Framing discourse around conservative values shifts climate change attitudes
Conservatives’ attitudes toward climate change and other environmental concerns shift when the issues are reframed in terms more closely aligned with their values, a new study from Oregon State University indicates.
Researchers found that people who identified as conservative were more likely to support “pro-environmental” ideals when the issues were framed as matters of obeying authority, defending the purity of nature and demonstrating patriotism.
The study underscores the ways in which discussions of important topics are informed by a person’s moral and ideological perspective, said the study’s lead author, Christopher Wolsko, an assistant professor of psychology at OSU-Cascades.
“We think we’re just discussing issues, but we’re discussing those issues through particular cultural values that we normally take for granted,” Wolsko said. “If you re-frame issues to be more inclusive of those diverse values, people’s attitudes change.”
The findings were published in the latest issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Co-authors are Hector Ariceaga and Jesse Seiden, who are alumni of OSU-Cascades.
Wolsko studies ecopsychology, a field that examines the relationship between humans and the natural world from both a psychological and ecological perspective. The goal of his latest research is to better understand the widespread political polarization occurring around environmental issues such as climate change.
“This political polarization has been a big issue, even in the current presidential campaign,” Wolsko said. “Why is that? What, exactly, is going on psychologically?”
Moral foundations theory suggests that liberals and conservatives respond differently to broad moral categories. Liberals respond more favorably to moral issues involving harm and care, or fairness and justice, and conservatives respond more favorably to issues framed by loyalty, authority and respect, and the purity and sanctity of human endeavors, Wolsko said.
In a series of experiments, the researchers tested how shifts in moral framing affected attitudes toward environmental issues such as climate change. They reframed questions about conservation and climate change around ideals of patriotism, loyalty, authority and purity and paired them with imagery such as flags and bald eagles.
They found that reframing the issues around these moral foundations led to shifts in attitudes for conservatives, who were more likely to favor environmental concerns in that context. There was no noticeable shift in attitudes among liberals, which isn’t a big surprise, Wolsko said.
Environmental issues are typically framed in ideological and moral terms that hold greater appeal for people with liberal views. Conservatives may not so much be rejecting environmental concerns, but rather the tone and tenor of the prevailing moral discourse around environmental issues, he said.
That does not mean people should reframe critical discourse to manipulate attitudes about environmental concerns, Wolsko said. Rather, the goal should be to find more balanced ways to talk about the issues in an effort to reduce the polarization that can occur.
“The classic move is to segment people along these ideological lines,” he said. “But if we’re more inclusive in our discourse, can we reduce the animosity and find more common ground?”
Future research should look at messaging that is considered more neutral and appeals to people with both liberal and conservative ideologies, Wolsko said.
“I’m really interested in the extent to which we can bring everyone together, to be more inclusive and affirm common values,” he said. “Can we apply these lessons to the political and policy arenas, and ultimately reduce the vast political polarization we’re experiencing right now?”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So forcing energy poverty on the poor and halting 3rd world countries from developing is Patriotic?
Succinct!
+1.000001
Apparently…along with disease, famine and illiteracy…among other human conditions known to plague the unwashed masses of the world.
As Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds says, “I can remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism.”
Of course, that’s when there is a conservative in power. Then, you have to fight the power. When you GET the power, you obviously get a pass from dissenters. How dare you. Its racist (when its Obama) and sexist (when its Hillary).
What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.
What we’ve got here is yet another posturing psychobabble merchant peddling the latest in comparative uncle sizing crap. “Ecopsychology” doncha know. A discipline firmly rooted in …. well I guess relativity!
Zeitgeist surfing: relative to any fleeting preconceived notion, however non-objective, as and for as long as it appears to maintain a populi$t per$pective. Next up this newly coined disciple-line will be proclaimed to be science. More relativity, what’s not to like?
He must have read some of Lew’s and Cookie’s work and decided it was easy money.
If you’re a liberal you can make up and sell any lies you want about people with whom you disagree.
silly to the point of childish
But taking itself so very very seriously.
Toddlers always do.
As someone who has spent a great deal of time around preschoolers, it is funny how much alike their behavior, and that of CAGW proponents are.
Child-“I want the use of fossil fuels to stop”
Adult-“I know. But you can’t have everything you want.”
Child-“But I NEED it!”
Adult-“No you don’t.”
Child “If I don’t get it, something bad will happen!”
Adult-“No, something bad will not happen”…..*explain to child in simple terms, why nothing bad will happen*
Child-“You’re a liar! Billy’s scientific club says that’s a lie!”
Adult-” Billy’s science club can say what they want to, but they are wrong.”
Child-“You just want me to suffer!”
Adult-“No, no I don’t want you to suffer.”
Child-“You are the meanest, meaner, meanie!”
Adult-“Why do you say that?”
Child-“Because you don’t care if the whole world dies!!! All you care about is YOU.”
And on and on
Some of my favorites:
“Oh yeah? Well MY scientists SAID SO…that’s why!”
“Oh yeah? Well YOUR scientist is so dumb all the other scientists laugh at him!”
“Well, your graph looks funny!”
“My teacher, Mr. Mann, says that people like you only care about money!”
“I heard from Jackie’s mom, who heard it from Jenny’s sister, who heard it from Jake’s aunt, that your mom gets paid to LIE about global warming by BEOC!” (Big Evil Oil Companies)
Hoo-boy. This brings eco-quackery to a new level!
Simply disregard the facts that WE portray, and frame them for those we believe are not on the same eco-imperialist level as WE are!
Xanax all around!
Or somex
With the next grant installment they will show how to make conservatives believe in bad science, poor predictions, and biased or under-specified climate models. I think it will require re-education camps and re-programming to get there. If successful we would expect the converts to cheer and wave little green books in the air during every speech by the President, especially those speeches supplied by GreenPeace.
What is 2+2 Winston?
4 Winston?
Speaking for myself, I’m at my most amenable when they come at me from a feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research perspective.
Oregon State gave us Shaun Marcott, wasn’t he the one whose study was dissected to find out his temperature graph, read HOCKEY STICK could not be supported with his own data?
https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/14/no-uptick-in-marcott-thesis/
Oregon State University, where your research is never in need of any supporting data.
What a joke.
Thankfully we have a lot of people like Dr. Christopher Wolsko out there trying to fix the broken people.
Please help us!
We *are* fortunate!
This is quite simple: All that has to be done is to tell several large, steaming lies about climate and print them on paper with flags and eagles. I have seen this tactic used by leftists many times over the years — misrepresenting ideas, people or even offering false “facts” to try to win over people to a political position. With the left, the first casualty is almost always the truth.
Mark Johnson,
The Left has always used that same “flags and eagles” subtrefuge. In the 1930’s, during the Spanish civil war Communist recruiters fanned out across the U.S., enticing teenage farm boys (and girls) to join outfits with names like the “Abraham Lincoln Brigade”, to fight the Fascists.
They were Communist front organizantions, using American kids as cannon fodder. The kids were ordered to charge machine gun emplacements, just like you see in the movies. The American kids were slaughtered by the thousands, as the royalists won.
This fits the same pattern: using Orwell-type language to try and shift attitudes. With the government’s .edu factories dumbing down the population, they could well be successful with this latest propaganda.
Yup the “professor” is a progressive.
Never listen to what opposing people say,just assume you know what they mean.
Patriotic?
Sadly the “Ecosychologist” would not understand patriotism if it bit him.
A certainty, this legend in his own mind, considers himself a world citizen first and an American citizen a long second.
Pretty tough invoking patriotism when you do not know what patriotism is.
Of course in liberal speak,words mean whatever they need them to mean today.
Patriotism has been used to sell some of the worst atrocities in human history, most of maybe.
This smacks of one Mr Schmidt’s talk on using other methods than science to hide the decline.. in belief in CAGW
I’m thinking that NOT spending my neighbor’s money FOR him is patriotic.
I’m thinking that economically prosperous societies pollute less than economically depressed ones.
I’m thinking that anyone who assumes conservatives are automatically more obedient to authority doesn’t know the first thing about conservatives.
..Liberals also believe that it’s PATRIOTIC to give up all your guns !!
Oregon State does some decent research on vitamin supplements at the Linus Pauling Institute, but then again that is not FDA approved product either.
…..and fortunately there remains a double standard canyon of difference between research accountability in health research vs. climate research.
Oregon State has produced some of the most destructive crack pots to roam the planet.
This is the story of how a handful of scientists set out from Oregon with an unshakable belief that they knew what was best for the rest of us. They ended up conquering the world (or at least the watery portions of it) and got rich along the way, while the fishermen and their families only worked harder and got poorer. When their scientific dogma connected with nearly unlimited resources, the earth quaked and the resulting tidal wave swept aside all the usual checks and balances. It carried along the media, the politicians, the government agencies and the non-governmental organizations with such force that seemingly no one could stand against the tide. Sound familiar? It sounds like the climate plan.
Pew’s Conquest Of The Ocean By David Lincoln
http://fisherynation.com/pews-conquest-ocean-david-lincoln
OREGON CONNECTIONS – Source of the Wave
Well my wife likes to shop at this “whole foods” grocery store; that place is just dripping green from the rafters.
Over in “that corner” you can buy “organic” milk, which I suppose contains carbon; but it is three times the price of just “milk” milk (which I don’t believe that store even carries).
But not to worry; over here “in this corner” we have a collection of all of the 97 known natural elements (no trans-Uranics) and chemical compounds from A to Z as in Astatine to Zirconium. 57 brands of omega 3 and omega 6 fish oils or krill oils, and you can just add your own chemical poisons to taste. Talk about pretentious; I can’t bear to go in there with her, and look at all the ethnic yuppies, all trying to look ‘Mercan !
Only reason I do go in there is they actually carry a selection of New Zealand Marlborough Pinot Noirs, and some other Kiwi reds. I’m not a white wine drinker, but sometimes my wife buys a kiwi Pinot Grigio or such like. Unfortunately they don’t carry fresh live NZ green shell mussels. We used to be able to buy them vacuum packed, and they all woke up when you opened the package to the air.
All of their meats are of course mercifully slaughtered; maybe the say please, before wringing the chicken’s neck.
G PS I’m not much of a wine drinker anyway.
Anthony, sorry to go off topic but my files have been corrupted and I am trying to find the series of articles about energy density and I cannot remember the author’s name. I know you are busy, but maybe someone here can help me out.
[The mods recommend you use the WUWT Search feature for the text you are looking for: “energy density” will yield many hundred results. Look through those results to find the Postings you need. .mod]
Here is one I found by Willis E. He talks about Hydrogen, natural gas, and has a chart showing the energy density of various fuels.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/drilling-for-hydrogen/
I hope this is one you are looking for.
I think this prof’s believe that conservatives believe and respect Authority automatically disqualifies his research, no matter what it shows. Conservatives generally tend to respect the law, that is true. That does not transform into respecting authority at all, especially if that authority appears to be abused or not based on greater laws, like Constitution.
Self-reliance is much more prominent, as in desire for authorities to leave us the heck alone.
10000+ (and you don’t need a degree in anything to figure that out either)
One word — Rinos.
It’s mostly a political issue and this is just more on the politics of that issue.
What other field in science generates even a fraction of the non scientific importance, which dwarfs the science in climate science?
OK, maybe social sciences and psychology are sciences with constant relevancy in climate science ……..but what small fraction of authentic hard science based on the objective, scientific method gets dialed into discussions intended to win over or appeal to groups being targeted for persuasion?
.
Yes. Defrauding the public, raising taxes to a catastrophic level, and reducing individual rights to a level reflecting Stalin’s finest ambition, is a patriotic duty to which every freedom loving citizen of all countries should aspire.
Its so freaking hilarious!!! All every single climate related “social psychology” paper/idea/campaign/study does is make people feel MORE and MORE manipulated!! That branch of the “sciences” alone is responsible for more doubt, more skepticism, more hesitancy than any thing that skeptics or the supposed secret “anti science/fossil fuel conspiracy empire” could possibly cause!!! The absolute BEST way to undermine the CAGW Church is to just let the social scientists KEEP talking, publishing!! I love it.
It’s ALL emotional manipulation, and even your basic, down to earth “common folk” can FEEL when they are being manipulated even if they can’t exactly pinpoint how or who is doing it. The emotional tactics so far:
*Fear-the world will burn and we’ll die! (looking completely false)
*Guilt-you don’t care about your children or climate refugees! (logical fallacy)
*God-the Pope says you’d better do this or you’re a horrible sinner (irrelevant)
*Compassion-the polar bears! The penguins! Mother Earth! The Maldivians! (proven wrong)
*Hatred-you are evil, nasty, selfish, insert-derogatory-term-of-your-choice-here (nothing new there)
*Stupidity-conservatives just aren’t smart enough to understand the science (proven wrong)
*Sexism 1-female iceburgs and scientists are exploited somehow (WTH?)
*Sexism 2- Men will get less sex if it gets any warmer (again WTH??)
*Peer pressure- Consensus! You’re not in THE CLUB!
And now…..drum roll-
*Patriotism-what kind of an American Yankee Doodle person would allow this to happen?
What else is left? I’m sure we can think of the remaining areas in which they will surely attack from at some point. They are nothing if not completely predictable.
HEY….social scientists…..we have been TELLING YOU all these years exactly what would make us change our minds, incline us to join the CAGW army, and create complete agreement between both sides. Take notes!:
EVIDENCE….empirical, examinable, incontrovertible, inescapable, UN-manipulated,verifiable EVIDENCE.
Facts. Measurements. Repeatable, replicate-able experiments. You know…the stuff REQUIRED by the Scientific Method. (not YOUR method, or his method, or her method, or our method…THE method.) And no…the crap spit out of models that cannot replicate actual world systems precisely-does not count and should never ever be mistaken as “evidence” of any kind.
SOLID UNIFIED METHODS- in which the most logical, mathematical, scientific, and agreed upon by all-formulas, calculations, studies, research methods are used over and over again and produce the same results no matter what the personal agendas, or funding, or employers, or political leanings of the “scientists” involved is.
+ a million
+ another million.
Modern progressives really are the total bigots – they live in a world of absolute stereotypes and project charactertures of who they think we are, and then behave as if it’s true. It’s really how they deal with everything – deal with the projected fiction rather than reality. It’s patronizing, arrogant, and ignorant all at once.
I apologize to the mods for all the capitalized words in the post being moderated currently. I actually was yelling. In person as well. No >/b could accurately portray my emotions while I wrote that. I’d be happy to edit…but if that’s why it’s caught in moderation and it’s not ok….I understand. 🙂
..The mod probably took a while to get back up off the floor from laughing so hard…in a good way…
Excellent post as always
+ 1,000,001
It was an excellent post. Sometimes, you just have to yell.
I am willing to accept AGW if real science can prove it to be true.
Falsified models and pseudo-science are not going convince me no matter how patriotic or authoritarian the warmists want to make their argument appear.
That is the heart of the matter. Excellent.
Which should be linked directly to this thread-
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/26/teaching-people-climate-science-dampens-public-concern/
In which SCIENTISTS use “real science” to prove that the more educated about the actual physical characteristics of the climate people are, the LESS concerned they are about it! The study basically says:
“Hey…there have been a lot of pseudo social science studies lately saying that “conservatives” or some other social grouping is NOT concerned with climate science because of their cultural biases or political leanings or the color their houses are painted. We collected and examined the data, removed all of the cultural diagnostics out of it, and found……TA DA….that when people become more educated in the physical science of climate, they either stay the same amount of “concerned” or they become LESS concerned! It does not result in them becoming MORE concerned.”
The study concludes with “And this is a GOOD thing, and should make educators happy to know that educating people on the actual SCIENCE is not a lost cause at all! It alleviates their fears!”
I mean seriously….they could NOT figure it out! It goes like this:
We (social scientists) placed them in self identifying social groups of some kind, and gave them terrifying “newspaper” articles (some real and some fake) about what will happen (except intelligent people know that “will” and “might” are two very different things) if the globe warms up, and for some reason….certain particular groups simply did NOT buy it. (republicans, conservatives, skeptics…whatever). So THEN we tested their intelligence….and what? The conservatives and Republicans were “just as educated….and even often more so” than their leftist, Democrat counterparts….so humm…..if its NOT that they are stupid, and they actually understand “the science behind climate change”….WHY aren’t they buying the horror, the panic, the impending doom scenario that is obviously “true”??? The only other thing we can think of it-
it must be their “cultural biases!”
Really? THAT was your next choice Captains of Human Understanding? It couldn’t possibly be YOUR HYPOTHESIS??? YOUR biases? Your complete ineptitude with regard to what other human beings MUST be thinking? It appears that some of your colleagues ALSO thought your research/conclusions were a tad….er….um….disconcerting. And illogical. And worthy of being torn apart and examined. And refuted.
But I’m just a non-academic, unpaid, average female observer who somehow figured out the same thing the moment I read your idiotic papers over the past few years. Gut instinct? ESP? Magic? Protege? Or just stinking common sense oriented, logically thinking,former farm girl who grew up paying attention and learned the difference between facts and opinions, neutrality and bias, when I was in Jr. High School?
“All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism”
“Göring: Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country”
englandrichard,
Unfortunately, Göring was right. But now it’s not lack of patriotism. Now, it’s lack of concern for the environment. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the eco-fascists is the enemy.
Dissent within the ranks is not tolerated. That’s why no one in the alarmist crowd can be a skeptic. If they questioned CAGW, they would be ostracized. Banned. Shunned.
So they jettison the one thing that has moved us out of the Dark Ages: scientific skepticism.
Why? Because they want to be liked and accepted. So they’re willing to sell out civilization just to be liked. But in truth, no one likes them. No one on either side of the debate.
englandrichard wrote: Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country”
One good thing, in this information age, we, the People, have a little bit easier time figuring out whether we are really being attacked by something or not, and what the true facts of the situation are. Our leaders telling us something, does not automatically cause us to believe what they say. We are always skeptical. 🙂