The influence of partisan news on climate mitigation support: An investigation into the mediating role of perceived risk and efficacy.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Risk Analysis Pub Date : 2024-10-08 DOI:10.1111/risa.17659
Soobin Choi, P Sol Hart
{"title":"The influence of partisan news on climate mitigation support: An investigation into the mediating role of perceived risk and efficacy.","authors":"Soobin Choi, P Sol Hart","doi":"10.1111/risa.17659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Perceptions of efficacy play a central role in motivating people to engage in climate actions. However, there has been little investigation into how different climate efficacy beliefs are formed and how they may be associated with support for climate mitigation policies. This study, based on the motivated control framework, examines how risk perceptions may differentially be associated with four types of efficacy constructs (self-efficacy, personal outcome expectancy, collective efficacy, and collective outcome efficacy). It also places the motivated control framework in the context of the partisan information sphere and examines how exposure to partisan news may influence mitigation policy support through the mediators of risk perceptions and the efficacy constructs. Results suggest that liberal- and conservative-leaning news exposure, respectively, associate with higher and lower supports for policies. Overall, risk perception was a significant mediator, and the mediating function of efficacy varied depending on the specific construct being examined. For liberal news use, increased risk perceptions had a positive association with policy support through self-efficacy and collective outcome expectancy but also had an unexpected negative association with policy support through personal outcome expectancy and collective efficacy. For conservative news use, decreased risk perceptions resulted in further decreased beliefs of self-efficacy and collective outcome expectancy, resulting in lower levels of support for climate policies. We also find that political ideology is a significant moderator for the mediation model. Implications for climate change communication are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":21472,"journal":{"name":"Risk Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17659","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Perceptions of efficacy play a central role in motivating people to engage in climate actions. However, there has been little investigation into how different climate efficacy beliefs are formed and how they may be associated with support for climate mitigation policies. This study, based on the motivated control framework, examines how risk perceptions may differentially be associated with four types of efficacy constructs (self-efficacy, personal outcome expectancy, collective efficacy, and collective outcome efficacy). It also places the motivated control framework in the context of the partisan information sphere and examines how exposure to partisan news may influence mitigation policy support through the mediators of risk perceptions and the efficacy constructs. Results suggest that liberal- and conservative-leaning news exposure, respectively, associate with higher and lower supports for policies. Overall, risk perception was a significant mediator, and the mediating function of efficacy varied depending on the specific construct being examined. For liberal news use, increased risk perceptions had a positive association with policy support through self-efficacy and collective outcome expectancy but also had an unexpected negative association with policy support through personal outcome expectancy and collective efficacy. For conservative news use, decreased risk perceptions resulted in further decreased beliefs of self-efficacy and collective outcome expectancy, resulting in lower levels of support for climate policies. We also find that political ideology is a significant moderator for the mediation model. Implications for climate change communication are discussed.

党派新闻对气候减缓支持的影响:调查感知风险和效能的中介作用。
效能感在激励人们参与气候行动方面发挥着核心作用。然而,对于不同的气候效能信念是如何形成的,以及它们如何与气候减缓政策的支持相关联,却鲜有研究。本研究以动机控制框架为基础,探讨了风险认知如何与四种效能建构(自我效能、个人结果预期、集体效能和集体结果效能)产生不同的关联。该研究还将动机控制框架置于党派信息领域的背景下,并研究了党派新闻的接触如何通过风险认知和效能构建的中介影响缓解政策的支持。结果表明,自由主义和保守主义倾向的新闻接触分别与较高和较低的政策支持率相关。总体而言,风险感知是一个重要的中介因素,而效能的中介功能则因具体的研究内容而异。对于自由派新闻的使用,风险认知的增加通过自我效能和集体结果预期与政策支持有正相关,但也通过个人结果预期和集体效能与政策支持有意想不到的负相关。对于保守新闻的使用,风险认知的降低导致自我效能感和集体结果预期的进一步降低,从而降低了对气候政策的支持水平。我们还发现,政治意识形态是中介模型的一个重要调节因素。本文讨论了气候变化传播的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Risk Analysis
Risk Analysis 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
10.50%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4.2 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis is ranked among the top 10 journals in the ISI Journal Citation Reports under the social sciences, mathematical methods category, and provides a focal point for new developments in the field of risk analysis. This international peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing critical empirical research and commentaries dealing with risk issues. The topics covered include: • Human health and safety risks • Microbial risks • Engineering • Mathematical modeling • Risk characterization • Risk communication • Risk management and decision-making • Risk perception, acceptability, and ethics • Laws and regulatory policy • Ecological risks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信