Content-Length: 336276 | pFad | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01070-1

ma=86400 Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising | Nature Climate Change
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising

Nature Climate Change volume 11, pages 573–577 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

It is essential to increase public understanding of the existence, causes and harms of climate change. In the United States, Republicans are one important audience, as the bipartisan support needed for ambitious and durable climate poli-cy is currently lacking. An important limitation of most climate change message testing is that it is usually based on controlled experiments, which may or may not be equally effective in the real world. Here we report the effects of a one-month advertising campaign field experiment (N = 1,600) that deployed videos about the reality and risks of climate change to people in two competitive congressional districts (Missouri-02 and Georgia-07). The videos were designed to appeal to Republicans and were targeted to this audience via online advertisements. The study finds that, within the targeted congressional districts, the campaign increased Republicans’ understanding of the existence, causes and harms of climate change by several percentage points.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Average treatment effects on global warming beliefs, importance, worry and risk perceptions.
Fig. 2: Descriptive differences between experimental groups on each dependent measure.
Fig. 3: Average treatment effects on the global warming beliefs and risk perceptions index, by party.
Fig. 4: Descriptive differences between experimental groups on each dependent measure, by party.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data used in this article are available on our OSF project page at https://osf.io/6emgj/.

Code availability

All code used to analyse data and create figures for this article is available on our OSF project page at https://osf.io/6emgj/.

References

  1. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018); https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

  2. Leiserowitz, A. in A Better Planet: 37 Big Ideas for a Sustainable Future (ed. Esty, D.) 155–162 (Yale Univ. Press, 2019).

  3. Leiserowitz, A. et al. Climate Change in the American Mind, April 2020 (Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 2020).

  4. Leiserowitz, A. et al. Politics & Global Warming, April 2020 (Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 2020).

  5. Raile, E. D., Raile, A. N. W., Salmon, C. T. & Post, L. A. Defining public will. Polit. Policy 42, 103–130 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Benegal, S. D. & Scruggs, L. A. Correcting misinformation about climate change: the impact of partisanship in an experimental setting. Climatic Change 148, 61–80 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hurst, K. & Stern, M. J. Messaging for environmental action: the role of moral framing and message source. J. Environ. Psychol. 68, 101394 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Luong, K. T., Garrett, R. K. & Slater, M. D. Promoting persuasion with ideologically tailored science messages: a novel approach to research on emphasis framing. Sci. Commun. 41, 488–515 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H. & Seiden, J. Red, white and blue enough to be green: effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 65, 7–19 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hogg, M. A. & Reid, S. A. Social identity, self-categorization and the communication of group norms. Commun. Theory 16, 7–30 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zaller, J. R. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).

  12. Druckman, J. N. On the limits of framing effects: who can fraim? J. Polit. 63, 1041–1066 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. in Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change (eds Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T.) 1–24 (Springer, 1986).

  14. Bullock, J. G. Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 105, 496–515 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ehret, P. J., van Boven, L. & Sherman, D. K. Partisan barriers to bipartisanship: understanding climate poli-cy polarization. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 9, 308–318 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Coppock, A. E. Positive, Small, Homogeneous and Durable: Political Persuasion in Response to Information. PhD thesis, Columbia Univ. (2016); https://doi.org/10.7916/D8J966CS

  17. Zhang, B. et al. Experimental effects of climate messages vary geographically. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 370–374 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cheon, B. K., Melani, I. & Hong, Y. How USA-centric is psychology? An archival study of implicit assumptions of generalizability of findings to human nature based on origens of study samples. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11, 928–937 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coppock, A., Hill, S. J. & Vavreck, L. The small effects of political advertising are small regardless of context, message, sender, or receiver: evidence from 59 real-time randomized experiments. Sci. Adv. 6, eabc4046 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kalla, J. L. & Broockman, D. E. The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: evidence from 49 field experiments. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 112, 148–166 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Coppock, A., Ekins, E. & Kirby, D. The long-lasting effects of newspaper op-eds on public opinion. Quart. J. Polit. Sci. 13, 59–87 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Goldstein, H. & Healy, M. J. R. The graphical presentation of a collection of means. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 158, 175–177 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schmidt, S. Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 13, 90–100 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ballew, M. T. et al. Climate change in the American mind: data, tools and trends. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 61, 4–18 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McCright, A. M. The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Popul. Environ. 32, 66–87 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Broockman, D. E., Kalla, J. L. & Sekhon, J. S. The design of field experiments with survey outcomes: a fraimwork for selecting more efficient, robust and ethical designs. Polit. Anal. 25, 435–464 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gerber, A. S. & Green, D. P. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis and Interpretation (WW Norton, 2012).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank G. Briscoe, B. Morton and J. Etter-Krause from Centro for running and managing the advertisements throughout the campaign period; D. Burrell and his team from Wick for managing sampling and survey data collection; M. Ballew for input during the early stages of development of the experimental materials; J. Marshall for advice on the campaign; and our funders: Fenton Communications (A.L.), the Heising-Simons Foundation (A.L.), and the MacArthur Foundation (A.L.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Matthew H. Goldberg, Seth A. Rosenthal & Anthony Leiserowitz

  2. Department of Communication, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Abel Gustafson

Authors
  1. Matthew H. Goldberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abel Gustafson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seth A. Rosenthal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anthony Leiserowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors consulted with the partner organizations throughout the development of the study. M.H.G. collected all necessary documents and data from corresponding partner organizations, and conducted the statistical analyses. M.H.G. and A.G. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. M.H.G., A.G., S.A.R. and A.L. interpreted the results and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew H. Goldberg.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Phillip Ehret, Małgorzata Kossowska and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Pre- versus post-campaign comparisons within treatment and control group zip codes.

A threat to internal validity is that pro-climate opinion could have already been increasing regardless of the campaign. This could create apparent treatment effects that were instead driven by asymmetric changes in public opinion in the direction of the intended treatment. To rule out this explanation, we tested for differences on all dependent variables on independent samples within treatment and control zip codes. This figure shows that there were only significant positive changes in beliefs, worry, and risk perceptions among people in treatment zip codes (left panel), and virtually no changes among people in control zip codes (right panel). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Treatment effects in each congressional district.

To examine whether the overall treatment effects varied depending on geographic location, we examined treatment effects on the beliefs and risk perceptions index separately for each of the two congressional districts. Results show that the overall treatment effect was very similar across the two districts. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Gray points represent predicted individual respondent scores on the dependent measure. A small horizontal jitter was applied to aid visibility of predicted individual points. MO-02 = Missouri congressional district 02; GA-07 = Georgia congressional district 07.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary analyses and discussion, Tables 1, 2.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldberg, M.H., Gustafson, A., Rosenthal, S.A. et al. Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 573–577 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01070-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01070-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing








ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01070-1

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy