From DUKE UNIVERSITY and the department of Mannian screaming and insults, comes this attempt to yet again, find the perfect message to sway climate skeptics.
Messages that conflict with audience’s partisan identity fail, exacerbate opposition
DURHAM, N.C. — Political advocates who support action on climate change have long sought “the perfect message” for swaying skeptics. If the issue can be framed correctly, they believe, the battle can be won.
A new Duke University study suggests it may be more complicated than that.
“Because climate change has become polarized along party lines, it’s no longer just an issue of finding ‘the right framing’ to convey relevant facts,” said study author Jack Zhou, who will graduate with a Ph.D. in environmental politics next month from Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “It has become a matter of political identity, particularly the political party we feel closest to.”
Even efforts to frame climate change around seemingly win-win issues such as economic growth, national security or poverty alleviation are likely to backfire, Zhou’s study finds, if the communication conflicts with the partisan identity of the targeted audience.
“These efforts don’t just fail in terms of being unconvincing,” he said. “In most cases, they actually trigger a significant negative effect — or backfire — that polarizes the audience even further.”
Zhou published his peer-reviewed study this month in the journal Environmental Politics.
In a 2014 survey experiment, Zhou asked more than 470 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents to read one of four randomly assigned messages that framed climate change as an issue society needs to deal with and is worth caring about.
One message framed climate change as an economic issue; one as a national security issue; one as a moral justice issue; and one as a natural disaster issue. The first two messages were written to tap into Republican identity; the last two targeted Democratic identity. To further test the power of partisanship, the four messages were then randomly attributed to one of two sources: a fictional Republican congressman or a fictional Democratic one.
The hypothesis, going in, was that Republicans would be more open to an in-party message from an in-party source and least receptive to on out-party message from an out-party source. Instead, Zhou found that regardless of the source, all eight vignettes backfired when compared to the control group, who were asked to simply think about climate change as a political issue.
The study also showed that Republican respondents, after exposure to framing, became more opposed to governmental action on climate change and less willing to take personal action on the issue.
“When asked to read information that clashed with their partisan identities, respondents reacted with motivated skepticism,” he said. “Not only was there greater opposition after reading the framed messages, there was also less attitudinal ambivalence. This means that people dug in and became more sure of their negative opinions.”
These backfire effects doubled or tripled in size among individuals who reported a high personal interest in politics, which functions as a measure of intensity of political identity. These individuals make up roughly one-third of the respondents in the study and one-third of all U.S. Republicans.
“I want to be clear: This reaction is not a matter of intelligence or education. It’s not totally irrational. It’s just a natural reaction — people want to justify and defend their identities,” Zhou stressed. “I would expect if I asked Democrats to read framed messages about how climate change is a hoax, I would also see strong backfire effects.”
The take-away message for climate communicators, he said, is that to avoid backfire, they need to take care to target their audience’s values and understand how polarization affects their evolving sensitivities and identities.
“I’m not saying it’s totally impossible to frame climate change across party lines but it might take more time and resources than advocates imagine, and a much greater degree of care,” Zhou said. “Communication that doesn’t work perfectly — if such a thing even exists — could polarize these audiences further from where you want them to be.”
###
Funding for the study came from the Duke University Kenan Institute for Ethics.
CITATION: “Boomerangs Versus Javelins: How Polarization Constrains Communication on Climate Change,” Jack Zhou. Environmental Politics, April 19, 2016. DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2016.1166602
Apparently the search for more effective political propaganda techniques is a respectable area for academic study now. I hope public funds are not being spent on this.
Ian H wrote: “Apparently the search for more effective political propaganda techniques is a respectable area for academic study now.”
That’s exactly what this study is, although I don’t think they look at it as propaganda in their minds, because they are True Believers. They are just trying to figure out how to educate us ignorant skeptics to their reality.
It is telling that this paper treats the AGW hypothesis as if it were solely a political issue. The concern is how to package AGW in order to sell it. They are treating AGW as if they are marketing a new product.
Well, they’re been using marketing, advertising, social engineering and PR tactics for like, decades. When all else fails, call in the social psychologists to introduce the notion of the “false consciousness” of your opponent.
For those interested,,,,,,,,
From : https://nicholas.duke.edu/people/students/zhou-0
MENGLIN (JACK) ZHOU
Environmental Sciences & Policy Division
I am a 6th-year Ph.D. student focusing on political communication, political psychology, and American climate change politics.
jack.zhou@duke.edu
So…what you’re saying is that there is no fundamental truth behind global warming theory, and it’s just a question of politics?
politics is such an ugly word to describe bold faced lies.
Sounds like the common definition to me.
Wasn’t it Bill Clinton who once said that: Once you learn to fake sincerity, you can get away with anything.
When Tony Bliar the Leader of the UK New Labour party realised back around ’94 that Global Warming (as it was then known) would give him an electoral advantage against the Conservatives, the cast was set. From that moment forward the issue could not be argued on purely scientific grounds.
I remember being puzzled by a sneer of hatred I got from an acquaintance when I expressed my doubts on the quality of the ‘science’.
I know it sounds childish, but THEY started this…and now that the political pendulum is rapidly swinging away from the Left they are feeling the pain…and making that terrible squealing noise.
The Koch Bros have come out for Hillary…you can practically see their eyes rolling around!
Trump wins: everything is fine, Hillary wins: ‘you owe us a favour’.
How about the alarmists stop trying to play psych games and simply tell the truth, give correct valid evidence and show why their claims are true? Oh wait….
Exactly Ron, truth, being purely relative to any statist, has no real objectivity, even in so called science, which has indeed become post-normal. From the article…
=================
“One message framed climate change as an economic issue; one as a national security issue; one as a moral justice issue; and one as a natural disaster issue”…
=================
Well they are 0 for 4 as the validity of CAGW is a scientific issue, which it fails miserably. CAGW policy is horrible for the “economy”, and therefore for “national security”, and additionally CAGW policy demands of giving up sovereign powers is also poor for national security. CAGW policy is anything but morally justified as it is criminal in hurting the poor, steals from the middle class to support the wealthy, and is based on pure propaganda, and the “natural disasters” have failed to materialize but the immense benefits, (feeding close to 1/5th of global population with no additional land or water required) are immense.
The condescending study goes on…
==================
“These backfire effects doubled or tripled in size among individuals who reported a high personal interest in politics, which functions as a measure of intensity of political identity.”
==================
Arrogance mixed with ignorance, as their is no consideration of the possibility that those with a strong personal interest may have a greater level of education on the issues. Any condescending and wrong attempt to sale CAGW to me based on …”an economic issue; a national security issue; a moral justice issue; or a natural disaster issue”… would simply invoke a bit of angst in my response, just as this ignorant of the issues social studies ideologue assumptions of the “correctness” of CAGW invokes a similar reaction.
I should add that the one means by which CAGW advocates have successfully sold their political message of CAGW is through the giveaway of other peoples money. The author of this study should examine how his own financial security is predicated on accepting the CAGW agenda. He should study the diverse degrees of skepticism in government funded scientists, vs. independent and retired scientists.
He would arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the “perfect” way to convince people of CAGW is to pay them to believe!
A PhD can be awarded for this? What is academia coming to?
Piled High and Deep .
That about covers it I think.
It apparently takes only six years of delusion and *** kissing.
I’d like to know how people who claim to believe that fossil fuels will eventually cause an unprecedented global catastrophe can continue using them, usually without compunction.
Cognitive dissonance on stilts.
They are either lying to themselves and others or suffering unbearable inner conflict, I don’t know how they live with themselves.
I’ve had the same question Chris. It also seems to me that most of those same people are the ones that scream the loudest when the price of fosse fuel goes up.
I suspect there is far fewer of them than we are led to believe. The few might not be sincere. They act as many, scream as loudly and under as many different names as they can, and are paid for their activism.
That’s my take on it anyway. It’s a massive c o n on every level and in every way.
” … a Ph.D. in environmental politics…from Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.”
What could be more polarizing than a doctorate in sanctimonious wank from an obscure gag-reflex inducing university which, with absolute certainty, gets its money by forcing it from ordinary people.
Talk about first-to-get-it when the revolution comes…
“Even efforts to frame climate change around seemingly win-win issues such as economic growth, national security or poverty alleviation are likely to backfire, Zhou’s study finds”
Yes, quite possibly because these are areas in which flushing cash down the toilet for no clearly justifiable reason is invariably a lose-lose.
It’s that simple.
We aren’t convinced by your “seemingly win-win issues” because they are lose-lose issues.
All pain and no gain.
Why don’t these idiots actually spend some time trying to comprehend why some other people have no time for their agenda to promote apocalyptic thinking whilst foisting expensive and ineffective energy generation technologies onto the people of the world.
First they exclude skeptics from the debate – and now they fail to understand what skeptics are saying.
Well, idiots, you won’t be able to convince us of anything if you refuse to engage in any kind of reasonable debate. We didn’t turn this into a tale of two isolated echo-chambers – that was the purposeful strategy of the alarmist side. You wouldn’t even engage with Lomborg or Curry.
And Lomborg or Curry are far more eager to accept the basic tenets of the proposed problem and proposed solution, than most commenters and article writers here.
Skeptics asked for debate, alarmists refused.
You walled us in, and now you are puzzled to note that you can not break down the very wall which you erected.
That’s what happens when you dispense with rational skeptical discourse and deplatform reasonable commentators.
So good luck with your stupid delusion, we hope that it works out for you.
In the mean time – watch out for Russia and China – because they are not buying this crap and they are going to quite enjoy watching this massive self-inflicted disaster play out in real time.
I’m trying to comprehend this.
They took fake information, attributed to fake people, and were shocked to find that their subjects saw right through the bullsh*t. Which they then attributed to party affiliation event though the evidence from party affiliation was even more soundly rejected. Oh, and the more people were informed of the issues themselves, the more likely they were to call bullshit.
Hat’s off to Zhou. He disproved his entire belief system and published an article showing his errors. Sadly, he doesn’t seem to understand that is what he did.
Nice.
====
davidm, didn’t you notice it was peer reviewed? Now what do you have to say?
==============
This article gives just another proof of Cognitive Dissonance.
I did not realise our universities had “Departments for Stating the Bleeding Obvious”
“all eight vignettes backfired when compared to the control group, who were asked to simply think about climate change as a political issue.”
Did they include the terms “catastrophic” and “anthropogenic”? Need to know…;)
What utter after the fact garbage.
The warmunists mae it a polarised political argument because the science was never going to win argument for them.
As long as AGW’s settled science is unable to deliver even the slightest proof of their hypothesis, I’m not the least convinced. Keep trying!
The alarmist always claim I ‘deny’ climate change because of my politics.
In fact my politics arise because after being mildly pro warmist, a period of deep investigation convinced me of the complete opposite.
Once the realisation dawns that the evidence is being ignored for commercial and political reasons, its not hard to work out which political classes, and which corporate entities are profiting to the detriment of the actual citizens of the world.
This survey is focused on politics in the USA
There is nothing like that polarization here in the UK
Indeed several right wing ‘heroes’ like Margaret Thatcher, Lord Deben and David Cameron pushed the CO2 global warming scare story.
The take home message is that politics has nothing to do with science facts.
To suggest otherwise is completely irrational and anti scientific.
…and, since the science does not support CAGW, the message fails.
Thatcher did it to break the coal unions, I am not sure she believed a word of it. Cameron could be the leader of the New Labor party for all of his public positions. I haven’t read Lord Deben’s positions so can’t comment.
Politicians tend to take positions that improve their chances for power and control. Fathoming what they really believe is usually an exercise in futility.
This is more of the stuff Schmidt was talking about, “stop using science with stupid bigoted Texans of whom I have nothing in common because I am a “Religious Atheist from New York apparently””
Yes this man is so deluded as to both identify with a religion and call himself atheist at the same time.
This is the onMessage game they are playing, social engineering, rather than actual science, because they cannot empirically prove their claims and most humans are pragmatic, and want cold hard data, not stuff made of guesses and fancy
So what about those who identify themselves as politically left of centre (ie the equivalent to a Democrat in the US) but are skeptical of climate change?
I am a left leaning voter and disagree quite vehemently with a lot of “politically motivated” skeptics about their politics, say on Europe or on Health care or other social issues, but I agree on the issue of climate because it is a science question FIRST which implies a political response SECOND. The state of the science now is that the political solutions proposed are not justified by the evidence. I don’t need to be politically conservative to see that.
I am extremely concerned about the environment and social welfare. I would rather our efforts go towards helping developing nations develop, ensuring society is robust to any changes in climate, developing newer, safer, cheaper, dispatchable, scalable and more abundant forms of energy such as Thorium fission or small scale fusion. I am reasonably convinced by the argument that human welfare is tied to environmental protection – wealthier societies are more capable of caring for the planet and taking steps to minimize their impact.
I agree with the study that if the position is argued along polar lines, then hubris, or identity bias occurs. “I’m a republican and your a democrat. All pinko leftie democrats are wrong. They think climate change is a problem and since all democrats are wrong, therefore it isn’t.” And it works the other way around just as much. But AGW and especially CAGW is firstly a science question and any objective assessment of the evidence would conclude that AGW is barely detectable if it exists and CAGW is pretty much fantasy. Therefore political action on the science is not justified however well intentioned.
What I really find objectionable is that the issue constantly linked to political allegiances. It’s very strongly linked in the US, a bit less so in Australia, and very much less so in the UK. If we want to make progress on this issue, political allegiances should be utterly irrelevant. Arguing that “the climate change issue suits the left because they want to control our lives” is NOT an argument however much one might believe it. The only issue that matters is the evidence and the science and whether it is fairly represented.
“Arguing that “the climate change issue suits the left because they want to control our lives” is NOT an argument however much one might believe it”
===============
Must disagree with you there. It is not an argument about the science, but certainly it is a valid argument about who advocates for CAGW, and why. Dozens of quotes and hundreds of policy proposals from very prominent globalists support this argument.
No it’s NOT a valid argument. The people “you” think are trying to use the issue to control our lives do not think that’s what they are doing. So in a discussion regarding climate science that accusation of motive only serves to cloud the issue.
I cannot deny that the Schneider nobel cause corruption element exists, but the motives of those “concerned” are often laudable – ie they believe we should do no harm. To argue that climate change is not anthropogenic or not a concern because people promoting it want to control our lives is NOT a valid argument, and it undermines credibility. It is not a concern because the science does not support and nor does the reasoning (the precautionary principle). But that has to be explained and argued and not confused with what to do about it. I’m afraid that reasoning – that CC is not a concern because its only a ruse to “control our lives” is absolutely how the skeptic argument is perceived. Those lazy thinkers that haven’t tried to look at the evidence critically find it easy to then dismiss those with valid arguments and evidence showing that it is not a problem.
It would be better to appeal to their underlying inclinations; do no harm. Argue that Climate Change mitigation is harmful and useless. It is an ineffective and expensive solution to a non-problem. That it is a non-problem can be easily shown, but even if it were look at the harm attempts to mitigate cause economically and environmentally. Show them that the best solution is adaptation and realistic energy solutions – these are things that are worthwhile regardless, and protects both man and nature irrespective of whether fossil fuels are affecting our climate.
That is an argument that has a much better chance of prevailing in my view.
What part of…
============
” It is not an argument about the science, but certainly it is a valid argument about who advocates for CAGW, and why”
===========
did you not read? If you want a nuanced study about the disparate reasons people support CAGW, then read one of several books on the subject as this is not the space to articulate in detail; Peer pressure, confirmation bias, noble cause corruption, political power, greed, control/power, ignorance and trust of “consensus science” monetary motivation, etc.., but there is not doubt that political power, global government and control as well as billions of dollars are motivation’
and you are incorrect, they do say it…
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
— Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
— Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader and IPCC creator
and dozens more quotes if you wish.
Books have been written about this. I suggest you read “Blue Planet in Green Shackles”
some more for you…
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
…many more quotes if you wish.
To enable any of the global save the world policies these people advocate REQUIRES power and control over others, and every single one of these people advocate INTERNATIONAL statist political control.
“Such is the nature of the tyrant, when he first appears, he is a protector” Plato
A significant portion of the founding principles of the US are based on protecting individuals from being “protected”, via government help. CAGW is not supportable by the science, but to remain ignorant of the political motivations of those most ardently supporting it is, IMV, not wise.
oh, and not to rub it in, but one more recent one..
==================
The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer
=================
sorry, but it needs to be rubbed in…
==============================
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that ..global warming.. would fit the bill…we believe humanity requires a .. common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” -Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
================================
It is not bad faith to notice these things or to point them out, nor to remind people that industrial civilization – based on fossil fuels – has roughly doubled life expectancy and fantastically improved the material quality of human life.
It is not bad faith to notice the horrific implications for humanity if the worst of the eco-AGW-radicals ever came to power. We have seen their like before. In the period from 1920 to about 1985, communist governments killed more than 100 million of their own people to enforce their demented vision. The insanity and depravity of those atrocities truly difficult to grasp, yet it is all there in the historical record.
So, in the admirable quest for civility, let us not lose sight of the openly-expressed and standing-ovation-endorsed totalitarian political motivations of a non-trivial element of those on the CAGW bandwagon, including senior leadership of the IPCC.
David A wrote:
Agreed, and it’s quite similar to the “Religion of peace” argument, I think.
The problem is that the eco-AGW-radicals are the ones setting the agenda.
agnostic2015 wrote: “but I agree on the issue of climate because it is a science question FIRST”
It doesn’t matter what political persuasion you are, as long as you look at the CAGW issue that way, you are a member in good standing of The Skeptics club. 🙂
The rhetoric does seem to make the CAGW issue much more partisan in the U.S., but that may just be because the Left controls the media, for the most part, and the message, so they have a larger megaphone, which just makes it seem more partisan.
But I think the polls show that even a lot of U.S. Democrats are not buying the CAGW theory. Concerns about CAGW are usually down at the bottom.
Where is Dr Robert Brown of DUKE. Miss his comment badly
It is coming to finals time. This means ceiling high grading piles and exams to prepare for a college professor.
Agree that his posts were always very informative.
I suppose there is no point in suggesting that maybe the best strategy would be to listen to peoples concerns and reasons for scepticism and then try to answer those concerns. Ohhh, wait a minute, that would mean they had to have some credible answers to real questions. Worse, it could end up in a DEBATE !!!! Stupid me, I had better go wash my mouth out /sarc
It might be because everything they advocate has only a downside. Their message basically is “Come, wallow in our shit”. People with half a brain get that message. — Eugene WR GAllun
Why didn’t he?
How do you know he didn’t ask democrats to read framed messages and decided not to publish or try to explain that detrimental piece of scientific data
“Communication that doesn’t work perfectly — if such a thing even exists — could polarize these audiences further from where you want them to be.”
No kidding. Politics won’t do. Politics is not the dog. It is only the big, bushy tail. Science is the dog. The tail will ultimately go where the dog goes.
… and the atmosphere’s climate is likely a tail between the sun and the oceans.