A study published in Political Psychology proposes that communication on highly polarizing issues such as climate change may improve if people refrain from viewing the issue through the lens of their political party affiliation. This research was carried out by Dr. Emily P. Diamond, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies and Marine Affairs at the University of Rhode Island.
In today’s political climate, Americans appear to be more divided than ever. In fact, in 2017, Republicans and Democrats were further apart on the ideological spectrum than at any point in the last 30 years.
While polarization can have large-scale consequences such as political gridlock, on an individual level, it can cause voters to rely too much on their partisan identity. In turn, this can result in a reduction in critical thinking and political engagement, thus deepening the divide further and further.
Although topics such as abortion and gun control have left voters very divided, according to recent polls, the most polarizing issue in America is climate change. Interestingly, research has shown that many individuals will credit or discredit evidence of climate change based on whether they believe the scientific experts share their world views.
This led Dr. Diamond to hypothesize that priming American parents to adopt a parental view (i.e. view political issues through the lens of a parent) should activate a non-partisan identity. As a result, a parental identity should change how Republicans and Democrats viewed the issue of climate change in particular.
Dr. Diamond began her experiment by recruiting participants through an online survey platform called Prolific.ac. In order to qualify for this study, participants had to be parents, U.S. residents, and identify as a Republican or Democrat.
At the beginning of the survey, participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. In the first condition (Frame Only), participants were instructed to read a short excerpt from a UNICEF report about the impact of climate change on future generations.
Participants in the second condition (Parent Prime + Frame) were first instructed to respond to parent-related questions in order to activate and make salient their parental identity, before reading the short excerpt from UNICEF.
In the third condition (Partisan Prime + Frame), participants were given partisan-related questions in order to activate and make salient a partisan identity, before reading the short excerpt from UNICEF.
Participants in the fourth condition (Control Condition), didn’t read the short excerpt and weren’t primed with either the parental or partisan identity. It served as a baseline check.
Following this, Dr. Diamond measured three outcome variables:
Attitude towards climate change (“climate change is a pressing problem.”)
Intended action (“I intend to undertake certain actions to mitigate climate change such as recycling more and contacting elected representatives.”)
Support for climate change policies (“I support limiting the emission from power plants, and increasing investment in renewable energy research.”)
The results of this study showed that among Republican participants, those who only read the UNICEF report (Frame Only) and those who responded to parent-related questions then read the UNICEF report (Parental Prime + Frame) had more climate change concerns and reported a higher likelihood of adopting pro-climate behavior, compared to Republicans in the other conditions.
However, the Republican participants who responded to partisan-related questions and then read the UNICEF report (Partisan Prime + Frame) didn’t display an increase in concern for climate change or likelihood of undertaking pro-climate behaviors.
In terms of climate change policy, Republicans who were primed with a parental identity reported 13% higher support for a carbon tax policy, compared to Republicans who were primed with a partisan identity.
Interestingly, among the Democrat participants, those who only read the UNICEF report displayed a decrease in likelihood of undertaking pro-climate behavior such as using less electricity.
In addition, priming a parental identity before reading the UNICEF report didn’t have any significant effect. However, as expected, priming a partisan identity was associated with a significant increase in concern for climate change, among Democrats.
In terms of policy, Democrats displayed the opposite effect compared to Republicans. Those who were primed with a parental identity reported 8% lower support for a carbon tax.
Overall, this study effectively showed that when people examine climate change through the lens of their partisan identity, they are more likely to hold the viewpoint of their political party.
However, priming a parental identity resulted in less Democrat and more Republican support for climate change. In other words, when people are encouraged to hold a non-partisan point of view, issues such as climate change become less polarizing.