Abstract
While considerable research has investigated the importance of the public’s understanding of the scientific consensus on climate change beliefs and policy support, only recently have scholars begun to evaluate the role of social consensus perceptions, e.g., what others in the same group think. People receive information about these norms directly from social interactions, such as with neighbors and friends, but also indirectly from media, as in reporting on national public opinion statistics. We assess how well the public understands the level of social consensus across different geographic scales—regional, state, and national—and test whether understanding these norms differentially relates to climate and energy policy support. Among a representative sample of Maryland adults surveyed in 2015 (n = 1547), nearly half underestimated the extent of the social consensus about climate change within their region, state, and country. Individuals’ consensus perceptions were significantly related to the true social consensus—estimated through survey data—at the regional scale; however, the size of the relationship was small. We found that consensus perceptions across all geographic levels related to support for climate policy, as mediated by climate belief certainty. But perceptions of social consensus at smaller spatial scales—e.g., regional—appear to have larger effects on public opinion. The results of this study suggest both the importance—and limitations—of geographies of social consensus and the role of attitudinal certainty as a mediator for this relationship. Conveying localized social consensus information may promote public support of climate policy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahamse W, Steg L (2013) Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Glob Environ Chang 23:1773–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029
Abrams SJ, Fiorina MP (2012) “The big Sort” that wasn’t: a skeptical reexamination. PS-Polit Sci Polit 45:203–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096512000017
Akerlof K, Winch P, Parker C, Buckland A (2015) Public perceptions of climate change, fall 2015. Center for Climate Change Communication. George Mason University, Fairfax
Akerlof KL, Rowan KE, La Porte T, Batten, B., Ernst, H, & Sklarew, DM (2016) Risky business: engaging the public on sea level rise and inundation. Environ Sci Pol 66:314–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.002
Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J, Schneider SH (2010) Expert credibility in climate change. PNAS 107:12107–12109. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
Andridge RR, Little RJA (2010) A review of hot deck imputation for survey non-response. Int Stat Rev 78:40–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00103.x
Arlt D, Hoppe I, Schmitt JB, Silva-Schmidt FD, Brüggemann M (2018) Climate engagement in a digital age: exploring the drivers of participation in climate discourse online in the context of COP21. Environ Commun 12:84–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394892
Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14:396–402. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150783
Asch SE (1956) Studies of independence and conformity: I. a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr Gen Appl 70:1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
Bandura A (2006) Going global with social cognitive theory: From prospect to pay dirt. In: Donaldson SI Berger DE Pezdek K (eds) The rise of applied psychology: New frontiers and rewarding careers, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp 53–79
Bishop B (2008) The big sort: why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Bolsen T, Leeper TJ, Shapiro MA (2013) Doing what others do: norms, science, and collective action on global warming. Am Politics Res 42:65–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X13484173
Byerly H, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ Hammond-Wagner C, Palchak E, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Schwartz AJ, Fisher B (2018) Nudging pro-environmental behavior: evidence and opportunities. Front Ecol Environ 16:159–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1777
Campo S, Cameron KA (2006) Differential effects of exposure to social norms campaigns: a cause for concern. Health Commun 19:209–219. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1903_3
Chung A, Rimal RN (2016) Social norms: a review. Rev Commun Res 4:1–28. https://doi.org/10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2016.04.01.008
Cialdini RB (2007) Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika 72:263–268 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1560-6
Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 58:1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
Cialdini RB, Demaine LJ, Sagarin BJ, Barrett DW, Rhoads K, Winter PL (2006) Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Soc Influ 1:3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510500181459
Clarkson JJ, Tormala ZL, Rucker DD, Dugan, RG (2013) The malleable influence of social consensus on attitude certainty. J Exp Soc Psychol 49(6):1019–1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.001
Connor P, Harris E, Guy S, Fernando J, Shank DB, Kurz T, Bain PG, Kashima Y (2016) Interpersonal communication about climate change: how messages change when communicated through simulated online social networks. Clim Chang 136:463–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1643-z
Cook J, Oreskes N, Doran PT Anderegg WR, Verheggen B, Maibach EW, Carlton JS, Lewandowsky S, Skuce AG, Green SA, Nuccitelli D (2016) Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environ Res Lett 11:048002
Dawes RM, Mulford M (1996) The false consensus effect and overconfidence: flaws in judgment or flaws in how we study judgment? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 65:201–211
Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM, Dillman DA (2009) Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken
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 1:462–466. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1295
Doran PT, Zimmerman MK (2009) Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos T Am Geophys Un 90:22–23. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009EO030002
Farrow K, Grolleau G, Ibanez L (2017) Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: a review of the evidence. Ecol Econ 140:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017
Finson KD (2002) Drawing a scientist: what we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. Sch Sci Math 102:335–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18217.x
Foxcroft DR, Moreira MT, Almeida Santimano NM, Smith LA (2015) Social norms information for alcohol misuse in university and college students. The Cochrane Library
Gallup (2015) State of the states [Maryland]. In: Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx. Accessed 17 Jun 2016
Geiger N, Swim JK (2016) Climate of silence: pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. J Environ Psychol 47:79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.002
Goldberg MH, van der Linden S, Ballew MT, Rosenthal SA, Leiserowitz A(2019a) The role of anchoring in judgments about expert consensus. J Appl Soc Psychol 49:192–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12576
Goldberg MH, van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E (2019b) Perceived social consensus can reduce ideological biases on climate change. Environ Behav:0013916519853302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519853302
Haidt J (2003) The moral emotions. In: Davidson RJ, Scherer KR, Goldsmith HH (eds) Handbook of affective sciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 852–870
Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York
Hertel-Fernandez A, Mildenberger M, Stokes LC, Link to external site this link will open in a new window (2019) Legislative staff and representation in Congress, vol 113. The American Political Science Review, Washington, pp 1–18
Hoffman A (2015) How culture shapes the climate change debate. Stanford University Press, Standford, California
Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG, Fielding KS (2016) Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6:622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
Howe PD, Mildenberger M, Marlon JR, Leiserowitz A (2015) Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nat Clim Chang 5:596–603. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2583
Kahan DM (2012a) Why we are poles apart on climate change. Nature 488:255–255. https://doi.org/10.1038/488255a
Kahan DM (2012b) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In: Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Roeser S, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics and social implications of risk. Springer, London, pp 725–760
Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14:147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
Keeter S, Kennedy C, Dimock M, Best J, Craighill P (2006) Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opin Q 70:759–779. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl035
Kobayashi K (2018) The impact of perceived scientific and social consensus on scientific beliefs:40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017748948
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 77:7–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9068-8
Latané B (1981) The psychology of social impact. Am Psychol 36:343–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.343
Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Rosenthal S (2015) Climate change in the American mind: March 2015. Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, New Haven
Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Rosenthal S, Cutler M, Kotcher J (2018) Climate change in the American mind: March 2018. Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven
Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Rosenthal S, Kotcher J, Bergquist P, Ballew MT, Goldberg M, Gustafson A (2019) Climate change in the American mind: November 2019. Yale University and George Mason University., New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
Levine M, Prosser A, Evans D, Reicher S (2005) Identity and emergency intervention: how social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 31:443–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271651
Leviston Z, Walker I, Morwinski S (2013) Your opinion on climate change might not be as common as you think. Nat Clim Chang 3:334–337. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1743
Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Vaughan S (2013) The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat Clim Chang 3:399–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720
Lewis EF, Hardy M, Snaith B (2013) Estimating the effect of nonresponse bias in a survey of hospital organizations. Eval Health Prof 36:330–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278713496565
Liu JC-E, Zhao B (2017) Who speaks for climate change in China? Evidence from Weibo. Clim Chang 140:413–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1883-y
Maryland Department of the Environment (2015) The 2015 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act Plan update. Baltimore, MD
McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Xiao C (2013) Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Clim Chang 119:511–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9
Milfont TL (2012) The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change: a one-year longitudinal study. Risk Anal 32:1003–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01800.x
Myers TA (2011) Goodbye, listwise deletion: presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data. Commun Methods Meas 5:297–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2011.624490
Myers TA, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Akerlof K, Leiserowitz AA (2013) The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nat Clim Chang 3:343–347. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1754
Myers TA, Maibach E, Peters E, Leiserowitz A (2015) Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: the results of two experiments. PLoS One 10:e0133103. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133103
Paternoster R, Brame R, Mazerolle P, Piquero A (1998) Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology 36:859–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x
Pearce W, Brown B, Nerlich B, Koteyko N (2015) Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 6:613–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.366
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2012) Assessing the representativeness of public opinion surveys. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Washington, DC
Reimer T, Hoffrage U (2012) Ecological rationality for teams and committees: heuristics in group decision making. In: Todd PM, Gigerenzer G (eds) Ecological rationality: intelligence in the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 335–359
Research!America (2013) Most Americans can’t name a living scientist. Research!America and Zogby Analytics
Rimal RN, Real K (2005) How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms: a test of the theory of normative social behavior. Commun Res 32:389–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205275385
Roser-Renouf C, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A, Zhao X (2014) The genesis of climate change activism: from key beliefs to political action. Clim Chang 125:163–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1173-5
Ruddell D, Harlan S, Grossman-Clarke S, Chowell G (2012) Scales of perception: public awareness of regional and neighborhood climates. Clim Chang 111:581–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0165-y
Schuldt JP, Konrath SH, Schwarz N (2011) “Global warming” or “climate change”? Public Opin Q 75:115–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq073
Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V (2007) The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol Sci 18:429–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
Schwirplies C (2018) Citizens’ acceptance of climate change adaptation and mitigation: a survey in China, Germany, and the U.S. Ecol Econ 145:308–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.003
Shwed U, Bearman PS (2010) The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation. Am Sociol Rev 75:817–840. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410388488
Sibley CG, Kurz T (2013) A model of climate belief profiles: how much does it matter if people question human causation? Anal Soc Issues Public Policy 13:245–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12008
Stern MJ, Bilgen I, Dillman DA (2014) The state of survey methodology challenges, dilemmas, and new frontiers in the era of the tailored design. Field Method 26:284–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X13519561
Sunstein C, Thaler R (2008) Nudge. The politics of libertarian paternalism New Haven
Tormala ZL, Rucker DD (2007) Attitude certainty: a review of past findings and emerging perspectives. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 1:469–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00025.x
van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Feinberg G, Maibach E (2015) The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence. PLoS One 10:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Maibach EW (2016) Communicating the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is an effective and depolarizing public engagement strategy: experimental evidence from a large national replication study. Available at SSRN
van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E (2019) The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication. J Environ Psychol 62:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009
Visser PS, Mirabile RR (2004) Attitudes in the social context: the impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. J Pers Soc Psychol 87:779–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.779
Watt S, Larkin C (2010) Prejudiced people perceive more community support for their views: the role of own, media and peer attitudes in perceived consensus. J Appl Soc Psychol 40:710–731
Wechsler H, Nelson TE, Lee JE, Seibring M, Lewis C, Keeling RP (2003) Perception and reality: a national evaluation of social norms marketing interventions to reduce college students’ heavy alcohol use. J Stud Alcohol 64:484–494
Williams HTP, McMurray JR, Kurz T, Hugo Lambert F (2015) Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Glob Environ Chang 32:126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication (2017) Yale climate opinion maps [data download]. In: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/. Accessed 17 Jun 2019
Zhang B, Van Der Linden S, Mildenberger M, Marlon JR, Howe PD, Leiserowitz A (2018) Experimental effects of climate messages vary geographically. Nat Clim Chang 8:370. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0122-0
Ziegler A (2017) Political orientation, environmental values, and climate change beliefs and attitudes: an empirical cross country analysis. Energy Econ 63:144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.01.022
Funding
This research was funded by the Town Creek Foundation of Easton, MD.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The work was conducted while both authors were at the Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University. ER led the planning and writing of the paper. KA developed the survey measures, collected the data, and conducted the analyses.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Diana Sietz
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 535 kb).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ban Rohring, E.J., Akerlof, K.L. Perceptions of social consensus at the regional level relate to prioritization and support of climate policy in Maryland, USA. Reg Environ Change 20, 72 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01652-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01652-3