IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v96y2015i5p1277-1290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 search 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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    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. Dharshing, Samdruk & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2017. "The Influence of Political Orientation on the Strength and Temporal Persistence of Policy Framing Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 295-305.
    3. Poortinga, Wouter & Aoyagi, Midori & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2013. "Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1204-1211.
    4. Demski, Christina & Poortinga, Wouter & Pidgeon, Nick, 2014. "Exploring public perceptions of energy security risks in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 369-378.
    5. Myunghoon Kang, 2017. "Representation, sophisticated voting, and the size of the gridlock region," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(4), pages 623-646, October.
    6. Susanne Moser, 2012. "Adaptation, mitigation, and their disharmonious discontents: an essay," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(2), pages 165-175, March.
    7. Agneman, Gustav & Henriks, Sofia & Bäck, Hanna & Renström, Emma, 2024. "On the nexus between material and ideological determinants of climate policy support," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Costa-Font, Joan & Ljunge, Martin, 2023. "Ideological spillovers across the Atlantic? Evidence from Trump's presidential election," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    10. Theiss Bendixen, 2020. "How cultural evolution can inform the science of science communication—and vice versa," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Borrell Porta, Mireia & Contreras Silva, Valentina & Costa-Font, Joan, 2023. "Is employment during motherhood a ‘value changing experience’?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118054, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Hatfield-Dodds, Steve & Morrison, Mark, 2010. "Confusing opportunity costs, losses and forgone gains: Assessing the effect of communication bias on support for climate change policy in the United States and Australia," Working Papers 249386, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    15. repec:plo:pone00:0114460 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Zheyi Zhu & Yuxin Chen & Ke Ning & Zengjin Liu, 2024. "Policy setting, heterogeneous scale, and willingness to adopt green production behavior: field evidence from cooperatives in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1529-1555, January.
    17. Josephine Lauterbach & Christina Bantle, 2022. "“For More Diversity, Better Taste and My Own Health” Exploring Organic Consumers’ Purchasing Motives for Heirloom Vegetable Varieties," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Simon Donner, 2014. "Finding your place on the science – advocacy continuum: an editorial essay," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 1-8, May.
    20. Wolf, Ingo & Schröder, Tobias, 2019. "Connotative meanings of sustainable mobility: A segmentation approach using cultural sentiments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 259-280.
    21. Alexander A. Kaurov & Viktoria Cologna & Charlie Tyson & Naomi Oreskes, 2022. "Trends in American scientists’ political donations and implications for trust in science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.

    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.