1–17 (2002).
Mildenberger, M., Howe, P. D. & Miljanich, C. Households with solar installations are ideologically diverse and more politically active than their neighbours. Nat. Energy 4, 1033–1039 (2019).
Sintov, N. D., Abou-Ghalioum, V. & White, L. V. The partisan politics of low-carbon transport: why Democrats are more likely to adopt electric vehicles than Republicans in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 68, 101576 (2020).
Greene, S. Social identity theory and party identification. Soc. Sci. Q. 85, 136–153 (2004).
Iyengar, S., Sood, G. & Lelkes, Y. Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opin. Q. 76, 405–431 (2012).
Lyons, J. The family and partisan socialization in red and blue america. Polit. Psychol. 38, 297–312 (2017).
Sapiro, V. Not your parents’ political socialization: introduction for a new generation. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 7, 1–23 (2004).
Bisgaard, M. & Slothuus, R. Partisan elites as culprits? how party cues shape partisan perceptual gaps. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 62, 456–469 (2018).
Carmichael, J. T. & Brulle, R. J. Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013. Environ. Polit. 26, 232–252 (2017).
Cohen, G. L. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 808 (2003).
Mayer, A. National energy transition, local partisanship? Elite cues, community identity, and support for clean power in the United States’. Energy Res. Soc.Sci. 50, 143–150 (2019).
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (eds Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S.) 33–47 (Brooks/Cole, 1979).
Bankert, A. Negative and positive partisanship in the 2016 US presidential elections. Polit. Behav. 43, 1467–1485 (2021).
Green, D., Palmquist, B. & Schickler, E. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. (Yale Univ. Press, 2002).
Huddy, L., Mason, L. & Aarøe, L. Expressive partisanship: campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 109, 1–17 (2015).
Huddy, L., Bankert, A. & Davies, C. Expressive versus instrumental partisanship in multiparty European systems. Polit. Psychol. 39, 173–199 (2018).
Zhong, Chen-Bo, Dijksterhuis, A. & Galinsky, A. D. The merits of unconscious thought in creativity. Psychol. Sci. 19, 912–918 (2008).
Bankert, A. in Research Handbook on Political Partisanship (eds Oscarsson, H. & Holmberg, S.) 89–101 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020).
Brewer, M. B. The psychology of prejudice: ingroup love and outgroup hate? J. Soc. Issues 55, 429–444 (1999).
Abramowitz, A. I. & Webster, S. The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of US elections in the 21st century. Elect. Stud. 41, 12–22 (2016).
Abramowitz, A. I. & Webster, S. W. Negative partisanship: why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Polit. Psychol. 39, 119–135 (2018).
Lee, A. H., Lelkes, Y., Hawkins, C. B. & Theodoridis, A. G. Negative partisanship is not more prevalent than positive partisanship. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 951–963 (2022).
Endres, K. & Panagopoulos, C. Boycotts, buycotts, and political consumerism in America. Res. Polit. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017738632 (2017).
Webster, S. W. & Abramowitz, A. I. The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the US electorate. Am. Polit. Res. 45, 621–647 (2017).
Brennan, G. & Hamlin, A. Expressive voting and electoral equilibrium. Public Choice 95, 149–175 (1998).
Mayer, A. Support for displaced coal workers is popular and bipartisan in the United States: evidence from western Colorado. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 90, 102593 (2022).
Hazboun, S. O. The politics of decarbonization: examining conservative partisanship and differential support for climate change science and renewable energy in Utah. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70, 101769 (2020).
Stadelmann-Steffen, I. & Dermont, C. The unpopularity of incentive-based instruments: what improves the cost–benefit ratio? Public Choice 175, 37–62 (2018).
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M. & Siegrist, M. Addressing climate change: determinants of consumers’ willingness to act and to support policy measures. J. Environ. Psychol. 32, 197–207 (2012).
Mize, T. D. Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociol. Sci. 6, 81–117 (2019).
Williams, R. Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata J. 12, 308–331 (2012).
Gustafson, A. The development of partisan polarization over the green new deal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 940–944 (2019).
Jenkins-Smith, H. C. Partisan asymmetry in temporal stability of climate change beliefs. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 322–328 (2020).
Goldberg, M. H. Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 573–577 (2021).
Valkengoed, A. M. & Steg, L. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 158–163 (2019).
Steg, L. Limiting climate change requires research on climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 759–761 (2018).
Otto, I. M. et al. Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 2354–2365 (2020).
Winkelmann, R. Social tipping processes towards climate action: a conceptual framework’. Ecol. Econ. 192, 107242 (2022).
McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Anti-reflexivity. Theory Cult. Soc. 27, 100–133 (2010).
Campbell, T. H. & Kay, A. C. Solution aversion: on the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 809 (2014).
Hamilton, L. C. Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change 104, 231–242 (2011).
Ballew, M. T., Pearson, A. R., Goldberg, M. H., Rosenthal, S. A. & Leiserowitz, A. Does socioeconomic status moderate the political divide on climate change? The roles of education, income, and individualism. Glob. Environ. Change 60, 102024 (2020).
Smith, E. K. & Hempel, L. M. Alignment of values and political orientations amplifies climate change attitudes and behaviors. Climatic Change 172, 1–28 (2022).
McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Soc. Probl. 50, 348–373 (2003).
Roulin, N. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater: comparing data quality of crowdsourcing, online panels, and student samples. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 8, 190–196 (2015).
Walter, S. L. A tale of two sample sources: do results from online panel data and conventional data converge? J. Bus. Psychol. 34, 425–452 (2019).
European Social Survey. European Social Survey Round 8 Data: Edition 2.0. (Norwegian Centre for Research Data, 2016).
Diekmann, A. & Preisendörfer, P. Green and greenback: the behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration. Soc. 15, 441–472 (2003).
Pew Research Center. Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016 (Pew Research Center, 2016).
Smith, E. K. & Mayer, A. A social trap for the climate? Collective action, trust and climate change risk perception in 35 countries. Glob. Environ. Change 49, 140–153 (2018).
Mood, C. Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 26, 67–82 (2010).
Smith, E. K. & Mayer, A. Replication Data for: Multi-dimensional Partisanship Shapes Climate Policy Support and Behaviors (Harvard Dataverse, 2022); https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/8V9FDH
[ad_2]
Read More
