While the effects of climate change will impact most Americans, they will likely have a disproportionate influence on the socioeconomic well-being of marginalized communities. Few researchers, however, have investigated public support for policies aimed at ameliorating climate-related disparities. Fewer still have considered how political and (critically) pre-political psychological dispositions might shape environmental justice concern (EJC) and subsequently influence policy support—both of which, I argue, could present roadblocks for effective climate communication and policy action. In this registered report, I (1) propose and validate a new measure of EJC, (2) explore its political correlates and pre-political antecedents, and (3) test for a link between EJC and policy support. In addition to psychometrically validating the EJC scale, I find that pre-political value orientations are associated with EJC, which, in turn, mediates the effects of pre-political values on taking action to mitigate the unequal effects of climate change.

This article considers what types of strategic communication messaging regarding migration policy are likely to be more or less effective. To do so, the article summarizes the literature to, first, note the broadly postulated effectiveness of value-based messaging and, second, note how underdefined this concept remains. To overcome this shortcoming, I introduce Schwarz’s psychological theory of “basic human values” and use European Social Survey data to visualize the relationship between these values and attitudes to immigration. I argue that messaging with a value-basis that is concordant with that of its audience is more likely to elicit sympathy, whereas that which is discordant with the values of its audience is more likely to elicit antipathy. Given the value-balanced orientations of those with moderate attitudes to immigration, persuasive migration messaging should attempt to mobilize values of its opposition; that is pro-migration messaging should mobilize Schwarz’s values of conformity, tradition, security, and power, whereas anti-migration messaging should mobilize values of universalism, benevolence, self-direction, and stimulation. I then turn to an inventory of 135 migration communication campaigns provided by the International Centre for Migration Policy Development. I show that few pro-migration campaigns contained value-based messaging, whereas all anti-migration campaigns did. Similarly, very few pro-migration campaigns included values besides “universalism” and “benevolence,” whereas anti-migration campaigns included values associated with both pro- and anti-migration attitudes. I visually demonstrate examples of each case before discussing ramifications for policy communication.