IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i20p8429-d427231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ideology as Filter: Motivated Information Processing and Decision-Making in the Energy Domain

Author

Listed:
  • Ulf J. J. Hahnel

    (Department of Psychology and Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland)

  • Christian Mumenthaler

    (Department of Psychology and Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland)

  • Tobia Spampatti

    (Department of Psychology and Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland)

  • Tobias Brosch

    (Department of Psychology and Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland)

Abstract

The transition towards more renewable energy will substantially increase voters’ involvement in the political decision-making process in the energy domain. Decisions such as whether to approve or reject large-scale energy programs can be complex, especially when available information cues are numerous and conflicting. Here, we hypothesize that political ideology is a strong determinant in this process, serving as a filter that voters apply when evaluating the relevance of provided information cues. We tested this hypothesis in the context of the 2017 Public Vote on the Swiss Energy Act. A sample of n = 931 Swiss voters were presented with arguments in favor or against the Energy Act, which were framed in terms of values found to be relevant for liberal and conservative ideologies, respectively. Political ideology strongly determined individual attitudes and voting preferences. Political ideology moreover moderated the influence of information provision on decisions, in that arguments congruent with voters’ political ideology were more likely to be evaluated as personally relevant and integrated into their decisions. We discuss the implications of our findings for measures on how to address ideology-based decision-making in order to ensure a well-informed electorate.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Christian Mumenthaler & Tobia Spampatti & Tobias Brosch, 2020. "Ideology as Filter: Motivated Information Processing and Decision-Making in the Energy Domain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-19, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:20:p:8429-:d:427231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8429/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8429/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laméris, Maite D. & Jong-A-Pin, Richard & Garretsen, Harry, 2018. "On the measurement of voter ideology," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 417-432.
    2. Robert Brulle & Jason Carmichael & J. Jenkins, 2012. "Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 169-188, September.
    3. Hilary S. Boudet, 2019. "Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 446-455, June.
    4. Olson-Hazboun, Shawn K. & Howe, Peter D. & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2018. "The influence of extractive activities on public support for renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 117-126.
    5. James N. Druckman & Mary C. McGrath, 2019. "The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 111-119, February.
    6. Andrew B. Moynihan & Geertje Schuitema, 2020. "Values Influence Public Acceptability of Geoengineering Technologies Via Self-Identities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-33, June.
    7. Blair Kidwell & Adam Farmer & David M. Hardesty, 2013. "Getting Liberals and Conservatives to Go Green: Political Ideology and Congruent Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(2), pages 350-367.
    8. Matthew J. Hornsey & Emily A. Harris & Paul G. Bain & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 622-626, June.
    9. Gustafson, Abel & Goldberg, Matthew H. & Kotcher, John E. & Rosenthal, Seth A. & Maibach, Edward W. & Ballew, Matthew T. & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2020. "Republicans and Democrats differ in why they support renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    10. Matthew J. Hornsey & Emily A. Harris & Kelly S. Fielding, 2018. "Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(7), pages 614-620, July.
    11. Hahnel, Ulf J.J. & Herberz, Mario & Pena-Bello, Alejandro & Parra, David & Brosch, Tobias, 2020. "Becoming prosumer: Revealing trading preferences and decision-making strategies in peer-to-peer energy communities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    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. Spampatti, Tobia & Hahnel, Ulf J.J. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Brosch, Tobias, 2022. "Short and long-term dominance of negative information in shaping public energy perceptions: The case of shallow geothermal systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    2. Cousse, Julia & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Hahnel, Ulf J.J., 2021. "Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: Affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Helena Schmidt & Gerdien de Vries & Reint Jan Renes & Roland Schmehl, 2022. "The Social Acceptance of Airborne Wind Energy: A Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.

    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. Welsch, Heinz, 2021. "How climate-friendly behavior relates to moral identity and identity-protective cognition: Evidence from the European social surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Anne K. Armstrong & Marianne E. Krasny, 2020. "Tracing Paths from Research to Practice in Climate Change Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Christian Mumenthaler & Tobias Brosch, 2020. "Emotional foundations of the public climate change divide," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 9-19, July.
    4. E. Keith Smith & Lynn M. Hempel, 2022. "Alignment of values and political orientations amplifies climate change attitudes and behaviors," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-28, May.
    5. Shelley Boulianne & Mireille Lalancette & David Ilkiw, 2020. "“School Strike 4 Climate”: Social Media and the International Youth Protest on Climate Change," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 208-218.
    6. John McClure & Ilan Noy & Yoshi Kashima & Taciano L. Milfont, 2022. "Attributions for extreme weather events: science and the people," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Alexandre Morin-Chassé & Erick Lachapelle, 2020. "Partisan strength and the politicization of global climate change: a re-examination of Schuldt, Roh, and Schwarz 2015," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(1), pages 31-40, March.
    8. Heinz Welsch, 2022. "What shapes cognitions of climate change in Europe? Ideology, morality, and the role of educational attainment," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 386-395, June.
    9. Carley M. Eschliman & Emma Kuster & Joseph Ripberger & Adrienne M. Wootten, 2020. "Preparing to adapt: are public expectations in line with climate projections?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 851-871, November.
    10. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    11. Eugene Y. Chan & Jack Lin, 2022. "Political ideology and psychological reactance: how serious should climate change be?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-22, May.
    12. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas & Yang, Xiaojun, 2021. "The climate decade: Changing attitudes on three continents," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Booth, Pamela & Walsh, Patrick J. & Stahlmann-Brown, Pike, 2020. "Drought Intensity, Future Expectations, and the Resilience of Climate Beliefs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    14. Kelly S. Fielding & Matthew J. Hornsey & Ha Anh Thai & Li Li Toh, 2020. "Using ingroup messengers and ingroup values to promote climate change policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 181-199, January.
    15. Baiardi, Donatella & Morana, Claudio, 2021. "Climate change awareness: Empirical evidence for the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    16. Céline Nauges & Sarah Ann Wheeler & Kelly S. Fielding, 2021. "The relationship between country and individual household wealth and climate change concern: the mediating role of control," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16481-16503, November.
    17. Brown, Pike & Walsh, Patrick & Booth, Pam, 2020. "Environmental signalling & expectations of future drought: Evidence from panel data," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305239, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    19. Sugandha Srivastav & Ryan Rafaty, 2023. "Political Strategies to Overcome Climate Policy Obstructionism," Papers 2304.14960, arXiv.org.
    20. Llewelyn Hughes & David M. Konisky & Sandra Potter, 2020. "Extreme weather and climate opinion: evidence from Australia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 723-743, November.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:20:p:8429-:d:427231. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.