Climatic Change

, Volume 104, Issue 2, pp 243–253 | Cite as

Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change

An editorial comment
  • Aaron M. McCright


I offer some theoretical insights to help us better understand the moderator effect of political orientation that Larry Hamilton and others have found in recent years. Reflexive modernization theory highlights an emerging tension between those who direct attention to the negative consequences of industrial capitalism such as climate change (e.g., the scientific community and environmental organizations) and those who defend the economic system against such critiques (e.g., the conservative movement). Political divisions in the American public increasingly map onto these societal divisions between critics and defenders of the industrial capitalist order—especially for the issue of climate change. This alignment is facilitated by increased polarization among political elites and balkanization of the news media. Strong evidence of the moderator effect is consistent with the expectations of information processing theory and elite cues hypothesis from political science. Recent empirical findings in political psychology and neuroscience also seem pertinent for explaining this moderator effect. I end by outlining a few implications for climate change research and communication.


Global Warming Political Orientation Political Elite Climate Science Party Identification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amodio DM, Jost JT, Master SL, Yee CM (2007) Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nat Neurosci 10:1246–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum MA, Groeling T (2008) New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Polit Commun 25:345–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck U (1992) Risk society: toward a new modernity. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck U (1997) The reinvention of politics. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S (eds) (1994) Reflexive modernization: politics, traditions, and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM (2004) Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Glob Environ Change 14:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen R, Bell P (2007) Congressional insiders poll. Natl J 39(5):6–7Google Scholar
  8. Dispensa JM, Brulle RJ (2003) Media’s social construction of environmental issues. Int J Sociol Soc Policy 23:74–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2008) A widening gap: republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment 50(5):26–35Google Scholar
  10. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2010) Climate change denial: sources, actors, and strategies. In: Lever-Tracy C (ed) The Routledge international handbook of climate change and society, pp 240–259Google Scholar
  11. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD (1984) Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Soc Sci Q 65:1013–1028Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Feygina I, Jost JT, Goldsmith RE (2010) System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of ‘system-sanctioned change’. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 36:326–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Polity, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Gleeson B (2000) Reflexive modernization. Int Plan Stud 5:117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall RFL (1994) The fairness doctrine and the first amendment: phoenix rising. Mercer Law Rev 45:705–772Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton LC (2008) Who cares about polar regions? Arct Antarct Alp Res 40:671–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton LC (2011) Education, politics, and opinions about climate change: evidence for interaction effects. Climatic ChangeGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamilton LC, Keim BD (2009) Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. Int J Climatol 29:2348–2352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007, vol 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Published for the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  21. Iyengar S, Hahn K (2009) Red media, blue media. J Commun 59:19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jost JT, Nosek BA, Gosling SD (2008) Ideology: its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspect Psychol Sci 3(2):126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Visser PS (2000) The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion. Public Underst Sci 9:239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lahsen M (2005) Technocracy, democracy, and U. S. climate politics. Sci Technol Human Values 30:137–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lahsen M (2008) Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: a cultural analysis of a physicist ‘trio’ supporting the backlash against global warming. Glob Environ Change 18:204–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lupia A, McCubbins MD (1998) The democratic dilemma. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Malka A, Krosnick JA, Langer G (2009) The association of knowledge with concern about global warming. Risk Anal 29:633–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCarty N, Poole K, Rosenthal H (2006) Polarized America. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. McCright AM (2007) Dealing with climate change contrarians. In: Moser SC, Dilling L (eds) Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 200–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCright AM (2009) The social bases of climate change knowledge, concern, and policy support in the US general public. Hofstra Law Rev 34:1017–1047Google Scholar
  31. McCright AM (2010) The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Popul Environ 32:66–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2000) Challenging global warming as a social problem: an analysis of the conservative movement’s counter claims. Soc Probl 47(4):499–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Soc Probl 50(3):348–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2010) Anti-reflexivity: the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Cult Soc 27(2–3):100–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change: political polarization in the American public’s views of global warming. Sociol Quart 52:ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  36. McCright AM, Shwom RL (2010) Newspaper and television coverage. In: Schneider SH, Rosencranz A, Mastrandrea MD, Kuntz-Duriseti K (eds) Climate change science and policy. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp 405–413Google Scholar
  37. Michaels D (2008) Doubt is their product. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Mol APJ (2000) The environmental movement in an era of ecological modernization. Geoforum 31:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mol APJ, Spaargaren G (2000) Ecological modernization theory in debate. Env Polit 9:17–49Google Scholar
  40. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Oreskes N, Conway EM, Shindell M (2008) From chicken little to dr. pangloss: William Nierenberg, global warming, and the social deconstruction of scientific knowledge. Hist Stud Nat Sci 38:109–152Google Scholar
  42. Schnaiberg A (1980) The environment: from surplus to scarcity. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Wood BD, Vedlitz A (2007) Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. Am J Polit Sci 51:552–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lyman Briggs College, Department of Sociology, and Environmental Science and Policy ProgramMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations