IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v96y2015i5p1277-1290.html

Moral Frames and Climate Change Policy Attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander W. Severson
  • Eric A. Coleman

Abstract

type="main"> This article compares the effects of various climate change issue frames (deontological-moral, empirical-scientific, and economic) on support for climate change mitigation policies. Using an issue-framing survey experiment conducted on Amazon Mechanical Turk, we assess framing effects on climate change policy support using ordinary least squares regression. We find mixed evidence regarding frame effectiveness. Religious moral frames and economic efficiency frames are ineffective, whereas scientific frames, secular moral frames, and economic equity frames are effective at increasing overall policy support. Additionally, the positive science frame and economic equity frame reduce the ideological divide in climate policy support. The effects of issue framing on climate policy support are mixed. Frames that we expected conservatives to be responsive to (religious morality; economic efficiency) fail to change support for climate policy. Frames that emphasize science, secular morality, and economy equity have the potential to increase public support for climate change policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander W. Severson & Eric A. Coleman, 2015. "Moral Frames and Climate Change Policy Attitudes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1277-1290, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:96:y:2015:i:5:p:1277-1290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ssqu.12159
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Poortinga, Wouter & Spence, Alexa & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2012. "Individual-motivational factors in the acceptability of demand-side and supply-side measures to reduce carbon emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 812-819.
    2. Dan Kahan, 2010. "Fixing the communications failure," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 296-297, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emma Ejelöv & Andreas Nilsson, 2020. "Individual Factors Influencing Acceptability for Environmental Policies: A Review and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Ejelöv, Emma & Nässén, Jonas & Matti, Simon & Elinder, Liselott Schäfer & Larsson, Jörgen, 2025. "Public and political acceptability of a food tax shift – An experiment with policy framing and revenue use," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Nela Mrchkovska & Nives Dolšak & Aseem Prakash, 2024. "Morality meets menu: investigating the impact of moral appeals on vegetarianism through a conjoint survey experiment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Shane P Singh & Meili Swanson, 2017. "How issue frames shape beliefs about the importance of climate change policy across ideological and partisan groups," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Anna Klas & Edward J. R. Clarke & Kelly Fielding & Matthew Mackay & Susanne Lohmann & Mathew Ling, 2022. "Investigating how economic and national identity loss messages impact climate change policy support," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Heinz, Nicolai & Koessler, Ann-Kathrin, 2021. "Other-regarding preferences and pro-environmental behaviour: An interdisciplinary review of experimental studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    7. Jialing Huang & Janet Z. Yang & Haoran Chu, 2022. "Framing Climate Change Impacts as Moral Violations: The Pathway of Perceived Message Credibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Laura Wolton & Deserai A. Crow, 2022. "Politicking with evidence: examining evidence-based issues in electoral policy narratives," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(4), pages 661-691, December.
    9. Ádám Stefkovics & Lili Zenovitz, 2023. "Global warming vs. climate change frames: revisiting framing effects based on new experimental evidence collected in 30 European countries," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(12), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Sami Ahonen & Mikko Leino & Aino Tiihonen, 2025. "Framing climate policy around energy independence enhances acceptance and perceived effectiveness: evidence from a Finnish survey experiment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 178(2), pages 1-19, February.
    11. Thomas Sterner & Richard T. Carson & E. Somanathan & Dale Whittington & Jorge Bonilla & Haileselassie et al. Medhin, 2020. "Funding Inclusive Green Transition through Greenhouse Gas Pricing," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 18(01), pages 03-08, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nela Mrchkovska & Nives Dolšak & Aseem Prakash, 2024. "Morality meets menu: investigating the impact of moral appeals on vegetarianism through a conjoint survey experiment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Baharoon, Dhyia Aidroos & Rahman, Hasimah Abdul & Fadhl, Saeed Obaid, 2016. "Publics׳ knowledge, attitudes and behavioral toward the use of solar energy in Yemen power sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 498-515.
    3. Theiss Bendixen, 2020. "How cultural evolution can inform the science of science communication—and vice versa," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Michael D. Jones, 2014. "Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 1-39, March.
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0114460 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Rosalind Pidcock & Kate Heath & Lydia Messling & Susie Wang & Anna Pirani & Sarah Connors & Adam Corner & Christopher Shaw & Melissa Gomis, 2021. "Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-22, October.
    7. Alexander A. Kaurov & Viktoria Cologna & Charlie Tyson & Naomi Oreskes, 2022. "Trends in American scientists’ political donations and implications for trust in science," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    8. Robert Inkpen & Brian Baily, 2020. "Environmental beliefs and their role in environmental behaviours of undergraduate students," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(1), pages 57-67, March.
    9. Matthew J. Hornsey & Kelly S. Fielding & Emily A. Harris & Paul G. Bain & Tim Grice & Cassandra M. Chapman, 2022. "Protecting the Planet or Destroying the Universe? Understanding Reactions to Space Mining," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, March.
    10. Xiaozi Liu & Henrik Lindhjem & Kristine Grimsrud & Einar Leknes & Endre Tvinnereim, 2023. "Is there a generational shift in preferences for forest carbon sequestration vs. preservation of agricultural landscapes?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(9), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Chunyao Deng & Zhenwu Shi & Yanli Zhang & Jinru Wang, 2025. "Analysis of Green Travel Choice Behavior of Residents in Central Urban Areas: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior and Stimulus–Organism–Response Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-24, March.
    12. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    13. Robert O Keohane & Melissa Lane & Michael Oppenheimer, 2014. "The ethics of scientific communication under uncertainty," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 13(4), pages 343-368, November.
    14. Baharoon, Dhyia Aidroos & Rahman, Hasimah Abdul & Fadhl, Saeed Obaid, 2016. "Personal and psychological factors affecting the successful development of solar energy use in Yemen power sector: A case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 516-535.
    15. Smrithi Talwar, 2021. "Culturally mediated perceptions of climate change risks in New Zealand," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-10, January.
    16. Kevin Winter & Matthew J. Hornsey & Lotte Pummerer & Kai Sassenberg, 2022. "Anticipating and defusing the role of conspiracy beliefs in shaping opposition to wind farms," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 7(12), pages 1200-1207, December.
    17. Adrienne R. Brown & Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2024. "Belief-neutral Versus Belief-linked Knowledge as Predictors of Climate-change Opinions," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(2), pages 21582440241, June.
    18. Myunghoon Kang, 2017. "Representation, sophisticated voting, and the size of the gridlock region," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(4), pages 623-646, October.
    19. Steven R. Smith & Ian Christie, 2021. "Knowledge Integration in the Politics and Policy of Rapid Transitions to Net Zero Carbon: A Typology and Mapping Method for Climate Actors in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-23, January.
    20. Annal Dhungana & Emma E. H. Doyle & Raj Prasanna & Garry McDonald, 2025. "From scientific models to decisions: exploring uncertainty communication gaps between scientists and decision-makers," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 1-15, September.
    21. Simon Donner, 2014. "Finding your place on the science – advocacy continuum: an editorial essay," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 1-8, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:96:y:2015:i:5:p:1277-1290. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.