scholarly journals Mitigation system threat partially mediates the effects of right‐wing ideologies on climate change beliefs

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 349-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward J. R. Clarke ◽  
Mathew Ling ◽  
Emily J. Kothe ◽  
Anna Klas ◽  
Ben Richardson
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-13
Author(s):  
Gabriela Czarnek ◽  
Małgorzata Kossowska ◽  
Paulina Szwed

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward John Roy Clarke ◽  
Mathew Ling ◽  
Emily Jane Kothe ◽  
Anna Klas ◽  
Ben Richardson

Research consistently shows that right-wing ideological adherents are more likely to deny climate change. However, less is known about how right-wing ideological subtypes are uniquely related to climate change denial, as well as what explains these relationships. This study examines whether threat to the socioeconomic system in the form of climate change mitigation policies mediates the relationships between Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) subtypes and four forms of climate change denial. Participants (N = 334; Mage = 34.70, SD = 5.98) were recruited via Amazon MTurk. When shared variance in the predictors was accounted for, we found that: (1) Conventionalism (RWA-C) positively predicted all types of climate change denial; (2) Dominance (SDO-D) positively predicted existence denial; (3) Anti-Egalitarianism (SDO-E) positively predicted both human cause and impact denial; and, (4) Aggression (RWA-A) negatively predicted existence denial. All significant direct relationships were partially mediated by climate change mitigation threat, except for direct paths between SDO-D and existence denial, and RWA-A and existence denial. These findings suggest that right-wing adherents who conform to societal norms and prefer inequality may deny climate change partly due to a perception that mitigation strategies proposed to combat climate change threaten the existing socioeconomic system.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 272
Author(s):  
Aaron C. Sparks ◽  
Heather Hodges ◽  
Sarah Oliver ◽  
Eric R. A. N. Smith

In many public policy areas, such as climate change, news media reports about scientific research play an important role. In presenting their research, scientists are providing guidance to the public regarding public policy choices. How do people decide which scientists and scientific claims to believe? This is a question we address by drawing on the psychology of persuasion. We propose the hypothesis that people are more likely to believe local scientists than national or international scientists. We test this hypothesis with an experiment embedded in a national Internet survey. Our experiment yielded null findings, showing that people do not discount or ignore research findings on climate change if they come from Europe instead of Washington-based scientists or a leading university in a respondent’s home state. This reinforces evidence that climate change beliefs are relatively stable, based on party affiliation, and not malleable based on the source of the scientific report.


Significance Plans to invest in key areas such as innovation, digitisation and climate change are already under way, as are plans to reform the pension system. Impacts EU fiscal rules will not return until 2023 at the earliest, enabling Draghi to focus on pro-growth strategies. If Draghi becomes president, finding an alternative government may be difficult as some parties will demand early elections. While the polls have narrowed, a right-wing government remains the most plausible outcome after the next general election.


2015 ◽  
Vol 135 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Stuart Carlton ◽  
Amber S. Mase ◽  
Cody L. Knutson ◽  
Maria Carmen Lemos ◽  
Tonya Haigh ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document