Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 148, Issue 1–2, pp 61–80 | Cite as

Correcting misinformation about climate change: the impact of partisanship in an experimental setting

  • Salil D. Benegal
  • Lyle A. Scruggs
Article

Abstract

Misperceptions of the scientific consensus on climate change are an important problem in environmental policy. These misperceptions stem from a combination of ideological polarization and statements from prominent politicians who endorse information contradicting or misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change. Our study tests a source credibility theory of correction using different partisan sources of information in a survey experiment. We find that corrections from Republicans speaking against their partisan interest are most likely to persuade respondents to acknowledge and agree with the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. The extent of these effects vary by the partisanship of the recipient. Our results suggest that the partisan gap on climate change can be reduced by highlighting the views of elite Republicans who acknowledge the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Adam Berinsky, Thomas Hayes, Paul Herrnson, Blair Johnson, Matto Mildenberger, Megan Mullin, Brendan Nyhan, Mike Shor, Matthew Singer, Gabriela Tafoya, Steven Webster, participants in the UConn Political Economy Workshop, and the editors and reviewers at Climatic Change for their constructive feedback on this study.

Replication materials

Replication materials for this study are available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/KV6S5V

References

  1. Achen CH, Bartels LM (2016) Democracy for realists: why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahler DJ (2014) Self-fulfilling misperceptions of public polarization. J Politics 76(3):607–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastardi A, Uhlmann EL, Ross L (2011) Wishful thinking: belief, desire, and the motivated evaluation of scientific evidence. Psychol Sci 22(6):731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berinsky, A. (2017). Rumors and health care reform: experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123415000186
  5. Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical turk. Polit Anal 20(3):351–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boussalis C, Coan TG (2016) Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt. Glob Environ Chang 36:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brulle RJ (2014) Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Clim Chang 122(4):681–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6(1):3–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calvert RL (1985) The value of biased information: a rational choice model of political advice. J Politics 47(2):530–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chong D, Druckman JN (2007) Framing theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci 10:103–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook J, Oreskes N, Doran PT, Anderegg WR, Verheggen B, Maibach EW et al (2016) Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environ Res Lett 11(4):048002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coppock, A. (2018). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on Mechanical Turk: a replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods. ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  13. Ding D, Maibach EW, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2011) Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat Clim Chang 1(9):462–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ditto PH, Lopez DF (1992) Motivated skepticism: use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. J Pers Soc Psychol 63(4):568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Druckman JN (2001) On the limits of framing effects: who can frame? J Polit 63(4):1041–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2016). Preference change in competitive political environments. Annual Review Political Science, 19Google Scholar
  17. Dunlap, R. E., & Jacques, P. J. (2013). Climate change denial books and conservative think tanks: exploring the connection. Am Behav Sci, 0002764213477096Google Scholar
  18. Dunlap RE, McCright AM, Yarosh JH (2016) The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the US. Environ: Sci Policy Sustainable Development 58(5):4–23Google Scholar
  19. Egan, P. J., & Mullin, M. (2017). Climate change: US public opinion. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1)Google Scholar
  20. Gauchat G (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am Sociol Rev 77(2):167–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guber DL (2013) A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. Am Behav Sci 57(1):93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahan DM (2015) Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology 36(S1):1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14(2):147–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1996) On the reality of cognitive illusion. Psychol Rev 103(3):582–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Lowe L, Visser PS (2006) The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: a study of popular concern about global warming. Clim Chang 77(1–2):7–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuklinski JH, Quirk PJ, Jerit J, Schwieder D, Rich RF (2000) Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. J Polit 62(3):790–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological bulletin, 108(3), 480Google Scholar
  28. Layzer, J. A. (2012). Open for business: conservatives’ opposition to environmental regulation. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Levendusky M, Malhotra N (2016) Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Political Communication 33(2):283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Vaughan S (2013) The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat Clim Chang 3(4):399–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  32. Lupia A, McCubbins MD (1998) The democratic dilemma: can citizens learn what they need to know? Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. McCright AM, Charters M, Dentzman K, Dietz T (2016) Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Top Cogn Sci 8:76–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Motta, M. (2017). The dynamics and political implications of anti-intellectualism in the United States. American Politics Research, 1532673X17719507Google Scholar
  35. Mullinix KJ, Leeper TJ, Druckman JN, Freese J (2015) The generalizability of survey experiments. J Experimental Political Sci 2(2):109–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nyhan B, Reifler J, Ubel PA (2013) The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Med Care 51(2):127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nyhan B, Reifler J, Porter E, Wood T (2018) Taking corrections literally but not seriously? The effects of information on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Working paper accessed at https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/trump-corrections.pdf
  38. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2011) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Paolacci G, Chandler J (2014) Inside the Turk: understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 23(3):184–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 19:123–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pew Research Center (2015) Global concern about climate change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions. NovemberGoogle Scholar
  42. Priester JR, Petty RE (1995) Source attributions and persuasion: perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 21(6):637–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shipan CR, Lowry WR (2001) Environmental policy and party divergence in congress. Political Res Quarterly 54(2):245–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skocpol T, Hertel-Fernandez A (2016) The Koch network and republican party extremism. Perspectives on Politics 14(3):681–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thorson E (2016) Belief echoes: the persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication 33(3):460–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Uscinski, J. E., & Parent, J. M. (2014). American conspiracy theories. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  47. Van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A.A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E.W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence. PLOS One  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
  48. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceDePauw UniversityGreencastleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations