The new climate spin: trying to reach conservatives by making fighting climate change 'patriotic'

Framing discourse around conservative values shifts climate change attitudes

From OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

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?”

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

221 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 26, 2016 11:56 am

Wolsko studies ecopsychology, a field that examines the relationship between humans and the natural world from both a psychological and ecological perspective.

Yup, ecopsychology.
http://revistabulevard.ro/wp-content/uploads/EasyRotatorStorage/user-content/erc_37_1386055900/content/assets/fetita%202-0.jpg
And reality.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01964/polarBearZoo_1964941c.jpg

Reply to  Berényi Péter
April 26, 2016 12:17 pm

Yes, I remember when that German woman climbed into the Polar bear enclosure. She had watched too many videos and reports of cuddly bears, and just wanted to make friends.
The Polar bear took a chunk out of her butt the size of a soccer ball. I guess I’m a bad boy for laughing out loud. ☺

Marcus
Reply to  dbstealey
April 26, 2016 1:37 pm

..
I still have that picture too !! LOL

Marcus
Reply to  dbstealey
April 26, 2016 2:52 pm

..More Polar Bear fun !!
https://youtu.be/q0gudNVQcow

Resourceguy
April 26, 2016 12:03 pm

When exactly did metaphysics morph into climate psychology and climate science? Was it some expiration date on a past fad or a rational decision to move sideways toward better job prospects with similar credentials?

Bruce Cobb
April 26, 2016 12:09 pm

They should just stick with lying. It’s what they do best.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 26, 2016 3:10 pm

Bruce,
Hilarious is the fact that the same people have been screaming at us for 20 years that our “patriotism” is nothing more than elitism and that it’s BAD. That our love of country is “ostracizing” and “ignorant” and “bigoted”….so it’s not politically correct any more to BE “patriotic”. Oh the irony just flies over these people’s heads in mach speeds doesn’t it?

Nash
April 26, 2016 12:11 pm

Basically research state global warming is settled science (97% concensus). So how does the left manipulate conservatives in believing it.

April 26, 2016 12:25 pm

The author could not be more naive.
He actually thinks CAGW is about science, not politics. The leaders supporting CAGW have made it abundantly clear this is about left wing agendas / socialism & one world Govt , and CAGW is just a means to an end. I don’t think you will get any conservatives on that bandwagon, no matter how many bald eagles & flags are employed

Sun Spot
April 26, 2016 12:30 pm

who replicated this pseudo-science?

AnonyMoose
April 26, 2016 12:31 pm

Many conservatives support the principles of Conservation. The problem is that the climate change alarmists are hiding information about climate change, making it difficult for the average person to know the right information upon which to base a decision. Trickery in order to achieve a desired decision does not mean that the decision was the proper one.

Resourceguy
April 26, 2016 12:33 pm

This is advanced research in Oregon. It helps with annual research evaluations, academic promotion, and vitas. Organizing sessions around this topic adds to the list of academic activity. Quality is not part of the criteria.

April 26, 2016 12:52 pm

“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.”
*
Presumably there was no “noticeable shift in attitudes among liberals” because they are seen or portrayed or believed to be already patriotic (all flags and bald eagles)??? Anyone else see “smug” in that line? Or is it just me?

Udar
Reply to  A.D. Everard
April 26, 2016 1:13 pm

It’s not just you, it jumped at me as well.
The which isn’t a big surprise line reeks of it. The “liberals” are too smart to have their opinion shifted, I guess.
Although, in all fairness, he might have meant that “patriotism” line doesn’t work on liberals as they don’t really care about it. But my first reaction was “smugness”.

John West
Reply to  A.D. Everard
April 27, 2016 10:03 am

smug x 10^smug

Neo
April 26, 2016 1:02 pm

Every time a politician starts to talk about how “America is the greatest nation on the face of the Earth”, you just know there is a “wallet-ectomy” in progress.

Neo
April 26, 2016 1:14 pm

Patriotism tends to be aligned with nationalism. Real Climate Change would not be a national issue but rather a global issue. Given that the Chinese commitment in the Paris Accords is to continue to pollute, the obvious blow-back of such an appeal to patriotism would most likely create a drive to make the Chinese cleanup their act first.

n.n
April 26, 2016 1:16 pm

America is a scientific, religious/moral society. American conservatism does not indulge in liberal inference from progressive frames of reference, or routine conflations of logical domains for purposes of creating leverage and marginalizing competing interests in order to establish a new orthodoxy.

Jurgen
April 26, 2016 2:34 pm

“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.”
So there has been research that gave data that indicated – after statistical calculations I would think – this different response between “liberals” and “conservatives”.
Comes in “The end of Average”.
If you leave out any averages, your statistics become questionable, if not impossible. This goes as well with other basic statistical measures besides averages. And if you – because of this – cannot apply statistics anymore, most social science becomes – by its own research practice – pretty hampered, if not impossible.
Why leave out say averages when dealing with human beings? Well, the “average human being doesn’t exist” – it is nothing but a statistical entity, an abstraction. A pretty useless abstraction in many practical situations. Well demonstrated by Gilbert Daniels.
“Social” science is mainly based on statistics – so mainly deals with abstract entities. Not with real human beings. Shocking.

Jurgen
Reply to  Jurgen
April 26, 2016 2:51 pm

If the links don’t work from the comment, hope this helps:
link to “End of Average”: http://www.amazon.com/End-Average-Succeed-Values-Sameness/dp/0062358367
link to Gilbert Daniels: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html

April 26, 2016 3:43 pm

Here in the US “conservatives” tend to want to preserve individual freedoms. (I’ll spare you all and not quote from the Declaration of Independence.) They can be slow to realize that also means others can do and say what they like as long as it doesn’t infringe on their own individual freedoms. (Here in the US, liberals tend to not just do that but want to make saying and doing what they don’t agree with some sort of crime, or at least a “micro-aggression”.)
Conservatives in the US also tend to be patriotic.
It’s no surprise that the liberal-spin put to climate hype is trying to frame the polical power grab as “patriotic”.
They need the votes in the upcoming election.

simple-touriste
April 26, 2016 5:47 pm

“conservatives respond more favorably to issues framed by loyalty, authority”
Loyalty to what? The family? or the “familia”?
Which authority? Or did he mean authoritah?

The guy must be seriously confused.

Jurgen
April 27, 2016 6:18 am

Thinking some more about this inherent social engineering aspect of the social sciences and the non-existence of the average human being. I see a positive and a negative.
The positive is the social sciences, in targeting mostly statistical entities and not real human beings and situations, are pretty much out of touch with reality. This may protect us from their follies.
The negative is once these follies spill over into politics, they can and will result into disasters, as history shows abundantly.
The rules for radicals have a bigger companion here. The social engineering aspect of the political sciences gives us the “rules for dictators”.

Jurgen
Reply to  Jurgen
April 27, 2016 6:21 am

WordPress sometimes adds the symbol ” to a link, making it fail. The link to “average human being” is:
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html

John West
April 27, 2016 9:57 am

Wonder if it works the other way; do those that self identify as liberal shift their position on say abortion depending on whether it’s framed as pro-choice or pro-feticide?
What about us that self identify as independent and generaly just try to make decisions based on the best available information regardless of framing?

Mickey Reno
April 27, 2016 10:38 am

If you talk about conservatives not responding to climate alarmism, you damn well ought to address the feelings of those same people being controlled and directed by an unresponsive Federal bureaucracy, and about “science” and “research” being tendentiously re-purposed into political propaganda by left-leaning academics, social engineers and political socialists. I’m sure these authors cannot even fathom the questions needed to tease out these issues. I hope this study wasn’t funded with my tax dollars.

John Robertson
April 27, 2016 2:27 pm

The standing joke,that is Climatology, the failure to define the terms.
Just as the Dreaded Climate Change has no meaning, I am quite certain the Eco-phsychologist did not and cannot define what he means by “Patriotism”.
Climate Scientity for sure.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  John Robertson
May 10, 2016 12:54 am

Failure to stick to a definition of terms is a big factor.
When I talked to a student familiar with the paper (yes, here in Bend, OR) I was told that after linking protecting the environment to patriotism, more conservatives agreed that humans were causing climate change.
I responded that it was all in the wording of the questions. The respondents thought they were agreeing with one thing while the questioners thought they were agreeing to something else. I said that if they had asked the conservatives if they thought it was patriotic to ban fossil fuels and convert our power plants to renewables, they would not have agreed.
I also stated that, based on my experience during my college years that the student body at my science college was overwhelmingly conservative, while the student body at liberal arts colleges were, well…liberal, it seemed to me that conservatives were, as a group, more scientifically literate and thus less likely to believe in CAGW without scientific evidence.
The student became angry, accused me of having no standing to be denigrating a scientist and fled the scene.
Let’s see, anger at someone with a different opinion, ad hominem attack, appeal to authority..yep, – liberal.
SR

Verified by MonsterInsights