Climatic Change

, Volume 104, Issue 2, pp 231–242 | Cite as

Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects

Article

Abstract

U.S. public opinion regarding climate change has become increasingly polarized in recent years, as partisan think tanks and others worked to recast an originally scientific topic into a political wedge issue. Nominally “scientific” arguments against taking anthropogenic climate change seriously have been publicized to reach informed but ideologically receptive audiences. Reflecting the success of such arguments, polls have noted that concern about climate change increased with education among Democrats, but decreased with education among Republicans. These observations lead to the hypothesis that there exist interaction (non-additive) effects between education or knowledge and political orientation, net of other background factors, in predicting public concern about climate change. Two regional telephone surveys, conducted in New Hampshire (n = 541) and Michigan (n = 1, 008) in 2008, included identical climate-change questions that provide opportunities to test this hypothesis. Multivariate analysis of both surveys finds significant interactions. These empirical results fit with theoretical interpretations and several other recent studies. They suggest that the classically identified social bases of concern about the environment in general, and climate in particular, have shifted in recent years. Narrowcast media, including the many Web sites devoted to discrediting climate-change concerns, provide ideal conduits for channeling contrarian arguments to an audience predisposed to believe and electronically spread them further. Active-response Web sites by climate scientists could prove critical to counterbalancing contrarian arguments.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chatterjee S, Hadi AS, Price B (2000) Regression analysis by example, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Educ 30:335–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dietz T, Dan A, Shwom R (2007) Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociol 72:185–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2008) A widening gap: republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment September/October. http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202008/dunlap-full.html
  6. Dunlap RE, Xiao C, McCright AM (2001) Politics and environment in America: partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Env Polit 10(4):23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA (2000) Gender, race, and perceived risk: the ‘white male’ effect. Health, Risk Soc 2(2):159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freudenburg WR (2000) Social constructions and social constrictions: toward analyzing the social construction of ‘the naturalized’as well as ‘the natural. In: Spaargaren G, Mol APJ, Buttel FH (eds) Environment and global modernity. Sage, London, pp 103–119Google Scholar
  9. Hamilton LC (2008) Who cares about polar regions? Results from a survey of U.S. public opinion. Arct Antarct Alp Res 40(4):671–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamilton LC (2009) Statistics with stata, version 10. Cengage, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamilton LC, Keim B (2009) Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. Int J Climatol. doi:10.1002/joc.1930 Google Scholar
  12. Hamilton LC, Hamilton LR, Duncan CM, Colocousis CR (2008) Place matters: challenges and opportunities in four rural Americas. Carsey Institute, University of New Hampshire, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton LC, Colocousis CR, Duncan CM (2010) Place effects on environmental views. Rural Sociol 75(2):326–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IPCC (2007a) Climate change 2007—the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2007b) Climate change 2007—impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (2007c) Climate change 2007—mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2007d) Climate change 2007—synthesis report. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Iyengar S, Hahn KS (2007) Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological polarization in media use. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA, 5/23/07Google Scholar
  19. Jacques PJ, Dunlap RE, Freeman M (2008) The organisation of denial: conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Env Polit 17(3):349–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2005) Gender, race and risk perception: the influence of cultural status anxiety. New Haven, CT, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper No. 86Google Scholar
  21. 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 Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9068-S Google Scholar
  22. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim Change 77(1–2):73–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2000) Challenging global warming as a problem: an analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Soc Probl 50(3):348–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on the U.S. climate change policy. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/McCrightDunlap2003.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2008
  25. Newport F (2008) Little increase in Americans’ global warming worries. Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/106660/Little-Increase-Americans-Global-Warming-Worries.aspx. Accessed 26 June 2008
  26. Nisbet MC, Myers T (2007) Twenty years of public opinion about global warming. Public Opin Q 71(3):444–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olofsson A, Öhman S (2006) General beliefs and environmental concern: transatlantic comparisons. Environ Behav 38:768–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pew (2004) News audiences increasingly politicized: online news audience larger, more diverse. Pew Research Center, June 8. http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized. Accessed 20 August 20
  29. Pew (2006) Little consensus on global warming: partisanship drives opinion. Pew Research Center, July 12. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=280. Accessed 17 November 2007
  30. Pew (2007) Global warming: a divide on causes and solutions. Pew Research Center, January 24. http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/303.pdf. Accessed on 14 December 2007
  31. Shwom R, Dan A, Dietz T (2008) The effects of information and state of residence on climate change policy preferences. Clim Change 90:343–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. StataCorp (2007) Stata survey data reference manual. Stata Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  33. UCS (2007) Smoke, mirrors and hot air: how ExxonMobil uses big tobacco’s tactics to manufacture uncertainty about climate science. Union of Concerned Scientists, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. USEP (2009) United States election project. http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm. Accessed on 28 August 2009
  35. Wood BD, Vedlitz A (2007) Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. Am J Polit Sci 51(3):552–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology DepartmentUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations