Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Partisan strength and the politicization of global climate change: a re-examination of Schuldt, Roh, and Schwarz 2015

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the USA, self-identified Republican supporters tend to be more skeptical about the existence and consequences of global climate change (GCC) than Democratic supporters. If this phenomenon is well established, discussions about the “partisan gap” often treat partisan groups as if they were two homogeneous blocks. In this article, we question this practice. According to theory, strong partisan identification (PID) puts pressure on partisans to hold beliefs that conform to elite discourse and to perceived in-group positions. Meanwhile, public opinion research on environmental issues offers reasons to expect greater heterogeneity among Republicans than among Democrats. This literature leads us to predict that strong Republicans will be more skeptical about GCC than Republican leaners, whereas among Democrats, PID strength will not be associated with greater confidence in the existence of GCC. Our study tests this hypothesis leveraging the characteristics of a unique dataset where strong partisans are purposively oversampled to facilitate group comparisons. Results from multivariate regression models support our prediction. Next, our study also examines how PID strength shapes more complex patterns found in the literature. Previous work has shown that, compared to Democrats, the views of Republicans are less correlated with educational attainment and more influenced by issue labeling (e.g., global warming vs climate change). Our study tests if PID strength also moderates these factors. This time, interaction models produce mixed results. Overall, our findings suggest that breaking down GCC beliefs by PID strength can reveal a more nuanced understanding of the differences between and within partisan groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We follow Schuldt (2016) here in using the term “labeling effect” (which is distinct from a “framing effect”) to describe the impact of issue labeling on public opinion.

  2. Petrocik (2009) argues that leaners report voting habits and political opinions that are more comparable to those of “soft” identifiers than to those of firm independents, and consequently suggests that it would be a mistake to combine leaners and independents together under the “independent” label. Note, however, that Dalton (2012) defends the opposite point of view, arguing that as leaner’s vote preferences change from one election to the next, so do their leanings. Our investigation treats leaners as a category of their own.

  3. Note that the x axis has the same range in both the left and the right panels, facilitating coefficient comparison.

  4. In the literature, some studies weight survey data using socio-demographic characteristics (i.e., Guber 2013) while others do not (i.e., regression models in Dunlap and McCright 2008, see footnote 12).

References

  • Achen CH (2002) Parental socialization and rational party identification. Polit Behav 24(2):151–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof K, Maibach EW (2011) A rose by any other name...?: What members of the general public prefer to call “climate change”. Clim Chang 106(4):699–710

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bolsen T, Druckman JN (2018) Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change? Group Process Intergroup Relat 21(3):389–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolsen T, Shapiro MA (2018) The US news media, polarization on climate change, and pathways to effective communication. Environ Commun 12(2):1497–1163

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolsen T, Druckman JN, Cook FL (2015) Citizens’, scientists’, and policy advisors’ beliefs about global warming. Ann Am Acad Polit Soci Sci 658(1):271–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Borick CP, Rabe BG (2010) A reason to believe: examining the factors that determine individual views on global warming. Soc Sci Q 91(3):777–800

    Google Scholar 

  • Borick CP, Rabe BG, Mills SB (2015) Acceptance of global warming among Americans reaches highest level since 2008. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy 25: 1–8. Available at: http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2015-fall-climate-belief.pdf. Accessed 29 Oct 2019

  • Brulle RJ, Carmichael J, Jenkins JC (2012) Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the US, 2002–2010. Clim Chang 114(2):169–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Cann HW, Raymond L (2018) Does climate denialism still matter? The prevalence of alternative frames in opposition to climate policy. Environ Polit 27(3):433–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Condon S (2010) “Conservatives use “snowmaggedon” to mock global warming” CBS News. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6194071-503544.html. Accessed 29 Oct 2019

  • Dalton RJ (2012) The apartisan American: dealignment and electoral change. CQ Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton RJ (2016) Party identification and its implications. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.72. Accessed 29 Oct 2019

  • Dinas E (2014) Does choice bring loyalty? Electoral participation and the development of party identification. Am J Polit Sci 58(2):449–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman JN, McGrath MC (2019) The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat Clim Chang 9:111–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2008) A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 50(5):26–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap RE, McCright AM, Yarosh JH (2016) The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the US. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 58(5):4–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan P, Mullin M (2017) Climate change: US public opinion. Annu Rev Polit Sci 20(1):209–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman L, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2012) Climate on cable: the nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Int J Press/Polit 17(1):3–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman L, Myers TA, Hmielowski JD, Leiserowitz A (2014) The mutual reinforcement of media selectivity and effects: testing the reinforcing spirals framework in the context of global warming. J Commun 64(4):590–611

    Google Scholar 

  • Gann TM, Matlock T (2014) The semantics of climate change and global warming. In Proceedings of the Thirty Sixth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.769-774) Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3pw2d2qc. Accessed 29 Oct 2019

  • Gerber AS, Huber GA, Doherty D, Dowling CM (2012) Personality and the strength and direction of partisan identification. Polit Behav 34(4):653–688

    Google Scholar 

  • Goren P, Federico CM, Kittilson MC (2009) Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. Am J Polit Sci 53(4):805–820

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene S (2000) The psychological sources of partisan-leaning independence. Am Polit Q 28(4):511–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Guber DL (2013) A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. Am Behav Sci 57(1):93–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Guber DL (2017) Partisan cueing and polarization in public opinion about climate change. The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.306. Accessed 29 Oct 2019

  • Hamilton LC (2011) Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Clim Chang 104(2):231–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton LC, Keim BD (2009) Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. Int J Climatol 29(15):2348–2352

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton LC, Saito K (2015) A four-party view of US environmental concern. Environ Polit 24(2):212–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton LC, Hartter J, Lemcke-Stampone M, Moore DW, Safford TG (2015) Tracking public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLoS One 10(9):e0138208

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins CB, Nosek BA (2012) Motivated independence? Implicit party identity predicts political judgments among self-proclaimed independents. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 38(11):1437–1452

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess DJ, Brown KP (2017) Green tea: clean-energy conservatism as a countermovement. Environ Sociol 3(1):64–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmielowski JD, Feldman L, Myers TA, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E (2014) An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Underst Sci 23(7):866–883

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddy L, Bankert A, 2017. Political partisanship as a social identity. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.250. Accessed 29 Oct 2019

  • Jamieson KH, Cappella JN (2008) Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang SM, Hart PS (2015) Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: evidence from Twitter big data. Glob Environ Chang 32:11–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasny L, Waggle J, Fisher DR (2015) An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks. Nat Clim Chang 5(8):782–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost JT, Nosek BA, Gosling SD (2008) Ideology: its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspect Psychol Sci 3(2):126–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. J Empir Leg Stud 4(3):465–505

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2(10):732

    Google Scholar 

  • Klar S, Krupnikov Y (2016) Independent politics. Cambridge University Press.

  • Lavelle M (2017) Partisan Divide in Congress wider than ever on environmental issues, group says. Inside Climate News. Available at: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23022017/congress-environmental-climate-change-league-conservation-voters. Accessed 29 Oct 2019

  • Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Hmielowski J (2011) Politics & global warming: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and the Tea Party. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Yale University and George Mason University. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PoliticsGlobalWarming2011.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2019

  • Levendusky M (2013) How partisan media polarize America. University of Chicago Press

  • McCright AM (2011) Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change. Clim Chang 104(2):243–253

    Google Scholar 

  • McCright AM (2017) Sociology: clean-energy conservatism. Nat Energy 2(3):17026

  • 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):499–522

    Google Scholar 

  • McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011a) Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob Environ Chang 21:1163–1172

    Google Scholar 

  • McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011b) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194

    Google Scholar 

  • McCright AM, Xiao C, Dunlap RE (2014) Political polarization on support for government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974–2012. Soc Sci Res 48:251–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller PR, Conover PJ (2015) Red and blue states of mind: partisan hostility and voting in the United States. Polit Res Q 68(2):225–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman TP, Nisbet EC, Nisbet MC (2018) Climate change, cultural cognition, and media effects: worldviews drive news selectivity, biased processing, and polarized attitudes. Public Underst Sci 27(8):985–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 51(2):12–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrocik JR (2009) Measuring party support: leaners are not independents. Elect Stud 28(4):562–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center (2007) Global warming: a divide on causes and solutions. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/2007/01/24/global-warming-a-divide-on-causes-and-solutions/. Accessed 29 Oct 2019

  • Pew Research Center (2014) Polarization and media habits. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2014/10/Political-Polarization-and-Media-Habits-FINAL-REPORT-7-27-15.pdf. Accessed 29 Oct 2019

  • Rodriguez CG, Moskowitz JP, Salem RM, Ditto PH (2017) Partisan selective exposure: the role of party, ideology and ideological extremity over time. Transl Issues Psychol Sci 3(3):254–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuldt JP (2016) “Global warming” versus “climate change” and the influence of labeling on public perceptions. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.309. Accessed 29 Oct 2019

  • Schuldt JP, Konrath SH, Schwarz N (2011) “Global warming” or “climate change”? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opin Q 75(1):115–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuldt JP, Roh S, Schwarz N (2015) Questionnaire design effects in climate change surveys implications for the partisan divide. Ann Am Acad Polit Soci Sci 658(1):67–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipan CR, Lowry WR (2001) Environmental policy and party divergence in Congress. Polit Res Q 54(2):245–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao X, Rolfe-Redding J, Kotcher JE (2016) Partisan differences in the relationship between newspaper coverage and concern over global warming. Public Underst Sci 25(5):543–559

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bureau of Institutional Research, University of Montreal, 3333, Queen-Mary Road, Office 590, Montreal, H3V 1A1, Canada

    Alexandre Morin-Chassé

  2. Department of Political Science, University of Montreal, 3150 rue Jean-Brillant, Montreal, H3T 1N8, Canada

    Erick Lachapelle

Authors
  1. Alexandre Morin-Chassé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erick Lachapelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandre Morin-Chassé.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morin-Chassé, A., Lachapelle, E. Partisan strength and the politicization of global climate change: a re-examination of Schuldt, Roh, and Schwarz 2015. J Environ Stud Sci 10, 31–40 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-019-00576-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-019-00576-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation