CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Climate Change Communication and PerceptionSocial and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Social Psychological Perspectives on Political Polarization: Insights and Implications for Climate Change

Open access
Cole, Jennifer C., Gillis, Ash J., van der Linden, Sander, Cohen, Mark A., Vandenbergh, Michael P.·2025·Perspectives on Psychological Science
DOI 10.1177/17456916231186409PMC PMC11720282
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Political polarization is a barrier to enacting policy solutions to global issues. Social psychology has a rich history of studying polarization, and there is an important opportunity to define and refine its contributions to the present political realities. We do so in the context of one of the most pressing modern issues: climate change. We synthesize the literature on political polarization and its applications to climate change, and we propose lines of further research and intervention design. We focus on polarization in the United States, examining other countries when literature was available. The polarization literature emphasizes two types of mechanisms of political polarization: (1) individual-level psychological processes related to political ideology and (2) group-level psychological processes related to partisan identification. Interventions that address group-level processes can be more effective than those that address individual-level processes. Accordingly, we emphasize the promise of interventions leveraging superordinate identities, correcting misperceived norms, and having trusted leaders communicate about climate change. Behavioral interventions like these that are grounded in scientific research are one of our most promising tools to achieve the behavioral wedge that we need to address climate change and to make progress on other policy issues.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/17456916231186409

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 214

  1. Abramowitz A. I. Saunders K. L. (2006). Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American electorate: Social identity vs. ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 175– 187. 10.1177/106591290605900201 · DOI
  2. Abrams D. Wetherell M. Cochrane S. Hogg M. A. Turner J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2), 97– 119. 10.1111/J.2044-8309.1990.TB00892.X 2372667 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Achen C. H. Bartels L. M. (2019). Democracy for realists. Princeton University Press. 10.2307/j.ctvc7770q · DOI
  4. Ajzen I. Madden T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453– 474. 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Aklin M. Urpelainen J. (2013). Debating clean energy: Frames, counter frames, and audiences. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1225– 1232. 10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2013.03.007 · DOI
  6. Allcott H. Mullainathan S. (2010). Behavior and energy policy. Science, 327(5970), 1204– 1205. 10.1126/science.1180775 20203035 · DOI
  7. Alló M. Loureiro M. L. (2014). The role of social norms on preferences towards climate change policies: A meta-analysis. Energy Policy, 73, 563– 574. 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.042 · DOI
  8. Altemeyer B. (1998). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press. 10.2307/3322995 · DOI
  9. APA Climate Change Task Force. (2022). Addressing the climate crisis: An action plan for psychologists. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2022/02/climate-crisis-action-plan.pdf 36037502
  10. Arceneaux K. (2008). Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior, 30(2), 139– 160. 10.1007/s11109-007-9044-7 · DOI
  11. Arpan L. M. Xu X. Raney A. A. Chen C. f. Wang Z. (2018). Politics, values, and morals: Assessing consumer responses to the framing of residential renewable energy in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 46, 321– 331. 10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.007 · DOI
  12. Atari M. Davani A. M. Kogon D. Kennedy B. Ani Saxena N. Anderson I. Dehghani M. (2022). Morally homogeneous networks and radicalism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(6), 999– 1009. 10.1177/19485506211059329 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Atari M. Haidt J. Graham J. Koleva S. Stevens S. T. Dehghani M. (2022). Morality beyond the WEIRD: How the nomological network of morality varies across cultures [Unpublished manuscript]. https://psyarxiv.com/q6c9r/download?format=pdf 37589704
  14. Baldassarri D. Park B. (2020). Was there a culture war? Partisan polarization and secular trends in US public opinion. Journal of Politics, 82(3), 809– 827. 10.1086/707306 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Baron J. Jost J. T. (2019). False equivalence: Are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 292– 303. 30836901
  16. Bartels L. M. (2019). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton University Press. 10.2307/j.ctvc77jxs.15 · DOI
  17. Bartoš V. Bauer M. Cahlíková J. Chytilová J. (2022). Communicating doctors’ consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature, 606(7914), 542– 549. 10.1038/s41586-022-04805-y 35650433 PMC9200639 · DOI
  18. Baumeister R. F. Leary M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497– 529. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 7777651 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Benegal S. D. Scruggs L. A. (2018). Correcting misinformation about climate change: The impact of partisanship in an experimental setting. Climatic Change, 148(1–2), 61– 80. 10.1007/S10584-018-2192-4 · DOI
  20. Bernauer T. (2013). Climate change politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 421– 448. 10.1146/ANNUREV-POLISCI-062011-154926 · DOI
  21. Bernauer T. McGrath L. F. (2016). Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6(7), 680– 683. 10.1038/nclimate2948 · DOI
  22. Bessen B. R. (2020). Rejecting representation? Party systems and popular support for referendums in Europe. Electoral Studies, 68, Article 102219. 10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102219 · DOI
  23. Bicchieri C. (2002). Covenants without swords: Group identity, norms, and communication in social dilemmas. Rationality and Society, 14(2), 192– 228. 10.1177/1043463102014002003 · DOI
  24. Blatz C. W. Mercier B. (2017). False polarization and false moderation: Political opponents overestimate the extremity of each other’s ideologies but underestimate each other’s certainty. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(5), 521– 529. 10.1177/1948550617712034 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Bolsen T. Palm R. Kingsland J. T. (2019). The impact of message source on the effectiveness of communications about climate change. Science Communication, 41(4), 464– 487. 10.1177/1075547019863154 · DOI
  26. Brandt M. J. Spälti A. K. (2017). Norms and explanations in social and political psychology. In Crawford J. T. Jussim L. (Eds.), The politics of social psychology (pp. 26–43). Psychology Press. 10.4324/9781315112619 · DOI
  27. Brewer M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429– 444. 10.1111/0022-4537.00126 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Brewer M. B. Caporael L. R. (2013). An evolutionary perspective on social identity: Revisiting groups. In Schaller M. Simpson J. A. Kenrick D. T. (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 143– 162). Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203782965 · DOI
  29. Buchanan T. Ackland J. Lloyd S. van der Linden S. de-Wit L. (2022). Clear consensus among international public for government action at COP26: Patriotic and public health frames produce marginal gains in support. Climatic Change, 170(3), Article 24. 10.1007/S10584-021-03262-2 · DOI
  30. Budge I. Hofferbert R. I. (1990). Mandates and policy outputs: U.S. party platforms and federal expenditures. American Political Science Review, 84(1), 111– 131. 10.2307/1963632 · DOI
  31. Burstein P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29– 40. 10.1177/106591290305600103 · DOI
  32. Burton J. W. Cruz N. Hahn U. (2021). Reconsidering evidence of moral contagion in online social networks. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(12), 1629– 1635. 10.1038/s41562-021-01133-5 34112981 · DOI
  33. Calvillo D. P. Ross B. J. Garcia R. J. B. Smelter T. J. Rutchick A. M. (2020). Political ideology predicts perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 (and susceptibility to fake news about it). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8), 1119– 1128. 10.1177/1948550620940539 · DOI
  34. Campbell E. Kotcher J. Maibach E. Rosenthal S. A. Leiserowitz A. (2021). Predicting the importance of global warming as a voting issue among registered voters in the United States. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 2, Article 100008. 10.1016/j.cresp.2021.100008 · DOI
  35. Campbell T. H. Kay A. C. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809– 824. 10.1037/A0037963 25347128 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Chan C. Berger J. van Boven L. (2012). Identifiable but not identical: Combining social identity and uniqueness motives in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 561– 573. 10.1086/664804 · DOI
  37. Chinn S. Hart P. S. Soroka S. (2020). Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985-2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112– 129. 10.1177/1075547019900290 PMC7447862 38602988 · DOI
  38. Chu H. Yang J. Z. Liu S. (2021). Not my pandemic: Solution aversion and the polarized public perception of COVID-19. Science Communication, 43(4), 508– 528. 10.1177/10755470211022020 · DOI
  39. Ciuk D. J. (2018). Assessing the contextual stability of moral foundations: Evidence from a survey experiment. Research & Politics, 5(2), 1– 9. 10.1177/2053168018781748 · DOI
  40. Cohen G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808– 822. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808 14599246 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Cole J. C. Ehret P. J. Sherman D. K. Van Boven L. (2022). Social norms explain prioritization of climate policy. Climatic Change, 173(1), Article 10. 10.1007/S10584-022-03396-X PMC9289929 35874038 · DOI
  42. Cole J. C. Flores A. Jiga-Boy G. Klein O. Sherman D. K. Van Boven L. (2022). Party over pandemic: Polarized trust in political leaders and experts explains public support for COVID-19 policies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. 10.1177/13684302221118534 · DOI
  43. Constantino S. M. Sparkman G. Kraft-Todd G. T. Bicchieri C. Centola D. Shell-Duncan B. Vogt S. Weber E. U. (2022). Scaling up change: A critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 23(2), 50– 97. 10.1177/15291006221105279 36227765 · DOI
  44. Converse P. E. (2006). The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964). Critical Review, 18(1–3), 1– 74. 10.1080/08913810608443650 · DOI
  45. Conway L. G. Gornick L. J. Houck S. C. Anderson C. Stockert J. Sessoms D. McCue K. (2016). Are conservatives really more simple-minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking. Political Psychology, 37(6), 777– 798. 10.1111/pops.12304 · DOI
  46. Costello T. H. Bowes S. M. Stevens S. T. Waldman I. D. Tasimi A. Lilienfeld S. O. (2022). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 135– 170. 10.1037/pspp0000341 34383522 · DOI
  47. Crawford J. T. (2017). Are conservatives more sensitive to threat than liberals? It depends on how we define threat and conservatism. Social Cognition, 35(4), 354– 373. 10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.354 · DOI · Paper page
  48. de Groot J. I. M. Schuitema G. (2012). How to make the unpopular popular? Policy characteristics, social norms and the acceptability of environmental policies. Environmental Science & Policy, 19–20, 100– 107. 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.03.004 · DOI
  49. Diamond E. P. (2020). The influence of identity salience on framing effectiveness: An experiment. Political Psychology, 41(6), 1133– 1150. 10.1111/POPS.12669 · DOI
  50. Ditto P. H. Liu B. S. Clark C. J. Wojcik S. P. Chen E. E. Grady R. H. Celniker J. B. Zinger J. F. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 273– 291. 10.1177/1745691617746796 29851554 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Dixon G. Hmielowski J. Ma Y. (2017). Improving climate change acceptance among U.S. conservatives through value-based message targeting. Science Communication, 39(4), 520– 534. 10.1177/1075547017715473 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Doell K. C. Pärnamets P. Harris E. A. Hackel L. M. Van Bavel J. J. (2021). Understanding the effects of partisan identity on climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 54– 59. 10.1016/J.COBEHA.2021.03.013 · DOI
  53. Druckman J. N. Peterson E. Slothuus R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57– 79. 10.1017/S0003055412000500 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Duarte J. L. Crawford J. T. Stern C. Haidt J. Jussim L. Tetlock P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 38, Article e130. 10.1017/S0140525X14000430 25036715 · DOI
  55. Duckitt J. Fisher K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24(1), 199– 222. 10.1111/0162-895X.00322 · DOI
  56. Egan P. J. Mullin M. (2017). Climate change: US public opinion. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 209– 227. 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022857 · DOI
  57. Ehret P. J. Van Boven L. Sherman D. K. (2018). Partisan barriers to bipartisanship: Understanding climate policy polarization. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(3), 308– 318. 10.1177/1948550618758709 · DOI
  58. Feldman L. Hart P. S. (2018). Climate change as a polarizing cue: Framing effects on public support for low-carbon energy policies. Global Environmental Change, 51, 54– 66. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.004 · DOI
  59. Ferguson M. A. McDonald R. I. Branscombe N. R. (2016). Global climate change: A social identity perspective on informational and structural interventions. In McKeown S. Haji R. Ferguson N. (Eds.), Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory (pp. 145– 164). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-29869-6_10 · DOI
  60. Fernbach P. M. Van Boven L. (2022). False polarization: Cognitive mechanisms and potential solutions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 1– 6. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.005 34256246 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Fielding K. S. Hornsey M. J. Thai H. A. Toh L. L. (2020). Using ingroup messengers and ingroup values to promote climate change policy. Climatic Change, 158(2), 181– 199. 10.1007/S10584-019-02561-Z · DOI
  62. Flores A. Cole J. C. Dickert S. Eom K. Jiga-Boy G. M. Kogut T. Loria R. Mayorga M. Pedersen E. J. Pereira B. (2022). Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 119(3), Article e2117543119. 10.1073/pnas.2117543119 PMC8784107 35042779 · DOI
  63. Fraley R. C. Griffin B. N. Belsky J. Roisman G. I. (2012). Developmental antecedents of political ideology: A longitudinal investigation from birth to age 18 years. Psychological Science, 23(11), 1425– 1431. 10.1177/0956797612440102 23054474 PMC13155237 · DOI
  64. Frimer J. A. Gaucher D. Schaefer N. K. (2014). Political conservatives’ affinity for obedience to authority is loyal, not blind. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(9), 1205– 1214. 10.1177/0146167214538672 24972942 · DOI
  65. Frimer J. A. Skitka L. J. Motyl M. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1– 12. 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003 · DOI
  66. Fritsche I. Barth M. Jugert P. Masson T. Reese G. (2018). A Social Identity Model of Pro-Environmental Action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review, 125(2), 245– 269. 10.1037/rev0000090 29265852 · DOI
  67. Gainous J. Merry M. K. (2022). Climate change as a national security issue: Examining framing effects across party. American Politics Research, 50(2), 199– 212. 10.1177/1532673X211053213 · DOI
  68. Gerring J. (1997). Ideology: A definitional analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 50(4), 957– 994. 10.1177/106591299705000412 · DOI
  69. Gifford R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290– 302. 10.1037/a0023566 21553954 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Gifford R. Kormos C. McIntyre A. (2011). Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(6), 801– 827. 10.1002/wcc.143 · DOI
  71. Gilligan J. M. Vandenbergh M. P. (2020). A framework for assessing the impact of private climate governance. Energy Research & Social Science, 60, Article 101400. 10.1016/j.erss.2019.101400 · DOI
  72. Gillis A. Vandenbergh M. Raimi K. Maki A. Wallston K. (2021). Convincing conservatives: Private sector action can bolster support for climate change mitigation in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 73, Article 101947. 10.1016/j.erss.2021.101947 · DOI
  73. Goldberg M. H. Gustafson A. Ballew M. T. Rosenthal S. A. Leiserowitz A. (2019). A social identity approach to engaging Christians in the issue of climate change. Science Communication, 41(4), 442– 463. 10.1177/1075547019860847 · DOI
  74. Goldberg M. H. Gustafson A. Rosenthal S. A. Leiserowitz A. (2021). Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising. Nature Climate Change, 11(7), 573– 577. 10.1038/S41558-021-01070-1 · DOI
  75. Goldberg M. H. van der Linden S. Leiserowitz A. Maibach E. (2020). Perceived social consensus can reduce ideological biases on climate change. Environment and Behavior, 52(5), 495– 517. 10.1177/0013916519853302 · DOI
  76. Goldberg M. H. van der Linden S. Maibach E. Leiserowitz A. (2019). Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 116(30), 14804– 14805. 10.1073/pnas.1906589116 PMC6660749 31285333 · DOI
  77. Graham J. Haidt J. Nosek B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029– 1046. 10.1037/a0015141 19379034 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Gromet D. M. Van Boven L. (2014). Oppositional projection in perceived support for cap and trade. SSRN. 10.2139/ssrn.2434271 · DOI
  79. Guay B. Johnston C. D. (2022). Ideological asymmetries and the determinants of politically motivated reasoning. American Journal of Political Science, 66(2), 285– 301. 10.1111/ajps.12624 · DOI
  80. Guilbeault D. Becker J. Centola D. (2018). Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 115(39), 9714– 9719. 10.1073/pnas.1722664115 PMC6166837 30181271 · DOI
  81. Gustafson A. Rosenthal S. A. Ballew M. T. Goldberg M. H. Bergquist P. Kotcher J. E. Maibach E. W. Leiserowitz A. (2019). The development of partisan polarization over the Green New Deal. Nature Climate Change, 9(12), 940– 944. 10.1038/s41558-019-0621-7 · DOI · Paper page
  82. Haas N. Khadka P. B. (2020). If they endorse it, I can’t trust it: How outgroup leader endorsements undercut public support for civil war peace settlements. American Journal of Political Science, 64(4), 982– 1000. 10.1111/AJPS.12519 · DOI
  83. Hahn U. Harris A. J. L. (2014). What does it mean to be biased: Motivated reasoning and rationality. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 61, 41– 102. 10.1016/B978-0-12-800283-4.00002-2 · DOI
  84. Haidt J. Graham J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98– 116. 10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z · DOI · Paper page
  85. Haidt J. Joseph C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55– 65. 10.1162/0011526042365555 · DOI
  86. Hasson Y. Tamir M. Brahms K. S. Cohrs J. C. Halperin E. (2018). Are liberals and conservatives equally motivated to feel empathy toward others? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(10), 1449– 1459. 10.1177/0146167218769867 29739293 · DOI
  87. Henrich J. (2017). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press. 10.26613/esic/1.1.35 · DOI
  88. Henrich J. P. Heine S. J. Norenzayan A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61– 83. 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X 20550733 · DOI · Paper page
  89. Hetherington M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 619– 631. 10.1017/S0003055401003045 · DOI
  90. Hogg M. A. Reid S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7– 30. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x · DOI · Paper page
  91. Hoover J. Atari M. Mostafazadeh Davani A. Kennedy B. Portillo-Wightman G. Yeh L. Dehghani M. (2021). Investigating the role of group-based morality in extreme behavioral expressions of prejudice. Nature Communications, 12(1), Article 4585. 10.1038/s41467-021-24786-2 PMC8319297 34321479 · DOI
  92. Hornsey M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204– 222. 10.1111/J.1751-9004.2007.00066.X · DOI · Paper page
  93. Hornsey M. J. (2021). The role of worldviews in shaping how people appraise climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 36– 41. 10.1016/J.COBEHA.2021.02.021 · DOI
  94. Hornsey M. J. Finlayson M. Chatwood G. Begeny C. T. (2020). Donald Trump and vaccination: The effect of political identity, conspiracist ideation and presidential tweets on vaccine hesitancy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 88, Article 103947. 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103947 · DOI
  95. Huddy L. Mason L. Aarøe L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1– 17. 10.1017/S0003055414000604 · DOI · Paper page
  96. Hyman H. (1959). Political socialization. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1962-00874-000
  97. Imhoff R. Zimmer F. Klein O. António J. H. C. Babinska M. Bangerter A. Bilewicz M. Blanuša N. Bovan K. Bužarovska R. Cichocka A. Delouvée S. Douglas K. M. Dyrendal A. Etienne T. Gjoneska B. Graf S. Gualda E. Hirschberger G.... van Prooijen J. W. (2022). Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(3), 392– 403. 10.1038/s41562-021-01258-7 35039654 · DOI
  98. Iyengar S. Krupenkin M. (2018). The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology, 39, 201– 218. 10.1111/POPS.12487 · DOI · Paper page
  99. Iyer R. Koleva S. Graham J. Ditto P. Haidt J. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLOS ONE, 7(8), Article e42366. 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0042366 PMC3424229 22927928 · DOI
  100. Jacoby W. G. (2010). The American voter. In Leighley J. E. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American elections and political behavior (pp. 262– 277). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199235476.003.0015 · DOI
  101. Janoff-Bulman R. Sheikh S. Baldacci K. G. (2008). Mapping moral motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1091– 1099. 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.11.003 · DOI
  102. Jerit J. (2013). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance [Review]. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(2), 637– 640. 10.1093/poq/nft014 · DOI
  103. Jetten J. Spears R. Manstead A. S. R. (1996). Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1222– 1233. 10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1222 8979388 · DOI
  104. Joseph C. M. Graham J. Haidt J. (2009). The end of equipotentiality: A moral foundations approach to ideology-attitude links and cognitive complexity. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 172– 176. 10.1080/10478400903088882 · DOI
  105. Jost J. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167– 208. 10.1111/pops.12407 · DOI
  106. Jost J. T. Banaji M. R. Nosek B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881– 919. 10.1111/J.1467-9221.2004.00402.X · DOI · Paper page
  107. Jost J. T. Federico C. M. Napier J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307– 337. 10.1146/ANNUREV.PSYCH.60.110707.163600 19035826 · DOI · Paper page
  108. Jost J. T. Nosek B. A. Gosling S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126– 136. 10.1111/J.1745-6916.2008.00070.X 26158879 · DOI
  109. Jost J. T. Stern C. Rule N. O. Sterling J. (2017). The politics of fear: Is there an ideological asymmetry in existential motivation? Social Cognition, 35(4), 324– 353. 10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.324 · DOI
  110. Jost J. T. van der Linden S. Panagopoulos C. Hardin C. D. (2018). Ideological asymmetries in conformity, desire for shared reality, and the spread of misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 77– 83. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.01.003 29427900 · DOI
  111. Joyner C. Lane R. E. (1963). Political ideology: Why the American common man believes what he does. The Western Political Quarterly, 16(3), 736– 737. 10.2307/444784 · DOI
  112. Jussim L. Crawford J. T. Anglin S. M. Stevens S. T. (2015). Ideological bias in social psychological research. In Forgas J. P. Fiedler K. Crano W. D. (Eds.), Social psychology and politics (pp. 107– 126). Psychology Press. 10.4324/9781315717104-12 · DOI
  113. Kachi A. Bernauer T. Gampfer R. (2015). Climate policy in hard times: Are the pessimists right? Ecological Economics, 114, 227– 241. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.002 · DOI
  114. Kahan D. M. (2012). Why we are poles apart on climate change. Nature, 488(7411), Article 255. 10.1038/488255a 22895298 · DOI
  115. Kahan D. M. (2016). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, Part 2: Unanswered questions. In Scott R. A. Buchmann M. C. (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1– 15). Wiley. 10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0418 · DOI
  116. Kahan D. M. Braman D. Slovic P. Gastil J. Cohen G. L. (2007). The second national risk and culture study: Making sense of - and making progress in - the American culture war of fact (October 3, 2007). GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 370, Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 154, GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 370, Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper No. 08-26. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1017189; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1017189 · DOI
  117. Karimi-Malekabadi F. Reimer N. K. Atari M. Trager J. Kennedy B. Graham J. Dehghani M. (2021). Moral values predict county-level COVID-19 vaccination rates in the United States. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. 10.31234/osf.io/z6kxm 36074569 · DOI
  118. Kivikangas J. M. Fernández-Castilla B. Järvelä S. Ravaja N. Lönnqvist J. E. (2021). Moral foundations and political orientation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(1), 55– 94. 10.1037/BUL0000308 33151704 · DOI
  119. Klandermans B. (2002). How group identification helps to overcome the dilemma of collective action. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 887– 900. 10.1177/0002764202045005009 · DOI
  120. Kubin E. von Sikorski C. (2021). The role of (social) media in political polarization: A systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(3), 188– 206. 10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070 · DOI · Paper page
  121. Lenz G. S. (2009). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 821– 837. 10.1111/J.1540-5907.2009.00403.X · DOI
  122. Leviston Z. Walker I. Morwinski S. (2013). Your opinion on climate change might not be as common as you think. Nature Climate Change, 3, 334– 337. 10.1038/NCLIMATE1743 · DOI
  123. Loy L. S. Reese G. (2019). Hype and hope? Mind-body practice predicts pro-environmental engagement through global identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 66, Article 101340. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101340 · DOI
  124. Ma Y. Dixon G. Hmielowski J. D. (2019). Psychological reactance from reading basic facts on climate change: The role of prior views and political identification. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 71– 86. 10.1080/17524032.2018.1548369 · DOI
  125. Macy M. Deri S. Ruch A. Tong N. (2019). Opinion cascades and the unpredictability of partisan polarization. Science Advances, 5(8), 754– 782. 10.1126/SCIADV.AAX0754/SUPPL_FILE/AAX0754_SM.PDF PMC6713491 31489373 · DOI
  126. Malka A. Lelkes Y. (2010). More than ideology: Conservative-liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research, 23(2), 156– 188. 10.1007/S11211-010-0114-3 · DOI
  127. Mason L. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128– 145. 10.1111/ajps.12089 · DOI · Paper page
  128. Masson T. Fritsche I. (2021). We need climate change mitigation and climate change mitigation needs the ‘We’: A state-of-the-art review of social identity effects motivating climate change action. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 89– 96. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.006 · DOI
  129. McCright A. M. Dentzman K. Charters M. Dietz T. (2013). The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 44029– 44038. 10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044029 · DOI
  130. McCright A. M. Dunlap R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative White males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1163– 1172. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
  131. McFarland S. Hackett J. Hamer K. Katzarska-Miller I. Malsch A. Reese G. Reysen S. (2019). Global human identification and citizenship: A review of psychological studies. Political Psychology, 40(S1), 141– 171. 10.1111/pops.12572 · DOI
  132. Merkley E. Bridgman A. Loewen P. J. Owen T. Ruths D. Zhilin O. (2020). A rare moment of cross-partisan consensus: Elite and public response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 311– 318. 10.1017/S0008423920000311 · DOI
  133. Miller D. T. Prentice D. A. (2016). Changing norms to change behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 339– 361. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015013 26253542 · DOI
  134. Mook D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379– 387. 10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379 · DOI
  135. Myers T. A. Nisbet M. C. Maibach E. W. Leiserowitz A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change: A letter. Climatic Change, 113(3–4), 1105– 1112. 10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6 · DOI · Paper page
  136. Nicholson S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52– 66. 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.x 22400143 · DOI · Paper page
  137. Nickerson R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175– 220. 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
  138. Nielsen K. S. Clayton S. Stern P. C. Dietz T. Capstick S. Whitmarsh L. (2021). How psychology can help limit climate change. American Psychologist, 76(1), 130– 144. 10.1037/amp0000624 32202817 · DOI
  139. Onorato R. S. Turner J. C. (2001). The “I,” the “me,” and the “us”: The psychological group and self-concept maintenance and change. In Sedikides C. Brewer M. B. (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 147– 170). Psychology Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-16359-008
  140. Osmundsen M. Bor A. Vahlstrup P. B. Bechmann A. Petersen M. B. (2021). Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 999– 1015. 10.1017/S0003055421000290 · DOI · Paper page
  141. Oxley D. R. Smith K. B. Alford J. R. Hibbing M. V. Miller J. L. Scalora M. Hatemi P. K. Hibbing J. R. (2008). Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science, 321(5896), 1667– 1670. 10.1126/science.1157627 18801995 · DOI
  142. Oyserman D. (2009). Identity-based motivation and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 276– 279. 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.06.001 · DOI
  143. Oyserman D. Schwarz N. (2017). Conservatism as a situated identity: Implications for consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 532– 536. 10.1016/j.jcps.2017.08.003 · DOI
  144. Pearson A. R. Schuldt J. P. Romero-Canyas R. (2016). Social climate science: A new vista for psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 632– 650. 10.1177/1745691616639726 27694459 · DOI
  145. Peng W. Iyer G. Bosetti V. Chaturvedi V. Edmonds J. Fawcett A. A. Hallegatte S. Victor D. G. van Vuuren D. Weyant J. (2021). Climate policy models need to get real about people—here’s how. Nature, 594(7862), 174– 176. 10.1038/d41586-021-01500-2 34103720 PMC9531597 · DOI
  146. Pew Research Center. (2020). As economic concerns recede, environmental protection rises on the public’s policy agenda. SELL Journal, 5. https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/resources/as-economic-concerns-recede-environmental-protection-rises-on-the-publics-policy-agenda/
  147. Pierson P. Schickler E. (2020). Madison’s constitution under stress: A developmental analysis of political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 23, 37– 58. 10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033629 · DOI · Paper page
  148. Prentice D. A. (2018). Intervening to change social norms: When does it work? Social Research, 85(1), 115– 139. 10.1353/sor.2018.0007 · DOI
  149. Prentice D. A. Miller D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 243– 256. 10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243 8433272 · DOI · Paper page
  150. Prentice D. A. Miller D. T. (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by unwitting actors. In Zanna M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 161– 209). Academic Press. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60238-5 · DOI
  151. Prentice D. A. Miller D. T. (2016). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 160– 164. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-32022-006
  152. Rad M. S. Martingano A. J. Ginges J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 115(45), 11401– 11405. 10.1073/pnas.1721165115 PMC6233089 30397114 · DOI · Paper page
  153. Reinero D. A. Wills J. A. Brady W. J. Mende-Siedlecki P. Crawford J. T. Van Bavel J. J. (2020). Is the political slant of psychology research related to scientific replicability? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1310– 1328. 10.1177/1745691620924463 32812848 · DOI
  154. Renger D. Reese G. (2017). From equality-based respect to environmental activism: Antecedents and consequences of global identity. Political Psychology, 38(5), 867– 879. 10.1111/pops.12382 · DOI
  155. Rinscheid A. Pianta S. Weber E. U. (2021). What shapes public support for climate change mitigation policies? The role of descriptive social norms and elite cues. Behavioural Public Policy, 5(4), 503– 527. 10.1017/bpp.2020.43 · DOI
  156. Römpke A. K. Fritsche I. Reese G. (2019). Get together, feel together, act together: International personal contact increases identification with humanity and global collective action. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3(1), 35– 48. 10.1002/JTS5.34 · DOI
  157. Ross L. Greene D. House P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279– 301. 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X · DOI · Paper page
  158. Roulston M. Kaplan T. Day B. Kaivanto K. (2022). Prediction-market innovations can improve climate-risk forecasts. Nature Climate Change. Advance online publication. 10.1038/s41558-022-01467-6 · DOI
  159. Roy R. K. Denzau A. T. (2020). Shared mental models: Insights and perspectives on ideologies and institutions. Kyklos, 73(3), 323– 340. 10.1111/KYKL.12244 · DOI
  160. Ruggeri K. Većkalov B. Bojanić L. Andersen T. L. Ashcroft-Jones S. Ayacaxli N. Barea-Arroyo P. Berge M. L. Bjørndal L. D. Bursalıoğlu A. Bühler V. Cˇadek M. Çetinçelik M. Clay G. Cortijos-Bernabeu A. Damnjanović K. Dugue T. M. Esberg M. Esteban-Serna C.... Folke T. (2021). The general fault in our fault lines. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10), 1369– 1380. 10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x 33888880 · DOI · Paper page
  161. Sachdeva S. Boghrati R. Dehghani M. (2019). Testing the influence of purity-based interventions on pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 11(6), Article 1811. 10.3390/su11061811 · DOI
  162. Sargent R. H. Newman L. S. (2021). Pluralistic ignorance research in psychology: A scoping review of topic and method variation and directions for future research. Review of General Psychology, 25(2), 163– 184. 10.1177/1089268021995168 · DOI
  163. Schuldt J. P. Pearson A. R. Romero-Canyas R. Larson-Konar D. (2017). Brief exposure to Pope Francis heightens moral beliefs about climate change. Climatic Change, 141(2), 167– 177. 10.1007/s10584-016-1893-9 · DOI
  164. Sherif M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1937-00871-000
  165. Sherif M. (1961). Conformity-deviation, norms, and group relations. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-09642-006
  166. Sherman D. K. Shteyn M. F. Han H. Van Boven L. (2021). The exchange between citizens and elected officials: A social psychological framework for citizen climate activists. Behavioural Public Policy, 5(4), 576– 605. 10.1017/bpp.2020.41 · DOI
  167. Sherman D. K. Updegraff J. A. Handy M. S. Eom K. Kim H. S. (2022). Beliefs and social norms as precursors of environmental support: The joint influence of collectivism and socioeconomic status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(3), 463– 477. 10.1177/01461672211007252 33855914 · DOI
  168. Simas E. N. Clifford S. Kirkland J. H. (2020). How empathic concern fuels political polarization. American Political Science Review, 114(1), 258– 269. 10.1017/S0003055419000534 · DOI
  169. Smith K. B. Alford J. R. Hibbing J. R. Martin N. G. Hatemi P. K. (2017). Intuitive ethics and political orientations: Testing moral foundations as a theory of political ideology. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 424– 437. 10.1111/AJPS.12255 · DOI
  170. Sparkman G. Geiger N. Weber E. U. (2022). Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half. Nature Communications, 13(1), Article 4779. 10.1038/s41467-022-32412-y PMC9399177 35999211 · DOI
  171. Sparkman G. Walton G. M. (2017). Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1663– 1674. 10.1177/0956797617719950 28961062 · DOI · Paper page
  172. Sparkman G. Weitz E. Robinson T. N. Malhotra N. Walton G. M. (2020). Developing a scalable dynamic norm menu-based intervention to reduce meat consumption. Sustainability, 12(6), Article 2453. 10.3390/su12062453 · DOI
  173. Stehr N. (2015). Climate policy: Democracy is not an inconvenience. Nature, 525(7570), 449– 450. 10.1038/525449a 26399814 · DOI
  174. Stimson J. A. Mackuen M. B. Erikson R. S. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 543– 565. 10.2307/2082973 · DOI
  175. Stone W. F. (1980). The myth of left-wing authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 2(3/4), Article 3. 10.2307/3790998 · DOI
  176. Swim J. K. Stern P. C. Doherty T. J. Clayton S. Reser J. P. Weber E. U. Gifford R. Howard G. S. (2011). Psychology’s contributions to understanding and addressing global climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 241– 250. 10.1037/A0023220 21553950 · DOI
  177. Tajfel H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96– 103. 5482577
  178. Tajfel H. Billig M. G. Bundy R. P. Flament C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149– 178. 10.1002/EJSP.2420010202 · DOI · Paper page
  179. Tajfel H. Turner J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Jost J. T. Sidanius J. (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276– 293). Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203505984-16 · DOI · Paper page
  180. Talhelm T. Haidt J. Oishi S. Zhang X. Miao F. F. Chen S. (2015). Liberals think more analytically (more “WEIRD”) than conservatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 250– 267. 10.1177/0146167214563672 25540328 · DOI
  181. Tankard M. E. Paluck E. L. (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 181– 211. 10.1111/sipr.12022 · DOI
  182. Terry D. J. Hogg M. A. (2001). Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership in social influence processes. In Forgas J. P. Williams K. D. (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 253– 270). Psychology Press.
  183. Tesler M. (2018). Elite domination of public doubts about climate change (not evolution). Political Communication, 35(2), 306– 326. 10.1080/10584609.2017.1380092 · DOI
  184. Transue J. E. (2007). Identity salience, identity acceptance, and racial policy attitudes: American national identity as a uniting force. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 78– 91. 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00238.x · DOI
  185. Turner J. Hogg M. Oakes P. Reicher S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-98657-000
  186. Unsworth K. L. Fielding K. S. (2014). It’s political: How the salience of one’s political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Global Environmental Change, 27(1), 131– 137. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.002 · DOI
  187. Van Boven L. Ehret P. J. Sherman D. K. (2018). Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 492– 507. 10.1177/1745691617748966 29961412 · DOI · Paper page
  188. Van Boven L. Ramos J. Montal-Rosenberg R. Kogut T. Sherman D. K. Slovic P. (2019). It depends: Partisan evaluation of conditional probability importance. Cognition, 188, 51– 63. 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.01.020 30833009 · DOI
  189. Van Boven L. Sherman D. K. (2021). Elite influence on public attitudes about climate policy. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 83– 88. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.03.023 · DOI
  190. Vandenbergh M. P. (2013). Private environmental governance. Cornell Law Review, 99(1), 129– 200. 10.4337/9781783478408.ii.19 · DOI
  191. Vandenbergh M. P. (2022). Environmental law in a polarized era (Vanderbilt Law Research Paper No. 22-31). SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4284936
  192. Vandenbergh M. P. Raimi K. T. Gilligan J. M. (2014). Energy and climate change: A climate prediction market. UCLA Law Review, 61(6), 1962– 2017. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/uclalr61&section=43
  193. van der Linden S. (2016). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours: A national study. Environmental Education Research, 22(3), 434– 435. 10.1080/13504622.2015.1108391 · DOI
  194. van der Linden S. (2017). Determinants and measurement of climate change risk perception, worry, and concern. In Nisbet M. C. Schafer M. Markowitz E. Ho S. O’Neill S. Thaker J. (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.318 · DOI
  195. van der Linden S. (2021). The gateway belief model (GBM): A review and research agenda for communicating the scientific consensus on climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 7– 12. 10.1016/J.COPSYC.2021.01.005 33609913 · DOI
  196. van der Linden S. Maibach E. Leiserowitz A. (2015). Improving public engagement with climate change: Five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 758– 763. 10.1177/1745691615598516 26581732 · DOI
  197. van der Linden S. Maibach E. Leiserowitz A. (2019). Exposure to scientific consensus does not cause psychological reactance. Environmental Communication. Advance online publication. 10.1080/17524032.2019.1617763 · DOI
  198. van der Linden S. Panagopoulos C. Azevedo F. Jost J. T. (2021). The paranoid style in American politics revisited: An ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking. Political Psychology, 42(1), 23– 51. 10.1111/pops.12681 · DOI
  199. van der Linden S. Weber E. U. (2021). Editorial overview: Can behavioral science solve the climate crisis? Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, iii–viii. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.09.001 · DOI
  200. Van Hiel A. Onraet E. De Pauw S. (2010). The relationship between social-cultural attitudes and behavioral measures of cognitive style: A meta-analytic integration of studies. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1765– 1800. 10.1111/J.1467-6494.2010.00669.X 21039531 · DOI

200 of 214 shown

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cole, J. C., Gillis, A. J., van der Linden, S., Cohen, M. A., & Vandenbergh, M. P.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge
Corresponding author
Cole, Jennifer C.
ORCID
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2023-09-18
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
115-141
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
DOI
10.1177/17456916231186409
PMC
PMC11720282
OpenAlex
W4386823231
Cited by
61
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5
FWCI
26.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
political polarization, climate change, political psychology, political ideology, party identification, superordinate identity, climate change communication, behavioral interventions, climate policy
MeSH terms
Humans, Politics, Psychology, Social, United States, Climate Change

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