Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-24T03:32:49.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Party Cues in the News: Democratic Elites, Republican Backlash, and the Dynamics of Climate Skepticism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2020

Eric Merkley Open the ORCID record for Eric Merkley [Opens in a new window]  and
Dominik A. Stecula Open the ORCID record for Dominik A. Stecula [Opens in a new window]
Eric Merkley*
Affiliation:
Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, University of Toronto, Canada
Dominik A. Stecula
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Supporters of the Republican Party have become much more skeptical of the science of climate change since the 1990s. This article argues that out-group cues from Democratic elites caused a backlash that resulted in greater climate skepticism. The authors construct aggregate measures of climate skepticism from nearly 200 public opinion polls at the quarterly level from 2001 to 2014 and at the annual level from 1986 to 2014. They also build time-series measures of possible contributors to climate skepticism using an automated media content analysis. The analyses provide evidence that cues from party elites – especially from Democrats – are associated with aggregate dynamics in climate change skepticism, including among supporters of the Republican Party. The study also involves a party cue survey experiment administered to a sample of 3,000 Americans through Amazon Mechanical Turk to provide more evidence of causality. Together, these results highlight the importance of out-group cue taking and suggest that climate change skepticism should be examined through the lens of elite-led opinion formation.

Keywords

climate changepublic opinionclimate denialelite cuesparty cuesopinion formationcontent analysisexperiments
Type
Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , October 2021 , pp. 1439 - 1456
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)

References

Achen, CH and Bartels, LM (2016) Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400882731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althaus, SL et al. (1996) Revising the indexing hypothesis: officials, media, and the Libya crisis. Political Communication 13, 407–421.10.1080/10584609.1996.9963128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amdur, D, Rabe, BG and Borick, C (2014) Public Views on a Carbon Tax Depend on the Proposed Use of Revenue: A Report from The National Surveys on Energy And Environment. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy, no. 13. Center for Local, State and Urban Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2014-spring-carbon-tax.pdf.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S and Konisky, DM (2014) Cheap and Clean. How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9999.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, M and Pope, CC (2019) Does party trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America. American Political Science Review 113(1), 38–54.10.1017/S0003055418000795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, MM and Scheve, KF (2013) Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(34), 13763–13768.10.1073/pnas.1306374110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, WL (1990) Toward a theory of press-state relations. Journal of Communication 40(2), 103–125.10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02265.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, AJ (2009) In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226043463.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bischof, D and Wagner, M (2019) Do voters polarize when extreme parties enter parliament? American Journal of Political Science 63(4), 888–904.10.1111/ajps.12449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boykoff, MT and Boykoff, JM (2007) Climate change and journalistic norms: a case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 38(6), 1190–1204.Google Scholar
Brulle, RJ, Carmichael, J and Jenkins, JC (2012) Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change 114, 169–188.10.1007/s10584-012-0403-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, TH and Kay, AC (2014) Solution aversion: on the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107(5), 809–824.10.1037/a0037963CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carmichael, JT and Brulle, RJ (2017) Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013. Environmental Politics 26, 232–252.10.1080/09644016.2016.1263433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, GL (2003) Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(5), 808–822.10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conover, PJ and Feldman, S (1989) Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Political Science 33(4), 912–940.10.2307/2111115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, JB and Durfee, JL (2004) Testing public (un)certainty of science: media representations of global warming. Science Communication 26(2), 129–151.10.1177/1075547004270234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, RJ, Beck, PA and Huckfeldt, R (1998) Partisan cues and the media: information flows in the 1992 presidential election. American Political Science Review 92(1), 111–126.10.2307/2585932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, JJ (1995) The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 72(2), 285–299.10.1177/107769909507200203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditto, PH and Lopez, DF (1992) Motivated skepticism: use of differential decision criteria for preferred and non-preferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(4), 568–584.10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, G, Hmielowski, J and Ma, Y (2017) Improving climate change acceptance among U.S. conservatives through value-based message targeting. Science Communication 39(4), 520–534.10.1177/1075547017715473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, JN (2005) Media matter: how newspapers and television news cover campaigns and influence voters. Political Communication 22(4), 463–481.10.1080/10584600500311394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drutman, L (2017) Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyond: Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties. Report from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. Retrieved from https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond.Google Scholar
Dunlap, RE and Jacques, PJ (2013) Climate change denial books and conservative think tanks: exploring the connection. American Behavioral Scientist 57(6), 699–731.10.1177/0002764213477096CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunlap, RE and McCright, AM (2011) Organized climate change denial. In Dryzek, JS, Norgaard, RB and Schlosberg, D (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 144–160.Google Scholar
Elliott, E, Seldon, BJ and Regens, JL (1997) Political and economic determinants of individuals support for environmental spending. Journal of Environmental Management 51(1), 15–27.10.1006/jema.1996.0129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, RS, Mackuen, MB and Stimson, JA (2002) Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eyck, TAT and Williment, M (2003) The national media and things genetic: coverage in The New York Times (1971–2001) and The Washington Post (1977–2001). Science Communication 25(2), 129–152.10.1177/1075547003259212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnsworth, SJ and Lichter, SR (2005) The mediated Congress: coverage of Capitol Hill in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 10(2), 94–107.10.1177/1081180X05277843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, J (2016a) Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(1), 92–97.10.1073/pnas.1509433112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, J (2016b) Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Climate Change 6, 370–374.10.1038/nclimate2875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, A and Adams, J (2018) Public Opinion Backlash in Response to Party Press Releases: Evidence from the (Unlikely) Swiss Case. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Feygina, I, Jost, JT and Goldsmith, RE (2010) System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of ‘system-sanctioned change’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(3), 326–338.10.1177/0146167209351435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, SM, Dunwoody, S and Rogers, CL (eds) (1999) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science, 1st Edn. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.Google Scholar
Golan, G (2006) Inter-media agenda setting and global news coverage: assessing the influence of The New York Times on three network television evening news programs. Journalism Studies 7(2), 323–333.10.1080/14616700500533643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goren, P, Federico, CM and Kittilson, MC (2009) Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science 53(4), 805–820.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00402.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, J and Stewart, BM (2013) Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis 21(3), 267–297.10.1093/pan/mps028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guber, DL (2013) A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. American Behavioral Scientist 57, 93–115.10.1177/0002764212463361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S, Sood, G and Lelkes, Y (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76, 405–431.10.1093/poq/nfs038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, PJ, Dunlap, RE and Freeman, M (2008) The organisation of denial: conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics 17(3), 349–385.10.1080/09644010802055576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, DM, Jenkins-Smith, H and Braman, D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14(2), 147–174.10.1080/13669877.2010.511246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, C (2005) Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior 27(2), 163–182.10.1007/s11109-005-1764-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, DR and Kalmoe, NP (2017) Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Koehler, DJ (2016) Can journalistic ‘false balance’ distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 22(1), 24–38.Google Scholar
Krosnick, JA, Holbrook, AL and Visser, PS (2000) The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion. Public Understanding of Science 9, 239–260.10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108(3), 480–498.10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacy, S et al. (2015) Issues and best practices in content analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 92(4), 791–811.10.1177/1077699015607338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiserowitz, A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Climactic Change 77(1/2), 45–72.10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, GS (2012) Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226472157.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandowsky, S and Oberauer, K (2016) Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science 25(4), 217–222.10.1177/0963721416654436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, M and Taber, CS (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139032490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCombs, ME (2005) A look at agenda-setting: past, present and future. Journalism Studies 6, 543–557.10.1080/14616700500250438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCright, AM and Dunlap, RE (2011) The politicization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001-2010. The Sociological Quarterly 52(2), 155–194.10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkley, E and Stecula, DA (2018) Party elites or manufactured doubt? The informational context of climate change polarization. Science Communication 40(2), 258–274.10.1177/1075547018760334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkley, E and Stecula, DA (2020) Replication Data for: Party cues in the news: Democratic elites, Republican backlash, and the dynamics of climate skepticism. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QKATSL, Harvard Dataverse, V1. UNF:6:/TQXphYW7xT+bhbAug2vBA==CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, JJ (1993) Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior 15(2), 167–192.10.1007/BF00993852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, SP (2012) Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science 56(1), 52–66.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nisbet, MC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51(2), 12–23.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N and Conway, EM (2010) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Painter, J (2013) Climate Change in the Media: Reporting Risk and Uncertainty. London: I.B. Tauris.10.5040/9780755694525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, J and Ashe, T (2012) Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10. Environmental Research Letters 7(4).10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasek, J (2017) It's not my consensus: motivated reasoning and the sources of scientific illiteracy. Public Understanding of Science 27(7), 787–806.10.1177/0963662517733681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, SL (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226772875.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scruggs, L and Benegal, S (2012) Declining public concern about climate change: can we blame the great recession? Global Environmental Change 22, 505–515.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, SN, Stecula, DA and Wlezien, C (2015) It's (change in) the (future) economy, stupid: economic indicators, the media, and public opinion. American Journal of Political Science 59(2), 457–474.10.1111/ajps.12145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stecula, DA and Merkley, E (2019) Framing climate change: economics, ideology, and uncertainty in American news media content from 1988 to 2014. Frontiers in Communication, 26 February.10.3389/fcomm.2019.00006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, JA (1999) Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Tesler, M (2018) Elite domination of public doubts about climate change (not evolution). Political Communication 35(2), 306–326.10.1080/10584609.2017.1380092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargo, CJ and Guo, L (2017) Networks, big data, and intermedia agenda setting: an analysis of traditional, partisan, and emerging online U.S. news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 94(4), 1031–1055.10.1177/1077699016679976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, GD, Terwel, BW and Ellemers, N (2016) Perceptions of manipulation and judgments of illegitimacy: pitfalls in the use of emphasis framing when communicating about CO2 capture and storage. Environmental Communication 10(2), 206–226.10.1080/17524032.2015.1047884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, NJG et al. (2019) A Simplified Protocol to Screen out VPS and International Respondents Using Qualtrics. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3327274.10.2139/ssrn.3327274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511818691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Merkley and Stecula Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QKATSL
Link
Supplementary material: File

Merkley and Stecula supplementary material

Merkley and Stecula supplementary material

Download Merkley and Stecula supplementary material(File)
File 677.1 KB