Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-88psn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T21:29:26.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What shapes public support for climate change mitigation policies? The role of descriptive social norms and elite cues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2020

ADRIAN RINSCHEID Open the ORCID record for ADRIAN RINSCHEID [Opens in a new window] ,
SILVIA PIANTA Open the ORCID record for SILVIA PIANTA [Opens in a new window]  and
ELKE U. WEBER
ADRIAN RINSCHEID*
Affiliation:
University of St.Gallen, St.Gallen, Switzerland and Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
SILVIA PIANTA
Affiliation:
Bocconi University, Milan, Italy and RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment, Milan, Italy and Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
ELKE U. WEBER
Affiliation:
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
*
*Correspondence to: University of St.Gallen, Müller-Friedberg-Strasse 6/8, 9000 St.Gallen, Switzerland. E-mail: adrian.rinscheid@unisg.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What are the roles of bottom-up and top-down signals in the formation of climate change policy preferences? Using a large sample of American residents (n = 1520) and combining an experimental manipulation of descriptive social norms with two choice experiments, we investigate the effects of descriptive norms and policy endorsements by key political actors on climate policy support. We study these questions in two areas considered to be central in a number of decarbonization pathways: the phase-out of fossil fuel-powered cars and the deployment of carbon capture and storage. Our study provides two important results. First, social norm interventions may be no silver bullet for increasing citizens’ support for ambitious climate policies. In fact, we not only find that climate policy support is unaffected by norm messages communicating an increased diffusion of pro-environmental behaviors, but also that norm messages communicating the prevalence of non-sustainable behaviors decrease policy support. Second, in the presence of policy endorsements by political parties, citizens’ trust in these parties influences their support for climate policies. This study contributes to research in behavioral climate policy by examining the impact of descriptive norms and elite cues on climate policy support.

Information

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 5 , Special Issue 4: Behavioural Climate Policy , October 2021 , pp. 503 - 527
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aaroe, L. (2012), ‘When citizens go against elite directions’, Party Politics, 18(2): 215–233. doi: 10.1177/1354068810380093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albarracín, D., Wang, W., Li, H. and Noguchi, K. (2008), ‘Structure of attitudes: Judgments, memory, and implications for change’, in Crano, W. D. and Prislin, R. (eds), Attitudes and attitude change, New York, NY: Psychology Press, 19–39.Google Scholar
Allcott, H. (2011), ‘Social norms and energy conservation’, Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier B.V., 95(9–10): 1082–1095. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K. (2008), ‘Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability?’, Political Behavior, 30, 139–160. doi: 10.1007/s11109-007-9044-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K. and Kolodny, R. (2009), ‘Educating the least informed: Group endorsements in a grassroots campaign’, American Journal of Political Science, 53(4): 755–770. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00399.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1952), ‘Group forces in the modification and distortion of judgments’, Social Psychology, 450–501.Google Scholar
Bauer, P. C. and Freitag, M. (2017), ‘Measuring Trust’, in Uslaner, E. M. (ed.), Handbook of Social and Political Trust, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bechtel, M. M. and Scheve, K. F. (2013), ‘Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design.’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(34): 13763–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1306374110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bechtel, M. M., Genovese, F. and Scheve, K. F. (2019), ‘Interests, Norms and Support for the Provision of Global Public Goods: The Case of Climate Co-operation’, British Journal of Political Science, 49(4): 1333-1355. doi: 10.1017/S0007123417000205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, M. M., Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D. and Helbling, M. (2015), ‘Reality Bites: The Limits of Framing Effects for Salient and Contested Policy Issues’, Political Science Research and Methods, 3(3): 683–695. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2025552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolsen, T., Leeper, T. J. and Shapiro, M. A. (2014), ‘Doing What Others Do: Norms, Science, and Collective Action on Global Warming’, American Politics Research, 42(1): 65–89. doi: 10.1177/1532673X13484173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L. and Berntson, G. G. (1997), ‘Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(1): 3–25. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A. and Eagly, A. H. (1989), ‘Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing Within and Beyond the Persuasion Context’, in Uleman, J. S. and Bargh, J. A. (eds), Unintended Thought, New York: Guilford Press, 212–52.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. and Goldstein, N. J. (2004),. ‘Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity’, Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1): 591–621. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A. and Reno, R. R. (1991), ‘A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. and Kallgren, C. A. (1990), ‘A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6): 1015–1026. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, P. N., Rothgerber, H., Wood, W. and Matz, D. C. (2004), ‘Social norms and identity relevance: A motivational approach to normative behavior’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(10): 1295–1309. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264480CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Creutzig, F. et al. . (2018), ‘Towards demand-side solutions for mitigating climate change’, Nature Climate Change, 8(4): 268–271. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0121-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, M., and Gerard, H. B. (1955), ‘A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment’, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3): 629–636. doi: 10.1037/h0046408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, K. L. and Webler, T. N. (2016), ‘Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the Alarmed segment's public-sphere climate actions’, Nature Climate Change, 6(9): 879–884. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Hennessy, C. L., St. Charles, K. and Webber, J. (2010), ‘Competing Rhetoric Over Time: Frames Versus Cues’, The Journal of Politics, 72(01): 136–148. doi: 10.1017/S0022381609990521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Farrow, K., Grolleau, G. and Ibanez, L. (2017), ‘Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence’, Ecological Economics, Elsevier B.V., 140, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, D. R., Waggle, J. and Leifeld, P. (2013), ‘Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate’, American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1): 70–92. doi: 10.1177/0002764212463360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraune, C. and Knodt, M. (2018), ‘Sustainable energy transformations in an age of populism, post-truth politics, and local resistance’, Energy Research and Social Science, 43, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gampfer, R., Bernauer, T. and Kachi, A. (2014), ‘Obtaining public support for North-South climate funding: Evidence from conjoint experiments in donor countries’, Global Environmental Change, Elsevier Ltd, 29, 118–126. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, F. and Denniss, R. (2018), ‘Cutting with both arms of the scissors: the economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies’, Climatic Change, 150(1–2): 73–87. doi: 10.1007/s10584-018-2162-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J. and Yamamoto, T. (2014), ‘Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments’, Political Analysis 22(1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, T. K. and Weber, C. R. (2009), ‘Who said what? The effects of source cues in issue frames’, Political Behavior, 31(4): 537–558. doi: 10.1007/s11109-009-9088-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, A. J. (2015), How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A. and Reid, S. A. (2006), ‘Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms’, Communication Theory, 16(1): 7–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsey, M. J. (2008), ‘Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review’, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1): 204–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, R. A., Anderson, B. and Bernauer, T. (2018), ‘Can social norm interventions promote voluntary pro environmental action?’, Environmental Science & Policy, 89(November): 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2009), Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage, Paris. Available at: http://go.nature.com/ypCuIa.Google Scholar
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2018), World Energy Outlook 2018: The Future is Electrifying, Paris. Available at: https://www.iea.org/workshops/world-energy-outlook-2018-the-future-is-electrifying.html.Google Scholar
IPCC (2018), ‘Summary for Policymakers’, in Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. (eds), Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization.Google Scholar
IPCC (2019), ‘Summary for Policymakers’, in Pörtner, D.C. et al. (eds), IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, In press.Google Scholar
Johnsson, F., Reiner, D., Itaoka, K. and Herzog, H. (2010), ‘Stakeholder attitudes on carbon capture and storage—an international comparison’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(2): 410–418.10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.09.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, T., Shim, W. and Mantaro, T. (2010), ‘Psychological reactance and effects of social norms messages among binge drinking college students’, Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 54(3): 7–18.Google Scholar
Klein, J. G. (1996), ‘Negativity in impressions of presidential candidates revisited: The 1992 election’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3): 288–295. doi: 10.1177/0146167296223007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, J. H. and Quirk, P. J. (2000), ‘Reconsidering the Rational Public: Cognition, Heuristics, and Mass Opinion’, in Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D., and Popki, S. L. (eds), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153–182.10.1017/CBO9780511805813.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
L'Orange Seigo, S., Dohle, S. and Siegrist, M. (2014), ‘Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, 38, 848–863. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, M., and Stoker, L. (2000), ‘Political Trust and Trustworthiness’, Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475–507.10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S. and Auld, G. (2012), ‘Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change’, Policy Sciences, 45(2): 123–152. doi: 10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, N. and Trope, Y. (2008),. ‘The Psychology of Transcending the Here and Now’, Science, 322(5905): 1201–1205. doi:10.1126/science.1161958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lockwood, M. (2018), ‘Right-wing populism and the climate change agenda: exploring the linkages’, Environmental Politics 27(4): 712–732. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2018.1458411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A. (1994), ‘Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections’, The American Political Science Review, 88(1): 63–76.10.2307/2944882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1969), ‘The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change’, in Gardner, L. and Aronson, E. (eds), The handbook of social psychology, Volume three, Reading: Addison-Wesley, 136–314.Google Scholar
Mead, E. L., Rimal, R. N., Ferrence, R. and Cohen, J. E. (2014), ‘Understanding the sources of normative influence on behavior: The example of tobacco’, Social Science & Medicine, 115, 139–143. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.030CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meckling, J. and Nahm, J. (2019), ‘The politics of technology bans: Industrial policy competition and green goals for the auto industry’, Energy Policy, Elsevier Ltd, 126(December 2018), 470–479. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 301–15.10.2307/2669312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, S. P. (2011), ‘Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence’, The Journal of Politics, 73(04): 1165–1177. doi: 10.1017/S002238161100082X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, S. P. (2012), ‘Polarizing cues’, American Journal of Political Science, 56(1): 52–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nooteboom, B. (2002), Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyborg, K. et al. . (2016), ‘Social norms as solutions’, Science, 354(6308): 42–43. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986),. ‘The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion’, in Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (eds), Communication and persuasion, New York: Springer, 1–24.10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiner, D. M. (2016), ‘Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects’, Nature Energy, 1(1): 1–7. doi: 10.1038/nenergy.2015.11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiner, D. M. et al. . (2006), ‘American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming’, Environmental Science and Technology, 40(7): 2093–2098. doi: 10.1021/es052010b.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rinscheid, A., Pianta, S. and Weber, E.U. (2020), ‘Fast Track or Slo-Mo? Public Support and Temporal Preferences for Phasing out Fossil Fuel Cars in the United States’, Climate Policy, 20(1): 30–45. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1677550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafheitle, S., Weibel, A., Meidert, N. and Leuffen, D. (2019), ‘The Road to Trust. A Vignette Study on the Determinants of Citizens’ Trust in the European Commission’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 1–20. doi: 10.1111/jcms.12901.Google Scholar
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. and Griskevicius, V. (2007), ‘The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms’, Psychological Science, 18(5): p. 429. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skowronski, J. J. and Carlston, D. E. (1989), ‘Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations’, Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142.10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparkman, G. and Walton, G. M. (2017), ‘Dynamic Norms Promote Sustainable Behavior, Even if It Is Counternormative’, Psychological Science, 28(11): 1663–1674. doi: 10.1177/0956797617719950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tankard, M. E. and Paluck, E. L. (2016), ‘Norm Perception as a Vehicle for Social Change’, Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1): 181–211. doi: 10.1089/acm.2005.11.578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terwel, B. W., ter Mors, E. and Daamen, D. D. L. (2012), ‘It's not only about safety: Beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 9(July): 41–51.10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.02.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E. U. and Stern, P. C. (2011), ‘Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States’, American Psychologist, 66(4): 315–328. doi: 10.1037/a0023253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Rinscheid et al. Supplementary Materials

Rinscheid et al. Supplementary Materials

Download Rinscheid et al. Supplementary Materials(PDF)
PDF 374.7 KB