Cited by 228Climate Change Communication and PerceptionClimate Change Policy and EconomicsElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Psychological Barriers to Bipartisan Public Support for Climate Policy

Van Boven, Leaf, Ehret, Phillip J., Sherman, David K.·2018·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

Psychological scientists have the expertise-and arguably an obligation-to help understand the political polarization that impedes enactment of climate policy. Many explanations emphasize Republican skepticism about climate change. Yet results from national panel studies in 2014 and 2016 indicate that most Republicans believe in climate change, if not as strongly as Democrats. Political polarization over climate policy does not simply reflect that Democrats and Republicans disagree about climate change but that Democrats and Republicans disagree with each other. The results of a national panel experiment and of in-depth interviews with four former members of Congress suggest that Democrats and Republicans-both ordinary citizens and policymakers-support policies from their own party and reactively devalue policies from the opposing party. These partisan evaluations occur both for policies historically associated with liberal principles and politicians (cap-and-trade) and for policies associated with conservative principles and politicians (revenue-neutral carbon tax). People also exaggerate how much other Democrats and Republicans are swayed by partisanship. This foments false norms of partisan opposition that, in turn, influence people's personal policy support. Correcting misperceived norms of opposition and decoupling policy evaluation from identity concerns would help overcome these seemingly insurmountable barriers to bipartisan support for climate policy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691617748966

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 'Us versus them' dynamics can result in stereotyping and false or exaggerated beliefs about the out-group.

    “As noted above, ‘us versus them’ dynamics can result in stereotyping and false or exaggerated beliefs about the out-group132,146–149.”
  • Online groups that disagree on a given topic are also more likely to be hostile toward each other.

    “Social scientific research examines how these phenomena are interconnected across a variety of contexts, such that online groups that disagree on a given topic are also more likely to be hostile toward each other [10].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 80 · Cited by 228

Authors
Van Boven, L., Ehret, P. J., & Sherman, D. K.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2018-07
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
492-507
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2811444565
Cited by
228
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 4
FWCI
56.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (552120, 1049125)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
climate policy, political polarization, partisan attitudes, bipartisan support, climate change skepticism, Republicans, Democrats, emissions trading, carbon tax, partisan identity, policy support, public opinion
MeSH terms
Attitude, Climate, Group Processes, Humans, Mental Processes, Politics, Public Opinion, United States, Policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review