THE VERDICT ON THIS ASSUMPTION: Mixed Bag
Political ideology can tell us a lot about the likelihood that an individual will hold certain views about climate change and whether he or she is likely to be supportive or unsupportive of particular climate policies. For example, polling suggests that people who identify as Democrats and hold a more liberal political ideology are much more likely to agree that climate change is happening, that it poses a threat 1 , that it is caused by human activities 2 and that something should be done to address it 3 . And the gap between parties actually grew between 2003 and 2008, when Republicans’ beliefs in human-induced climate change declined significantly 4 . Currently, 69% of Democrats believe that climate change is due mostly to human activities compared with 31% of Republicans and 33% of Independents. But breaking down those numbers further, nearly half (47%) of liberal and moderate Republicans think that climate change is due mostly to human activities (while only 22% of conservative Republicans think this) 5 .
Frames Associated with This Assumption:
So while political ideology clearly plays an important role, it is also important to look at the other insights suggested by the data. For example, according to the data cited above, nearly one third of Republicans agree that climate change is due to human activities, and nearly half of liberal and moderate Republicans agree with this. This tells us that it would be inaccurate to conclude that someone doesn’t believe climate change is happening simply because he or she is a Republican. Perhaps the more interesting question is why some Republicans believe climate change is happening, while others do not.
Educational status also plays an important role in determining perceptions of climate change – particularly among Democrats. Among Democrats, individuals with a college education are much more likely to say that global warming is happening as a result of human activity (86%) than Democrats without a college education (57%) 1 .
As discussed in Assumption 12 on social belonging, social science research suggests that party affiliation shapes people’s thinking in complex and subtle ways. According to some research, the position of one’s political party has a very strong influence over the beliefs and perceptions of any individual, even though it may not be at the conscious level. More specifically, one study found that when party information is absent, people tend to determine the acceptability of particular policies based on long-held ideological beliefs 2 . However, when information about party perspective is available, people tend to adopt that position as their own regardless of the content of the policy. Why does this happen? The researchers found that when information about the positions of political parties was provided, it shaped the policy attitudes of individuals by shifting the assumed factual qualities of the policy in question, as well as its perceived moral connotations. In other words, the political party’s perspective became a frame through which the individual interpreted and gave meaning to the information that was presented.
Subsequent studies have found similar patterns, and have concluded that disseminating accurate, science-based information is not sufficient to garner public support because individuals – of all worldviews – will only recognize such information as being valid if it is presented in ways that reinforce their cultural predispositions 3 . People interpret the information they receive through a cultural lens. That lens may either increase or decrease the likelihood that they will pay attention to information and will also shape their interpretation of the information.
If we are able to recognize the tendency for people to focus in on particular messages while disregarding others, we may be able to fine-tune our communications efforts to overcome these impediments. Referencing and learning from individuals such as former Congressman Bob Inglis, who defies categorization based on political party in his work on climate change, can also help in these efforts.
- Present information about climate change in a way that affirms party-related cultural values (i.e. “clean energy solutions put Americans back to work” for conservative Republicans focused on economic issues above all else, while an emphasis on market innovation likely resonates better with Libertarians)
- Show support from leaders on both sides of the ideological divide whenever possible, since people tend to be more open-minded about ideas with diverse support—and they tend to reject ideas they perceive as being advocated by people whose values they oppose.
- Craft messages that evoke stories people use to understand the world. For example, who are the ‘heroes’ and who are the ‘villains’ from a conservative’s perspective? By crafting messages this way, messages become more culturally congenial to particular target audiences, who are then more able to focus on the content of the information.
