Conservative Opposition to Climate Policy May be Partially Threat-Based: A Test and Critique of the Integrated Threat Model of Climate Attitudes

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Samantha K. Stanley, Zoe Leviston, Kirsti M. Jylhä, Iain Walker
{"title":"Conservative Opposition to Climate Policy May be Partially Threat-Based: A Test and Critique of the Integrated Threat Model of Climate Attitudes","authors":"Samantha K. Stanley,&nbsp;Zoe Leviston,&nbsp;Kirsti M. Jylhä,&nbsp;Iain Walker","doi":"10.1111/jasp.13104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>One explanation for the link between political conservatism and rejection of the science and solutions of climate change is based on perceived threats. Yet, until recently, this claim has not been studied by simultaneously considering the different levels at which individuals may experience a sense of threat (i.e., threat of climate change or climate policy, at personal or collective level, on economic or cultural domains). A recent theoretical advance integrated the existing threat-based explanations for conservatives' lower acceptance of climate change and support for pro-climate policy. We aimed to subject aspects of this integrated threat model of climate change attitudes to empirical testing through a series of three studies (Study 1 <i>N</i> = 5110, Study 2 <i>N</i> = 299, Study 3 <i>N</i> = 552). We found the hypothesized threat asymmetry in risk assessments of climate change and its solutions, whereby conservative ideologies predict greater perceived threat from climate policy, and lower perceived threat from climate change itself. Also consistent with the model, we found evidence that cross-sectionally, threat partially mediated associations between ideology and policy support. However, we also report on an unsuccessful experimental test of the model. Prompting people to think about the economic or cultural consequences of climate policy did not heighten conservatives' perceptions of policy threat (i.e., a manipulation failure), and thus did not have the expected exacerbating effect on their climate policy concern. Findings suggest conservatives' threat-based concerns about climate policy may be difficult to shift experimentally and provide only a partial explanation for their lower policy support.</p>","PeriodicalId":48404,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Social Psychology","volume":"55 7","pages":"497-510"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jasp.13104","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jasp.13104","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One explanation for the link between political conservatism and rejection of the science and solutions of climate change is based on perceived threats. Yet, until recently, this claim has not been studied by simultaneously considering the different levels at which individuals may experience a sense of threat (i.e., threat of climate change or climate policy, at personal or collective level, on economic or cultural domains). A recent theoretical advance integrated the existing threat-based explanations for conservatives' lower acceptance of climate change and support for pro-climate policy. We aimed to subject aspects of this integrated threat model of climate change attitudes to empirical testing through a series of three studies (Study 1 N = 5110, Study 2 N = 299, Study 3 N = 552). We found the hypothesized threat asymmetry in risk assessments of climate change and its solutions, whereby conservative ideologies predict greater perceived threat from climate policy, and lower perceived threat from climate change itself. Also consistent with the model, we found evidence that cross-sectionally, threat partially mediated associations between ideology and policy support. However, we also report on an unsuccessful experimental test of the model. Prompting people to think about the economic or cultural consequences of climate policy did not heighten conservatives' perceptions of policy threat (i.e., a manipulation failure), and thus did not have the expected exacerbating effect on their climate policy concern. Findings suggest conservatives' threat-based concerns about climate policy may be difficult to shift experimentally and provide only a partial explanation for their lower policy support.

Abstract Image

对气候政策的保守反对可能部分基于威胁:对气候态度综合威胁模型的检验与批判
对于政治保守主义与拒绝气候变化的科学和解决方案之间的联系,一种解释是基于对威胁的感知。然而,直到最近,这一说法还没有同时考虑到个人可能经历威胁感的不同水平(即,气候变化或气候政策的威胁,在个人或集体层面,在经济或文化领域)。最近的一项理论进展整合了现有的基于威胁的解释,以解释保守派对气候变化的接受程度较低和对气候政策的支持。我们的目标是通过一系列三项研究(研究1 N = 5110,研究2 N = 299,研究3 N = 552),对气候变化态度的综合威胁模型的各个方面进行实证检验。我们发现在气候变化及其解决方案的风险评估中存在假设的威胁不对称,即保守意识形态预测气候政策的感知威胁更大,而气候变化本身的感知威胁更低。同样与模型一致的是,我们发现证据表明,威胁在横截面上部分介导了意识形态和政策支持之间的关联。然而,我们也报告了一个不成功的实验测试的模型。促使人们思考气候政策的经济或文化后果并没有增强保守派对政策威胁(即操纵失败)的看法,因此没有对他们的气候政策担忧产生预期的加剧作用。研究结果表明,保守派对气候政策基于威胁的担忧可能很难从实验上改变,并且只能部分解释他们较低的政策支持。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.00%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: Published since 1971, Journal of Applied Social Psychology is a monthly publication devoted to applications of experimental behavioral science research to problems of society (e.g., organizational and leadership psychology, safety, health, and gender issues; perceptions of war and natural hazards; jury deliberation; performance, AIDS, cancer, heart disease, exercise, and sports).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信