Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:41:24.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beliefs about Climate Beliefs: The Importance of Second-Order Opinions for Climate Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2017

Matto Mildenberger  and
Dustin Tingley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When political action entails individual costs but group-contingent benefits, political participation may depend on an individual’s perceptions of others’ beliefs; yet detailed empirical attention to these second-order beliefs – beliefs about the beliefs of others – remains rare. We offer the first comprehensive examination of the distribution and content of second-order climate beliefs in the United States and China, drawing from six new opinion surveys of mass publics, political elites and intellectual elites. We demonstrate that all classes of political actors have second-order beliefs characterized by egocentric bias and global underestimation of pro-climate positions. We then demonstrate experimentally that individual support for pro-climate policies increases after respondents update their second-order beliefs. We conclude that scholars should focus more closely on second-order beliefs as a key factor shaping climate policy inaction and that scholars can use the climate case to extend their understanding of second-order beliefs more broadly.

Keywords

climate changepublic opinionelite opinionsecond-order beliefs
Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 1279 - 1307
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Thanks to Sander van der Linden, Erin Hennes, Joshua Kertzer, Devin Judge-Lord, John Patty, Betsy Sinclair, Mark Buntaine, Michael Stone, Michael Masterson, Jonathan Renshon, Endre Tvinnereim and audience members at Washington University, the University of California Santa Barbara, the University of Minnesota, the University of Wisconsin and Harvard University for comments on earlier drafts of this article. We thank the TRIPS team at William and Mary for access to their data. We thank Leah Stokes and Alexander Hertel Fernandez for access to and collaboration in collecting data on legislative staffer beliefs. Research supported by Harvard University Center for the Environment and the Dirksen Congressional Research Center. Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/C1XYRJ. and online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000321

References

Ahler, Douglas J. 2014. Self-Fulfilling Misperceptions of Public Polarization. Journal of Politics 76 (3):607–620.Google Scholar
Aklin, Michaël, and Urpelainen, Johannes. 2013a. Debating Clean Energy: Frames, Counter Frames, and Audiences. Global Environmental Change 23 (5):1225–1232.Google Scholar
Aklin, Michaël, and Urpelainen, Johannes. 2013b. Political Competition, Path Dependence, and the Strategy of Sustainable Energy Transitions. American Journal of Political Science 57 (3):643–658.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Sullivan, John L., and Borgida, Eugene. 1989. Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates ‘Waltz Before a Blind Audience’. American Political Science Review 83 (1):123–141.Google Scholar
Barrett, Scott. 2006. Climate Treaties and ‘Breakthrough’ Technologies. American Economic Review 96 (2):22–25.Google Scholar
Bechtel, Michael M., and Scheve, Kenneth F.. 2013. Mass Support for Global Climate Agreements Depends on Institutional Design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (34):13763–13768.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2012. Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20 (3):351–368.Google Scholar
Borick, Christopher P., and Rabe, Barry G.. 2010. A Reason to Believe: Examining the Factors that Determine Individual Views on Global Warming. Social Science Quarterly 91 (3):777–800.Google Scholar
Boykoff, Maxwell T. 2011. Who Speaks for the Climate?: Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boykoff, Maxwell T., and Boykoff, Jules M.. 2004. Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the US Prestige Press. Global Environmental Change 14 (2):125–136.Google Scholar
Broockman, D., and Ryan, T. 2016. Preaching to the Choir: Americans Prefer Communicating to Copartisan Elected Officials. American Journal of Political Science 60 (4):1093–1107.Google Scholar
Brulle, Robert J. 2014. Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of US Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations. Climatic Change 122 (4):681–694.Google Scholar
Brulle, Robert J., Carmichael, Jason, and Jenkins, J. Craig. 2012. Shifting Public Opinion on Climate Change: An Empirical Assessment of Factors Influencing Concern over Climate Change in the US, 2002–2010. Climatic Change 114 (2):169–188.Google Scholar
Buhrmester, Michael, Kwang, Tracy, and Gosling, Samuel D.. 2011. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (1):3–5.Google Scholar
Burgmann, Verity, and Baer, Hans. 2012. Climate Politics and the Climate Movement in Australia. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, John R., and De Dreu, Carsten K. W.. 2014. Egocentrism Drives Misunderstanding in Conflict and Negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 51:15–26.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis. 1991. Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2013. Public Opinion: Stunted Policy Support. Nature Climate Change 3 (7):617.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2013. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunlap, Riley E., and McCright, Araon M.. 2008. A Widening Gap: Republican and Democratic Views on Climate Change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 50 (5):26–35.Google Scholar
Egan, Patrick J., and Mullin, Megan. 2012. Turning Personal Experience into Political Attitudes: The Effect of Local Weather on Americans? Perceptions about Global Warming. Journal of Politics 74 (3):796–809.Google Scholar
Epley, Nicholas, and Gilovich, Thomas. 2006. The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic: Why the Adjustments are Insufficient. Psychological Science 17 (4):311–318.Google Scholar
Epley, Nicholas, Keysar, Boaz, Van Boven, Leaf, and Gilovich, Thomas. 2004. Perspective Taking as Egocentric Anchoring and Adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (3):327.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Lauren, Maibach, Edward W., Roser-Renouf, Connie, and Leiserowitz, Anthony. 2012. Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. International Journal of Press/Politics 17 (1):3–31.Google Scholar
Feygina, Irina, Jost, John T., and Goldsmith, Rachel E.. 2010. System Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of System-Sanctioned Change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (3):326–338.Google Scholar
Fielding, Kelly S., Head, Brian W., Laffan, Warren, Western, Mark, and Hoegh-Guldberg, Ove. 2012. Australian Politicians’ Beliefs about Climate Change: Political Partisanship and Political Ideology. Environmental Politics 21 (5):712–733.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, Urs, Gächter, Simon, and Fehr, Ernst. 2001. Are People Conditionally Cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment. Economics Letters 71 (3):397–404.Google Scholar
Frey, Bruno S., and Meier, Stephan. 2004. Social Comparisons and Pro-Social Behavior: Testing ‘Conditional Cooperation’ in a Field Experiment. American Economic Review 94 (5):1717–1722.Google Scholar
Gallup. 2009. Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media. Available from http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public- media/, accessed 12 November 2015.Google Scholar
Geiger, Nathaniel, and Swim, Janet K.. 2016. Climate of Silence: Pluralistic Ignorance as a Barrier to Climate Change Discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology 47:79–90.Google Scholar
Gordon, Robert M. 1992. The Simulation Theory: Objections and Misconceptions. Mind and Language 7 (1–2):11–34.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Clive. 2007. Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change. Melbourne: Black.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Lawrence C., and Stampone, Mary D.. 2013. Blowin’ in the Wind: Short-Term Weather and Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change. Weather, Climate, and Society 5 (2):112–119.Google Scholar
Hansen, James, Sato, Makiko, and Ruedy, Reto. 2012. Perception of Climate Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (37):E2415–E2423.Google Scholar
Healy, Andrew, and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2014. Substituting the End for the Whole: Why Voters Respond Primarily to the Election-Year Economy. American Journal of Political Science 58 (1):31–47.Google Scholar
Herring, Stephanie C., Hoerling, Martin P., Peterson, Thomas C., and Stott, Peter A.. 2014. Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 from a Climate Perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 95 (9):S1–104.Google Scholar
Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander, Mildenberger, Matto, and Stokes, Leah. 2017. Legislative Staff and Representation in Congress. Draft manuscript.Google Scholar
Hicks, Raymond, and Tingley, Dustin. 2011. Causal Mediation Analysis. Stata Journal 11:609–615.Google Scholar
Howe, Peter D., and Leiserowitz, Anthony. 2013. Who Remembers a Hot Summer or a Cold Winter? The Asymmetric Effect of Beliefs about Global Warming on Perceptions of Local Climate Conditions in the US. Global Environmental Change 23 (6):1488–1500.Google Scholar
Howe, Peter D., Mildenberger, Matto, Marlon, Jennifer R., and Leiserowitz, Anthony. 2015. Geographic Variation in Opinions on Climate Change at State and Local Scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change 5 (6):596–603.Google Scholar
Huff, Connor, and Tingley, Dustin. 2015. “Who are These People?” Evaluating the Demographic Characteristics and Political Preferences of MTurk Survey Respondents. Research and Politics 2 (3):1–12.Google Scholar
Hughes, Llewelyn, and Urpelainen, Johannes. 2015. Interests, Institutions, and Climate Policy: Explaining the Choice of Policy Instruments for the Energy Sector. Environmental Science and Policy 54:52–63.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. Unpacking the Black Box: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies. American Political Science Review 105:765–789.Google Scholar
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2014. Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization. American Journal of Political Science 59 (3):690–707.Google Scholar
Javeline, Debra. 2014. The Most Important Topic Political Scientists are Not Studying: Adapting to Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics 12 (2):420–434.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. 2015. Climate Science Communication and the Measurement Problem. Advances in Political Psychology 36:1–43.Google Scholar
Kahn, Matthew E., and Kotchen, Matthew J.. 2011. Business Cycle Effects on Concern about Climate Change: The Chilling Effect of Recession. Climate Change Economics 2 (3):257–273.Google Scholar
Kellstedt, Paul M., Zahran, Sammy, and Vedlitz, Arnold. 2008. Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States. Risk Analysis 28 (1):113–126.Google Scholar
Keltner, Dacher, and Robinson, Robert J.. 1993. Imagined Ideological Differences in Conflict Escalation and Resolution. International Journal of Conflict Management 4 (3):249–262.Google Scholar
Keltner, Dacher, and Robinson, Robert J.. 1997. Defending the Status Quo: Power and Bias in Social Conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 (10):1066–1077.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 2015. The Global Politics of Climate Change: Challenge for Political Science. PS: Political Science and Politics 48 (1):19–26.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Victor, David G.. 2011. The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics 9 (1):7–23.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Victor, David G.. 2016. Cooperation and Discord in Global Climate Policy. Nature Climate Change 6 (6):570–575.Google Scholar
Kertzer, Joshua D., and Brutger, Ryan. 2015. Decomposing Audience Costs: Bringing the Audience Back into Audience Cost Theory. American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Kim, So Young, and Wolinsky-Nahmias, Yael. 2014. Cross-National Public Opinion on Climate Change: The Effects of Affluence and Vulnerability. Global Environmental Politics 14 (1):79–106.Google Scholar
Kvaløy, Berit, Finseraas, Henning, and Listhaug, Ola. 2012. The Publics’ Concern for Global Warming: A Cross-National Study of 47 Countries. Journal of Peace Research 49 (1):11–22.Google Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2012. The Democratic Deficit in the States. American Journal of Political Science 56 (1):148–166.Google Scholar
Layzer, Judith. 2007. Deep Freeze: How Business has Shaped the Global Warming Debate in Congress. Pp. 93–125 in Business and Environmental Policy: Corporate Interests in the American Political System, edited by Michael Kraft and Sheldon Kamieniecki. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Layzer, Judith. 2012. Open for Business: Conservatives’ Opposition to Environmental Regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J. 2015. MTurkR: Access to Amazon Mechanical Turk Requester API via R. R package version 0 6 (5.1).Google Scholar
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., and Howe, P.. 2013. Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013. Technical report. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, Yale University and George Mason University.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew, and Malhotra, Neil. 2016. Does Media Coverage of Partisan Polarization Affect Political Attitudes? Political Communication 33 (2):283–301.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S., and Malhotra, Neil. 2016. (Mis) perceptions of Partisan Polarization in the American Public. Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (S1):378–391.Google Scholar
Leviston, Zoe, Walker, Iain, and Morwinski, S.. 2013. Your Opinion on Climate Change Might Not Be as Common as You Think. Nature Climate Change 3 (4):334–337.Google Scholar
Levitan, Lindsey C., and Verhulst, Brad. 2016. Conformity in Groups: The Effects of Others? Views on Expressed Attitudes and Attitude Change. Political Behavior 38 (2):277–315.Google Scholar
Lillard, Angeline. 1998. Ethnopsychologies: Cultural Variations in Theories of Mind. Psychological Bulletin 123 (1):3.Google Scholar
Linden, Sander L. van der, Leiserowitz, Anthony A., Feinberg, Geoffrey D., and Maibach, Edward W.. 2014. How to Communicate the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: Plain Facts, Pie Charts or Metaphors? Climatic Change 126 (1–2):255–262.Google Scholar
Malhotra, Neil, and Margalit, Yotam. 2010. Short-Term Communication Effects or Longstanding Dispositions? The Public’s Response to the Financial Crisis of 2008. Journal of Politics 72 (3):852–867.Google Scholar
Marks, Gary, and Miller, Norman. 1987. Ten Years of Research on the False-Consensus Effect: An Empirical and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin 102 (1):72.Google Scholar
Mildenberger, Matto. 2017. “Replication Data for Beliefs about Climate Beliefs: The Importance of Second-Order Opinions for Climate Politics”, doi: 10.7910/DVN/C1XYRJ, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:jgMQt9CBLrFQs+JyO0D+SA==.Google Scholar
Mildenberger, Matto. 2015. Fiddling While the World Burns: The Logic of Double Representation in Comparative Climate Policymaking. PhD dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Mildenberger, Matto, Howe, Peter, Lachapelle, Erick, Stokes, Leah, Marlon, Jennifer, and Gravelle, Timothy. 2016. The Distribution of Climate Change Public Opinion in Canada. PLoS One 11 (8):e0159774.Google Scholar
Milkoreit, Manjana. 2013. Mindmade Politics: The Role of Cognition in Global Climate Change Governance. Dissertation presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Global Governance.Google Scholar
Miller, Dale T., and McFarland, Cathy. 1987. Pluralistic Ignorance: When Similarity is Interpreted as Dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (2):298.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V., and Tingley, Dustin. 2015. Sailing the Water’s Edge: The Domestic Politics of American Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mimno, David, and Lee, Moontae. 2014. Low-Dimensional Embeddings for Interpretable Anchor Based Topic Inference. Pp. 1319–28 in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Doha, Qatar: Association for Computational Linguistics, October. Available from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1138.Google Scholar
Morris, Stephen, and Shin, Hyun Song. 2001. Global Games: Theory and Applications. Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics at Yale University, Discussion Paper No. 1275R.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 1998. Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nickerson, Raymond S. 1999. How We Know and Sometimes Misjudge What Others Know: Imputing One’s Own Knowledge to Others. Psychological Bulletin 125 (6):737.Google Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1974. The Spiral of Silence a Theory of Public Opinion. Journal of Communication 24 (2):43–51.Google Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1993. The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion – Our Social Skin.Google Scholar
Norgaard, Kari Marie. 2011. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik M.. 2011. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 2014. Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 6 (4):235–252.Google Scholar
Pronin, Emily. 2007. Perception and Misperception of Bias in Human Judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (1):37–43.Google Scholar
Rabe, Barry George. 2004. Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Margaret E., Stewart, Brandon M., Tingley, Dustin, Lucas, Christopher, Leder-Luis, Jetson, Gadarian, Shana Kushner, Albertson, Bethany, and Rand, David G.. 2014. Structural Topic Models for Open-Ended Survey Responses. American Journal of Political Science 58:1064–1082.Google Scholar
Robinson, Robert J., Keltner, Dacher, Ward, Andrew, and Ross, Lee. 1995. Actual Versus Assumed Differences in Construal: ‘Naive Realism’ in Intergroup Perception and Conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (3):404.Google Scholar
Ross, Lee, Greene, David, and House, Pamela. 1977. The ‘False Consensus Effect’: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13 (3):279–301.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, Ariel. 1989. The Electronic Mail Game: Strategic Behavior Under ‘Almost Common Knowledge’. American Economic Review 79 (3):385–391.Google Scholar
Scruggs, Lyle, and Benegal, Salil. 2012. Declining Public Concern About Climate Change: Can We Blame the Great Recession? Global Environmental Change 22 (2):505–515.Google Scholar
Shamir, Jacob, and Shamir, Michal. 1997. Pluralistic Ignorance Across Issues and Over Time: Information Cues and Biases. Public Opinion Quarterly 61 (2):227–260.Google Scholar
Sterman, John D. 2008. Risk Communication on Climate: Mental Models and Mass Balance. Science 322 (5901):532–533.Google Scholar
Sterman, John D.. 2011. Communicating Climate Change Risks in a Skeptical World. Climatic Change 108 (4):811–826.Google Scholar
Stern, Nicholas. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89 (03):543–565.Google Scholar
Stokes, Leah C. 2015. Electoral Backlash Against Climate Policy: A Natural Experiment on Retrospective Voting and Local Resistance to Public Policy. American Journal of Political Science 60 (4):958–974.Google Scholar
Stroud, Natalie Jomini. 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):755–769.Google Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2014. Representation in Municipal Government. American Political Science Review 108 (3):605–641.Google Scholar
Thomas, Kyle A., DeScioli, Peter, Haque, Omar Sultan, and Pinker, Steven. 2014. The Psychology of Coordination and Common Knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107 (4):657.Google Scholar
Tingley, Dustin, and Tomz, Michael. 2013. Conditional Cooperation and Climate Change. Comparative Political Studies 47 (3):344–368.Google Scholar
Todorov, Alexander, and Mandisodza, Anesu N.. 2004. Public Opinion on Foreign Policy: The Multilateral Public that Perceives Itself as Unilateral. Public Opinion Quarterly 68 (3):323–348.Google Scholar
Tranter, Bruce. 2011. Political Divisions over Climate Change and Environmental Issues in Australia. Environmental Politics 20 (1):78–96.Google Scholar
Tvinnereim, Endre, and Ivarsflaten, Elisabeth. 2016. Fossil Fuels, Employment, and Support for Climate Policies. Energy Policy 96:364–371.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131.Google Scholar
Urpelainen, Johannes. 2012. The Strategic Design of Technology Funds for Climate Cooperation: Generating Joint Gains. Environmental Science and Policy 15 (1):92–105.Google Scholar
Uslaner, Eric M. 2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Boven, Leaf, Judd, Charles M., and Sherman, David K.. 2012. Political Polarization Projection: Social Projection of Partisan Attitude Extremity and Attitudinal Processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103 (1):84.Google Scholar
Ward, Andrew, and Lee, Ross. 1997. Naive Realism in Everyday Life: Implications for Social Conflict and Misunderstanding. Pp. 103–135 in Values and Knowledge, edited by Andrew Ward, L. Ross, E. Reed, E. Turiel and T. Brown. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.Google Scholar
Weber, Elke U., and Stern, Paul C.. 2011. Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States. American Psychologist 66 (4):315.Google Scholar
Wood, B. Dan, and Vedlitz, Arnold. 2007. Issue Definition, Information Processing, and the Politics of Global Warming. American Journal of Political Science 51 (3):552–568.Google Scholar
Young, Oran R. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zhao, Xiaoquan. 2009. Media Use and Global Warming Perceptions a Snapshot of the Reinforcing Spirals. Communication Research 36 (5):698–723.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Mildenberger and Tingley Dataset

Dataset

https://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/C1XYRJ
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Mildenberger and Tingley supplementary material

Mildenberger and Tingley supplementary material 1

Download Mildenberger and Tingley supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 133.7 KB