Climatic Change

, Volume 77, Issue 1–2, pp 7–43 | Cite as

The Origins and Consequences of democratic citizens' Policy Agendas: A Study of Popular Concern about Global Warming

  • Jon A. Krosnick
  • Allyson L. Holbrook
  • Laura Lowe
  • Penny S. Visser
Article

Abstract

This article proposes and tests a model of the causes and consequences of Americans’ judgments of the national seriousness of global warming. The model proposes that seriousness judgments about global warming are a function of beliefs about the existence of global warming, attitudes toward it, the certainty with which these beliefs and attitudes are held, and beliefs about human responsibility for causing global warming and people’s ability to remedy it. The model also proposes that beliefs about whether global warming is a problem are a function of relevant personal experiences (with the weather) and messages from informants (in this case, scientists), that attitudes toward global warming are a function of particular perceived consequences of global warming, and that certainty about these attitudes and beliefs is a function of knowledge and prior thought. Data from two representative sample surveys offer support for all of these propositions, document effects of national seriousness judgments on support for ameliorative efforts generally and specific ameliorative policies, and thereby point to psychological mechanisms that may be responsible for institutional and elite impact on the public’s assessments of national problem importance and on public policy preferences.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abelson, R. P.: 1988, ‘Conviction’, American Psychologist 43(4), 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R. M.: 1997, Information and Elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. M. and Brehm, J.: 1997, ‘Are Americans ambivalent towards racial policies?’, American Journal of Political Science 40(2), 345–374.Google Scholar
  4. Alvarez, R. M. and Franklin, C.: 1994, ‘Uncertainty and political perceptions’, Journal of Politics 56(3), 671–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, N. H.: 1981, Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, P.: 2005, Experts urge awareness on global warming. San Jose Mercury News, October 28.Google Scholar
  7. Andrews, F. M.: 1984, ‘Construct validity and error components of survey measures: A structural modeling approach’, Public Opinion Quarterly 48(Summer), 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atkinson, J. W.: 1958, Motives in Fantasy, Action, and Society: A Method of Assessment and Study. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  9. Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D.: 1993, Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Behr, R. L. and Iyengar, S.: 1985, ‘Television news, real-world cues, and changes in the public agenda’, Public Opinion Quarterly 49(Spring), 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bord, R. J., Fisher, A. and O'Connor, R. E.: 1997, ‘Is accurate understanding of global warming necessary to promote willingness to sacrifice?’ Risk: Health, Safety, and Environment 8(Fall), 339–354.Google Scholar
  12. Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B. and Read, D.: 1994, ‘What do people know about global climate change? 1. mental models’, Risk Analysis 14(6), 959–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowers, T. A.: 1973, ‘Newspaper political advertising and the agenda-setting function’, Journalism Quarterly 50(3), 552–556.Google Scholar
  14. Boykoff, M. T. and Boykoff, J. M.: 2004, ‘Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press’, Global Environmental Change 14, 125–136.Google Scholar
  15. Brehm, J.: 1993, The Phantom Respondents: Opinion Surveys and Political Representation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bonfadelli, H., Dahinden, U. and Leonarz, M.: 2002, ‘Biotechnology in Switzerland: High on the public agenda, but only moderate support’, Public Understanding of Science 11, 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brickman, P., Vita, C. R., Karuza, J., Jr., Coates, D., Cohn, E. and Kidder, L.: 1982, ‘Models of helping and coping’, American Psychologist 37(4), 368–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Canes-Rone, B.: 2001, ‘The president's legislative influence from public appeals’, American Journal of Political Science 45(2), 313–329.Google Scholar
  19. Ceci, S. J.: 1991, ‘How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of the evidence’, Developmental Psychology 27(5), 703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cobb, R. W. and Elder, C. D.: 1972, Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cohen, B. C.: 1973, The Public's Impact on Foreign Policy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, J. E.: 1995, ‘Presidential rhetoric and the public agenda’, American Journal of Political Science 39(February), 87–107.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, J. E.: 1997, Presidential Responsiveness and Public Policy-Making. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cote, J. A. and Buckley, R. M.: 1987, ‘Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies’, Journal of Marketing Research 24(3), 315–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DeKay, M. L. and McClelland, G. H.: 1996, ‘Probability and utility components of endangered species preservation programs’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2(1), 60–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Demers, D. P., Craff, D., Choi, Y. H. and Pessin, B. M.: 1989, ‘Issue obtrusiveness and the agenda-setting effects of national network news’, Communication Research 16(6), 793–812.Google Scholar
  27. Downs, A.: 1972, ‘Up and down with ecology: The ‘issue-attention’ cycle’, In David, L. Protess and Maxwell, E. McCombs. (ed.), Agenda Setting: Readings on Media, Public Opinion, and Policymaking, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Dunlap, R. E.: 1978, ‘The ‘new environmental paradigm’: A Proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results’, Journal of Environmental Education 9(Summer), 10–19.Google Scholar
  29. Dunlap, R. E. and Mertig, A. G.: 1997, ‘Global environmental concern: An anomaly for postmaterialism’, Social Science Quarterly 78(March), 24–29.Google Scholar
  30. Eagly, A. H. and Warren, R.: 1976, ‘Intelligence, comprehension, and opinion change’, Journal of Personality 44(2), 226–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Edwards, George, C., III and Wood. D. B. 1999, ‘Who influences whom? The president, congress, and the media’, American Political Science Review 93(June), 327–358.Google Scholar
  32. Erbring, L., Goldenberg, E. N. and Miller, A. H.: 1980, ‘Front-page news and real-world cues: Anew look at agenda-setting by the media’, American Journal of Political Science 24(February), 16–49.Google Scholar
  33. Estes, R. and Hosseini J.: 1988, ‘The gender gap on wall street: An empirical analysis of confidence in investment decision making’, Journal of Psychology 122(6), 577–590.Google Scholar
  34. Feather, N. T.: 1982. Expectations and Actions: Expectancy-Value Models in Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I.: 1975, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  36. Flemming, R. B., Wood, B. D. and Bohte, J.: 1999, ‘Attention to issues in a system of separate powers: The macrodynamics of American policy agendas’, Journal of Politics 61(1), 76–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gallup, A. and Saad, L.: 1997, ‘Public concerned, not alarmed about global warming’, Gallup News Service, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  38. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. and Stares, S.: 2003, Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0. Brussels, Belgium: Brussels European Commission.Google Scholar
  39. Gill, M. J., Swann, W. B. and Silvera, D. H.: 1998, ‘On the genesis of confidence’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(5), 1101–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gonzenbach, W. J.: 1996, The Media, the President, and Public Opinion: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Drug Issue, 1984–1991. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Gross, D., Rocissano, L. and Roncoli, M.: 1989, ‘Maternal confidence during toddlerhood: Comparing preterm and full term groups’, Research in Nursing and Health 12(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  42. Gross, S. R., Holtz, R. and Miller, N.: 1995, ‘Attitude certainty’, In Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick (ed.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Hallman, W. K. and Wandersman, A.: 1992, ‘Attribution of responsibility and individual and collective coping with environmental threats’, Journal of Social Issues 48(4), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Haugtvedt, C. P. and Wegener, D. T.: 1994, ‘Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective’, Journal of Consumer Research 21(June), 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Heatherington, M. J. 1999, ‘The effect of political trust on the presidential vote, 1968–96’, American Political Science Review 93(June), 311–326.Google Scholar
  46. Hill, K. Q.: 1998, ‘The policy agendas of the president and the mass public: A research validation and extension’, American Journal of Political Science 42 (October), 1328–1334.Google Scholar
  47. Inglehart, R.: 1995, ‘Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies’, PS: Political Science and Politics 28(March), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Inglehart, R.: 1997, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.: 1995, IPCC Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.S. Framework of the IPCC. IPCC Secretariat, Geneva Switzerland.Google Scholar
  50. Iyengar, S.: 1990, ‘Shortcuts to political knowledge: The role of selective attention and accessibility’, In John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kulkínski (ed.), Information and Democratic Processes, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  51. Iyengar, S. and Kinder D. R.: 1987, News That Matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Iyengar, S., Kinder D. R., Peters M. D and Krosnick J. A.: 1984, ‘The evening news and presidential evaluations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(April), 778–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Johnson, B. B.: 1999, ‘Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust’, Journal of Risk Research 2, 325–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., Jacowitz, D. E. and Grant P.: 1993, ‘Stated willingness to pay for public goods: Apsychological perspective’, Psychological Science 4(5), 310–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kempton, W.: 1991, ‘Lay perspectives on global climate change’, Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions 1(3), 183–208.Google Scholar
  56. Kempton, W., Boster, J. S. and Hartley, J. A. 1995, Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Kessler, R. C. and Greenberg, D. F.: 1981, Linear Panel Analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  58. Kinder, D. R. and Palfrey, T. R.: 1993, Experimental Foundations of Political Science. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  59. Kingdon, J. W.: 1995, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  60. Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L. and Visser, P. S.: 2000. ‘The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion’, Public Understanding of Science 9, 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Krosnick, J. A. and Kinder D. R.: 1990, ‘Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming’, The American Political Science Review 84(June), 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Leff, D. R., Protess, D. L. and Brooks S. C.: 1986. ‘Crusading journalism: Changing public attitudes and policy-making agendas’, Public Opinion Quarterly 50(3), 300–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Loewenstein, G. and Frederick, S.: 1997, ‘Predicting reactions to environmental change’, In Max H. Bazerman, David, M. Messick, Ann E. Tenbrunsel and Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni (eds.) Environment, Ethics, and Behavior: The Psychology of Environment Valuation and Degradation, San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.Google Scholar
  64. Lupia, A. and McCubbins, M. D.: 1998, The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn what they Really Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. MacKuen, M.: 1984, ‘Reality, the press, and citizens’ political agendas’, In Charles F. Turner and Elizabeth Martin (ed), Surveying Subjective Phenomena (Vol. 2), New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Maslow, A. H. 1970, Motivation and Personality. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  67. Mayo, C. W. and Crockett W. H.: 1964, ‘Cognitive complexity and primacy-recency effects in impression formation’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68(3), 335–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mazur, A. 1981a, The Dynamics of Technical Controversy. Washington, D.C.: Communications Press.Google Scholar
  69. Mazur, A.: 1981b, ‘Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies’, Journal of Communication 31(Spring), 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mazur, A. and Lee, J.: 1993, ‘Sounding the global alarm: environmental issues in the u.s. national news’, Social Studies of Science 23(November): 681–720.Google Scholar
  71. McCombs, M. E.: 2004, Setting the Agenda: The News Media and Public Opinion. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  72. McCombs, Maxwell, E. and Shaw, D. L.: 1972. ‘The agenda-setting function of mass media’, Public Opinion Quarterly 36(Summer), 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McLeod, J. M.: 1965, ‘Political conflict and information seeking’, Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  74. Miller, J. M. and Krosnick, J. A.: 1996. ‘News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Aprogram of research on the priming hypothesis’, In Diana Mutz, and Paul Sniderman. (ed.), Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  75. Miller, J. M. and Krosnick, J. A.: 2000. ‘News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source’, American Journal of Political Science 44(2), 295–309.Google Scholar
  76. Miller, N., Gross, S. and Holtz, R. 1991, ‘Social projection and attitudinal certainty’, In Jerry Suls and Thomas A. Wills. (ed.), Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research (pp. 177–209), Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  77. O'Connor, R. E. and Bord, R. J.: 1998, ‘Implications of public opinion for environmental policy: Risk perceptions, policy preferences, and management options’, Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  78. O'Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J. and Fisher A.: 1998, ‘The curious impact of knowledge about climate change on rick perceptions and willingness to sacrifice’, Risk Decision and Policy 3(August), 145–155.Google Scholar
  79. Palmgreen, P. and Clarke, P.: 1977, ‘Agenda-setting with local and national issues’, Communication Research 4(October), 435–452.Google Scholar
  80. Patterson, S. C. and Caldeira, G. A. 1990, ‘Standing up for congress: Variations in public esteem since the 1960's’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 15(February), 25–47.Google Scholar
  81. Peters, B. G. and Hogwood, B. W.: 1985, ‘In search of the issue-attention cycle’, Journal of Politics 47(February), 239–253.Google Scholar
  82. Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T.: 1986, Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  83. Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. and Smith, S. M.: 1995, ‘Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior,’ In Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick (ed.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  84. Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F.: 2003, ‘Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation’, Risk Analysis 23(5), 961–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Price, V. and Tewksbury, D.: 1997, ‘News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing’, In George A. Barnett and Franklin J. Boster (ed.), Progress in the Communication Sciences, Greenwich, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  86. Putnam, R. D. 1993, Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  87. Read, D., Bostrom A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B. and Smuts, T.: 1994, ‘What do people know about global climate change? 2. Survey studies of educated laypeople’, Risk Analysis 14(6), 971–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rogers, E. M., Dearing, J. W. and Chang, S.: 1991, ‘AIDS in the 1980's: The agenda-setting process of a public issue’, Journalism Monographs 126. Lexington, KE: Association for Education and Journalism.Google Scholar
  89. Salmon, C. T. and Nichols J. S.: 1983, ‘The next-birthday method of respondent selection’, The Public Opinion Quarterly 47(2), 270–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schuman, H., Ludwig J. and Krosnick J. A.: 1986, ‘The perceived threat of nuclear war, salience, and open questions’, Public Opinion Quarterly 50(4), 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sears, D. O. and Funk C. L. ‘The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (Vol. 24, pp. 2–91). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  92. Sharp, E. B.: 1992, ‘Agenda-setting and policy results: Lessons from three drug policy episodes’, Policy Studies Journal 20(Winter), 538–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Shaw, D. L. and Slater J. W.: 1988, ‘Press puts unemployment on agenda: Richmond community opinion, 1981–1984’, Journalism Quarterly 65(Summer), 407–411.Google Scholar
  94. Sidanius, J.: 1988, ‘Political sophistication and political deviance: A Structural equation examination of context theory’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(July), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich G. and Roth C.: 2000, ‘Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception’, Risk Analysis 20(3), 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Smith, K. A.: 1987, ‘Newspaper coverage and public concern about community issues: Atime series analysis’, Journalism Monographs 101(February), 1–34.Google Scholar
  97. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. and Kalof L.: 1993, ‘Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern’, Environment and Behavior 25(May), 322–348.Google Scholar
  98. Stevens, W. K.: 1995, ‘Experts call human role likely’, The New York Times, 10 September 1995, A1.Google Scholar
  99. Taylor, S. E. 1989, Positive Illusions: Creative Self-Deception and The Healthy Mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  100. Thompson, S. C. G. and Barton, M. A.: 1994, ‘Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 14, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tolman, E. C.: 1958, Behavior and Psychological Man: Essays in Motivation and Learning. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  102. Visser, P. S. and Krosnick, J. A. 1998, ‘Development of attitude strength over the life cycle: surge and decline’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(6), 1389–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Walker, J. L.: 1977, ‘Setting the agenda in the U.S. Senate’, British Journal of Political Science 7(3), 423–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wanta, W.: 1988, ‘The effects of dominant photographs: An agenda-setting experiment’, Journalism Quarterly 65(Spring), 107–111.Google Scholar
  105. Wanta, W. and Foote, J.: 1994, ‘The president-news media relationship: A time series analysis of agenda-setting’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 38(Fall), 437–448.Google Scholar
  106. Weber, E. U.: 1997, ‘Perception and expectation of climate change: Precondition for economic and technological adaptation’, In Max H. Bazerman, David M. Messick, Ann E. Tenbrunsel and Kimberly A. Wade-Banzoni (eds.), Environment, Ethics, and Behavior: The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation, San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.Google Scholar
  107. Wood, B. D. and Peake, J. S.: 1998, ‘The dynamics of foreign policy agenda setting’, American Political Science Review 92(March), 173–184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon A. Krosnick
    • 1
  • Allyson L. Holbrook
    • 2
  • Laura Lowe
    • 3
  • Penny S. Visser
    • 4
  1. 1.Departments of Communication, Political Science, and PsychologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Public Administration and Psychology, Survey Research Laboratory, MC336University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.NFO Ad: ImpactSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations