IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aiw/wpaper/23.html

Climate protection in Germany: Party cues in a multi-party system

Author

Listed:
  • Valentina Stöhr

    (TUMCS for Biotechnology and Sustainability, Technical University of Munich)

Abstract

This paper provides insight into the impact of party cues on the public’s desire for climate protection during the COVID-19 crisis. In particular, the effects of cues from one or multiple parties as well as the mechanisms behind these effects are analyzed. Utilizing the case of Germany’s multi-party system, two online survey experiments with a representative sample of the German voting population are conducted. Despite finding rather small effect sizes overall, results show that a party statement in favor of more climate protection is effective in changing participants’ opinions towards the same direction. People appear to be even more impressionable when they receive unexpected cues or are lead to believe that all parties work together to fight climate change. Finally, respondents that do not care about or oppose climate protection are more easily persuaded. Thus, these results could be employed to shape the way politicians and parties in multi-party systems convey the need for more ambitious climate policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentina Stöhr, 2022. "Climate protection in Germany: Party cues in a multi-party system," Munich Papers in Political Economy 23, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    • Handle: RePEc:aiw:wpaper:23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cms.mgt.tum.de/fileadmin/mgt.tum.de/faculty_and_research/mppe/23_Paper_Party_Cues.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Florian Stoeckel & Theresa Kuhn, 2018. "Mobilizing Citizens for Costly Policies: The Conditional Effect of Party Cues on Support for International Bailouts in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 446-461, March.
    2. Chun-Fang Chiang & Brian Knight, 2011. "Media Bias and Influence: Evidence from Newspaper Endorsements," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(3), pages 795-820.
    3. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2020. "Do party positions affect the public's policy preferences? Experimental evidence on support for family policies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 523-543.
    4. Lelkes, Yphtach, 2021. "Policy over party: comparing the effects of candidate ideology and party on affective polarization," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 189-196, January.
    5. Merkley, Eric & Stecula, Dominik A., 2021. "Party Cues in the News: Democratic Elites, Republican Backlash, and the Dynamics of Climate Skepticism," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 1439-1456, October.
    6. Stefano DellaVigna & Matthew Gentzkow, 2010. "Persuasion: Empirical Evidence," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 643-669, September.
    7. Shayo, Moses, 2009. "A Model of Social Identity with an Application to Political Economy: Nation, Class, and Redistribution," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(2), pages 147-174, May.
    8. Druckman, James N. & Peterson, Erik & Slothuus, Rune, 2013. "How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 57-79, February.
    9. David Samuels & Cesar Zucco, 2014. "The Power of Partisanship in Brazil: Evidence from Survey Experiments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(1), pages 212-225, January.
    10. Konstantin Chatziathanasiou & Svenja Hippel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2020. "Property, Redistribution, and the Status Quo," Munich Papers in Political Economy 02, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    11. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    12. Emanuel V. Towfigh & Sebastian J. Goerg & Andreas Glöckner & Philip Leifeld & Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Sophie Bade & Carlos Kurschilgen, 2016. "Do direct-democratic procedures lead to higher acceptance than political representation?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 47-65, April.
    13. Barber, Michael & Pope, Jeremy C., 2019. "Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 38-54, February.
    14. Cheryl Boudreau & Scott A. MacKenzie, 2014. "Informing the Electorate? How Party Cues and Policy Information Affect Public Opinion about Initiatives," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(1), pages 48-62, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hassan Afrouzi & Carolina Arteaga & Emily Weisburst, 2022. "Can Leaders Persuade? Examining Movement in Immigration Beliefs," CESifo Working Paper Series 9593, CESifo.
    2. Marco Bertoni & Paolo Falco & Luigi Guiso & Tullio Jappelli & Roberto Nisticò, 2026. "Scientific Evidence and Belief Updating in Polarized Media Environments," CSEF Working Papers 776, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    3. Arnaud Wolff, 2022. "The Signaling Value of Social Identity," Working Papers of BETA 2022-15, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    4. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    5. John Lott & Kevin Hassett, 2014. "Is newspaper coverage of economic events politically biased?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 65-108, July.
    6. Redlicki, B., 2017. "Spreading Lies," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1747, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    7. Gehlbach, Scott & Sonin, Konstantin, 2014. "Government control of the media," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 163-171.
    8. Elisabeth Grewenig & Philipp Lergetporer & Katharina Werner & Ludger Woessmann, 2019. "Do Party positions affect the public's policy preferences?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7579, CESifo.
    9. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Gambaro, Marco & Puglisi, Riccardo, 2015. "What do ads buy? Daily coverage of listed companies on the Italian press," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 41-57.
    12. Jetter, Michael, 2017. "Terrorism and the Media: The Effect of US Television Coverage on Al-Qaeda Attacks," IZA Discussion Papers 10708, IZA Network @ LISER.
    13. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/1dhd1b1s319fbai85khk40fudc is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Nicola Gennaioli & Frederik Schwerter & Guido Tabellini, 2026. "“Us vs Them”: Salient Conflict and Belief Polarization," CESifo Working Paper Series 12547, CESifo.
    15. Mellacher, Patrick, 2023. "The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 113-140.
    16. Grant D. Jacobsen, 2019. "How do different sources of policy analysis affect policy preferences? Experimental evidence from the United States," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 315-342, September.
    17. Mukand, Sharun W. & Rodrik, Dani, 2018. "The Political Economy of Ideas," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1163, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    18. Victor Y. Wu, 2025. "Messages from co-partisan elected officials can increase climate mitigation intentions without changing climate beliefs," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Sebastian Blesse & Philipp Lergetporer & Justus Nover & Katharina Werner, 2023. "Transparency and Policy Competition: Experimental Evidence from German Citizens and Politicians," Munich Papers in Political Economy 27, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    20. Floyd Jiuyun Zhang, 2023. "Political endorsement by Nature and trust in scientific expertise during COVID-19," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(5), pages 696-706, May.
    21. Clem Brooks & Elijah Harter, 2021. "Redistribution Preferences, Inequality Information, and Partisan Motivated Reasoning in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aiw:wpaper:23. 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: MPPE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwtumde.html .

    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.