IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v10y2020i1d10.1007_s13412-019-00576-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Partisan strength and the politicization of global climate change: a re-examination of Schuldt, Roh, and Schwarz 2015

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandre Morin-Chassé

    (University of Montreal)

  • Erick Lachapelle

    (University of Montreal)

Abstract

In the USA, self-identified Republican supporters tend to be more skeptical about the existence and consequences of global climate change (GCC) than Democratic supporters. If this phenomenon is well established, discussions about the “partisan gap” often treat partisan groups as if they were two homogeneous blocks. In this article, we question this practice. According to theory, strong partisan identification (PID) puts pressure on partisans to hold beliefs that conform to elite discourse and to perceived in-group positions. Meanwhile, public opinion research on environmental issues offers reasons to expect greater heterogeneity among Republicans than among Democrats. This literature leads us to predict that strong Republicans will be more skeptical about GCC than Republican leaners, whereas among Democrats, PID strength will not be associated with greater confidence in the existence of GCC. Our study tests this hypothesis leveraging the characteristics of a unique dataset where strong partisans are purposively oversampled to facilitate group comparisons. Results from multivariate regression models support our prediction. Next, our study also examines how PID strength shapes more complex patterns found in the literature. Previous work has shown that, compared to Democrats, the views of Republicans are less correlated with educational attainment and more influenced by issue labeling (e.g., global warming vs climate change). Our study tests if PID strength also moderates these factors. This time, interaction models produce mixed results. Overall, our findings suggest that breaking down GCC beliefs by PID strength can reveal a more nuanced understanding of the differences between and within partisan groups.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s13412-019-00576-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-019-00576-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-019-00576-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-019-00576-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Elias Dinas, 2014. "Does Choice Bring Loyalty? Electoral Participation and the Development of Party Identification," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(2), pages 449-465, April.
    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. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "Sociology: Clean-energy conservatism," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(3), pages 1-2, March.
    6. Lorien Jasny & Joseph Waggle & Dana R. Fisher, 2015. "An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(8), pages 782-786, August.
    7. Paul Goren & Christopher M. Federico & Miki Caul Kittilson, 2009. "Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 805-820, October.
    8. Aaron McCright, 2011. "Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 243-253, January.
    9. Lawrence Hamilton, 2011. "Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 231-242, January.
    10. Christopher P. Borick & Barry G. Rabe, 2010. "A Reason to Believe: Examining the Factors that Determine Individual Views on Global Warming," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(3), pages 777-800, September.
    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. Timmons, Shane & Lunn, Pete, 2022. "Public understanding of climate change and support for mitigation," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS135, June.

    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. Baiardi, Donatella & Morana, Claudio, 2021. "Climate change awareness: Empirical evidence for the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    2. Lawrence C. Hamilton & Joel Hartter & Kei Saito, 2015. "Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, August.
    3. Toby Bolsen & James N. Druckman & Fay Lomax Cook, 2015. "Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs about Global Warming," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 271-295, March.
    4. Stefan Linde, 2020. "The Politicization of Risk: Party Cues, Polarization, and Public Perceptions of Climate Change Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2002-2018, October.
    5. Inna Čábelková & Luboš Smutka & Wadim Strielkowski, 2022. "Public support for sustainable development and environmental policy: A case of the Czech Republic," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 110-126, February.
    6. E. Keith Smith & Adam Mayer, 2019. "Anomalous Anglophones? Contours of free market ideology, political polarization, and climate change attitudes in English-speaking countries, Western European and post-Communist states," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 17-34, January.
    7. Jeremiah Bohr, 2017. "Is it hot in here or is it just me? Temperature anomalies and political polarization over global warming in the American public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 271-285, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Zachary A. Wendling & Shahzeen Z. Attari & Sanya R. Carley & Rachel M. Krause & David C. Warren & John A. Rupp & John D. Graham, 2013. "On the Importance of Strengthening Moderate Beliefs in Climate Science to Foster Support for Immediate Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-18, December.
    10. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2018. "Self-assessed understanding of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 349-362, November.
    11. Jessica E. Hughes & James D. Sauer & Aaron Drummond & Laura E. Brumby & Matthew A. Palmer, 2023. "Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    12. Andrew G. Meyer, 2022. "Do economic conditions affect climate change beliefs and support for climate action? Evidence from the US in the wake of the Great Recession," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 64-86, January.
    13. Bernstein, Asaf & Billings, Stephen B. & Gustafson, Matthew T. & Lewis, Ryan, 2022. "Partisan residential sorting on climate change risk," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 989-1015.
    14. Seol-A Kwon & Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee, 2019. "Analyzing the Determinants of Individual Action on Climate Change by Specifying the Roles of Six Values in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, March.
    15. Asheley R. Landrum & Rosalynn Vasquez, 2020. "Polarized U.S. publics, Pope Francis, and climate change: Reviewing the studies and data collected around the 2015 Papal Encyclical," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    16. Debra Javeline & Tracy Kijewski-Correa & Angela Chesler, 2019. "Does it matter if you “believe” in climate change? Not for coastal home vulnerability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 511-532, August.
    17. Byungdoo Kim & David L. Kay & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2021. "Will I have to move because of climate change? Perceived likelihood of weather- or climate-related relocation among the US public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-8, March.
    18. 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).
    19. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.
    20. 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).

    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:spr:jenvss:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s13412-019-00576-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.