Why Are Climate Change Skeptics Often Right-Wing Conservatives?

Why Are Climate Change Skeptics Often Right-Wing Conservatives? Polls show the gap between conservatives and liberals is widening on the issue of climate change. Shutterstock

The scientific evidence for climate change is unequivocal: 97 per cent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activities are causing global warming. Given the same evidence, why do some people become concerned about human-caused climate change while others deny it? In particular, why are people who remain skeptical about climate change often identified as right-wing conservatives?

According to a recent poll conducted in Canada, 81 per cent of Liberal and 85 per cent of New Democrat voters believe that climate change is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities. Only 35 per cent of Conservative voters believe the same thing.

Within the United States, a poll in 2006 showed that 79 per cent of Democrats versus 59 per cent of Republicans said there was solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer. This divide has not only endured, but widened over time to 92 per cent of Democrats and 52 per cent of Republicans by 2017.

Such a growing divide has significant implications for setting policy agendas that aim to fight climate change. For example, 77 per cent of Democrats versus 36 per cent of Republicans in 2017 say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost.

What is driving the partisan divide?

Past studies provided several accounts to explain public skepticism on climate change, such as a lack of knowledge or understanding of the causes of climate change, a lack of sense of urgency or insufficient awareness about the issue. However, these accounts do not completely explain the partisan polarization over the years when an increasing volume of information and evidence on climate change has been presented to the public.

Recent efforts to explain partisan polarization suggest that people seek and interpret information that is consistent with their political ideology and party identification, and selectively expose themselves to news media that is consistent with their existing motivations and beliefs.

Conservatives may seek evidence that challenges the scientific knowledge regarding climate change, which aligns with their existing knowledge acquired from political leaders whom they trust. Extending beyond these studies, we suggested a new explanation of how motivations and ideologies lead to this polarized view on climate change.

Explaining the divide

Our previous work demonstrates that liberals who are concerned about climate change pay more attention to climate-related words, such as carbon, over neutral words, such as coffee. Conservatives who are not concerned about climate change do not show a difference in the amount of attention they pay to climate-related words and neutral words, suggesting that political orientations are associated with the amount of attention paid to climate-related information.

Based on these findings, we recently proposed that people’s political motivations shape their visual attention to climate change evidence, which influences their perception of the evidence and subsequent actions to mitigate climate change. These altered perceptions and actions can reinforce their initial motivations, further entrenching the divide. To put simply, what you believe influences what you see, and guides your future actions.

In our study, we presented a graph showing the global temperature change from 1880 to 2013 to participants. We found that the more liberal people were, the more attention they paid to the rising phase of the temperature curve (1990 to 2013) relative to the flat phase of the curve (1940 to 1980). This shows that liberals and conservatives naturally pay more attention to the part of the graph that is consistent with their beliefs.

Why Are Climate Change Skeptics Often Right-Wing Conservatives? Global annual mean surface air temperature change in Celsius from 1880 to 2013.

In another experiment, we manipulated attention by colouring different parts of the temperature curve to deliberately bias attention to stronger change (the rising phase) or smaller change (the flat phase) in temperature. After viewing the graph, we tested whether biasing people’s attention to different climate evidence influenced their actions to mitigate climate change. Would they, for example, sign a climate change petition or donate to an environmental organization?

We found that liberals were more likely to sign the petition or donate when the rising phase was highlighted than when the flat phase was highlighted. In other words, when attention was drawn to climate evidence that aligns with their prior beliefs, people were more likely to act.

In contrast, conservatives were less likely to sign the petition or donate when the rising phase was highlighted than when the flat phase was highlighted. This shows that when attention was drawn to motivational evidence that was inconsistent with their beliefs, people were less likely to act.

It may seem paradoxical, but our research shows that an action can be encouraged by drawing people’s attention to the evidence that matches their prior motivations.

Overall, our framework suggested that people’s motivations prevent them from attending to and perceiving climate change evidence accurately, which influences their subsequent actions. Specifically, conservatives may focus selectively on climate data that confirm their beliefs, leading to inaction on mitigating climate change.

Our findings, along with traditional accounts, offer a few ideas to aid our understanding on why conservatives are more skeptical about climate change. To encourage accurate interpretation of climate data and actions among conservatives, we can frame climate change consistently with their values, such as framing mitigation efforts as promoting economic or technological development. Or, we can provide information on peer group norms to shift attention, since people may have incorrect beliefs of how their peers view a controversial issue.

About The Author

Yu Luo, PhD student, Psychology, University of British Columbia; Jiaying Zhao, Assistant Professor, Psychology, University of British Columbia, and Rebecca M. Todd, Associate Professor, Psychology, University of British Columbia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Related Books

Climate Leviathan: A Political Theory of Our Planetary Future

by Joel Wainwright and Geoff Mann
1786634295How climate change will affect our political theory—for better and worse. Despite the science and the summits, leading capitalist states have not achieved anything close to an adequate level of carbon mitigation. There is now simply no way to prevent the planet breaching the threshold of two degrees Celsius set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What are the likely political and economic outcomes of this? Where is the overheating world heading? Available On Amazon

Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis

by Jared Diamond
0316409138Adding a psychological dimension to the in-depth history, geography, biology, and anthropology that mark all of Diamond's books, Upheaval reveals factors influencing how both whole nations and individual people can respond to big challenges. The result is a book epic in scope, but also his most personal book yet. Available On Amazon

Global Commons, Domestic Decisions: The Comparative Politics of Climate Change

by Kathryn Harrison et al
0262514311Comparative case studies and analyses of the influence of domestic politics on countries' climate change policies and Kyoto ratification decisions. Climate change represents a “tragedy of the commons” on a global scale, requiring the cooperation of nations that do not necessarily put the Earth's well-being above their own national interests. And yet international efforts to address global warming have met with some success; the Kyoto Protocol, in which industrialized countries committed to reducing their collective emissions, took effect in 2005 (although without the participation of the United States). Available On Amazon

enafarzh-CNzh-TWdanltlfifrdeiwhihuiditjakomsnofaplptruesswsvthtrukurvi

follow InnerSelf on

facebook-icontwitter-iconrss-icon

 Get The Latest By Email

{emailcloak=off}

POLITICS

How Dystopian Narratives Can Incite Real-world Radicalism
How Dystopian Narratives Can Incite Real-World Radicalism
by Calvert Jones and Celia Paris
Humans are storytelling creatures: the stories we tell have profound implications for how we see our role in the world,…
Talking About Energy Change Could Break The Climate impasse
Talking About Energy Change Could Break The Climate Impasse
by InnerSelf Staff
Everyone has energy stories, whether they’re about a relative working on an oil rig, a parent teaching a child to turn…
Violent Weather Rises Spur More Political Conflict
Violent Weather Rises Spur More Political Conflict
by Tim Radford
Violent weather – seasonal storms, floods, fires and droughts – is growing more extreme, more often.
India Finally Takes Climate Crisis Seriously
India Finally Takes Climate Crisis Seriously
by Nivedita Khandekar
With financial losses and a heavy death toll from climate-related disasters constantly rising, India is at last…
Russia Moves To Exploit Arctic Riches
Russia Moves To Exploit Arctic Riches
by Paul Brown
As the polar sea ice vanishes faster, Russia unveils plans to exploit Arctic riches: fossil fuel deposits, minerals and…
Will Billionaire Climate Philanthropists Always Be Part Of The Problem
Will Billionaire Climate Philanthropists Always Be Part Of The Problem
by Heather Alberro
Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO and the richest man alive, recently made headlines after pledging to donate $10 billion to a new…
Schools For Girls Can Help To Answer Climate Crisis
Schools For Girls Can Help To Answer Climate Crisis
by Alex Kirby
Educating both halves of humankind seems a no-brainer. Schools for girls could transform climate protection − and so…
To Prepare Climate Strikers For The Future, We Need To Rewrite The History Books
To Prepare Climate Strikers For The Future, We Need To Rewrite The History Books
by Amanda Power
If radical action to reduce emissions isn’t taken in the next decade or so, many of today’s schoolchildren could live…

LATEST VIDEOS

Talking About Energy Change Could Break The Climate impasse
Talking About Energy Change Could Break The Climate Impasse
by InnerSelf Staff
Everyone has energy stories, whether they’re about a relative working on an oil rig, a parent teaching a child to turn…
Crops Could Face Double Trouble From Insects And A Warming Climate
Crops Could Face Double Trouble From Insects And A Warming Climate
by Gregg Howe and Nathan Havko
For millennia, insects and the plants they feed on have been engaged in a co-evolutionary battle: to eat or not be…
To Reach Zero Emissions Government Must Address Hurdles Putting People Off Electric Cars
To Reach Zero Emissions Government Must Address Hurdles Putting People Off Electric Cars
by Swapnesh Masrani
Ambitious targets have been set by the UK and Scottish governments to become net-zero carbon economies by 2050 and 2045…
Spring Is Arriving Earlier Across The US, And That's Not Always Good News
Spring Is Arriving Earlier Across The US, And That's Not Always Good News
by Theresa Crimmins
Across much of the United States, a warming climate has advanced the arrival of spring. This year is no exception.
The Last Ice Age Tells Us Why We Need To Care About A 2℃ Change In Temperature
The Last Ice Age Tells Us Why We Need To Care About A 2℃ Change In Temperature
by Alan N Williams, et al
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that without a substantial decrease…
A Georgia Town Gets Half Of Its Electricity From President Jimmy Carter's Solar Farm
A Georgia Town Gets Half Of Its Electricity From President Jimmy Carter's Solar Farm
by Johnna Crider
Plains, Georgia, is a small town that is just south of Columbus, Macon, and Atlanta and north of Albany. It is the…
Majority of US Adults Believe Climate Change Is Most Important Issue Today
by American Psychological Association
As the effects of climate change become more evident, more than half of U.S. adults (56%) say climate change is the…
How These Three Financial Firms Could Change The Direction Of The Climate Crisis
How These Three Financial Firms Could Change The Direction Of The Climate Crisis
by Mangulina Jan Fichtner, et al
A silent revolution is happening in investing. It is a paradigm shift that will have a profound impact on corporations,…

LATEST ARTICLES

Heatwaves Too Hot And Wet For Human Life Are Here
Heatwaves Too Hot And Wet For Human Life Are Here Now
by Tim Radford
Lethal heatwaves carrying air turned too hot and wet to survive are a threat which has arrived, thanks to climate…
How Dangerous Is Low-level Radiation To Children?
How Dangerous Is Low-level Radiation To Children?
by Paul Brown
A rethink on the risks of low-level radiation would imperil the nuclear industry’s future − perhaps why there’s never…
What We Do Now Could Change Earth's Trajectory
What We Do Now Could Change Earth's Trajectory
by Pep Canadell, et al
The numbers of people cycling and walking in public spaces during COVID-19 has skyrocketed.
Marine Heatwaves Spell Trouble For Tropical Reef Fish — Even Before Corals Die
Marine Heatwaves Spell Trouble For Tropical Reef Fish — Even Before Corals Die
by Jennifer M.T. Magel and Julia K. Baum
Despite the many challenges facing the world’s oceans today, coral reefs remain strongholds of marine biodiversity.
Warnings of Worse-Than-Usual Hurricane Season Point to Trouble Ahead
Warnings of Worse-Than-Usual Hurricane Season Point to Trouble Ahead
by Eoin Higgins
Hurricane season is about to start and its risks will only grow and potentially compound any impacts from the pandemic.
Australia, It's Time To Talk About Our Water Emergency
Australia, It's Time To Talk About Our Water Emergency
by Quentin Grafton et al
There’s another climate change influence we must also face up to: increasingly scarce water on our continent.
Fossil Fuels Are Heading Down, But Not Yet Out
Fossil Fuels Are Heading Down, But Not Yet Out
by Kieran Cooke
Renewable energy is making rapid inroads into the market, but fossil fuels still wield enormous global influence.
Human Action Will Decide How Much Sea Levels Rise
Human Action Will Decide How Much Sea Levels Rise
by Tim Radford
Sea levels will go on rising, because of human action. By how much, though, depends on what humans do next.