Not out of MY bank account! Science messaging when climate change policies carry personal financial costs

References

• Bastardi, J., & Hannity, S. (2020). The weaponization of weather in the phony climate war (J. Payne, Ed.). Gatekeeper Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B. Methodological, 57(1), 289–300.
   Google Scholar
• Bergquist, P., Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. A., & Marlon, J. (2021). Information about the human causes of climate change influences climate causal attribution, risk perceptions, and policy support. Thinking & Reasoning.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2018). Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(3), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217737855
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brügger, A., Dessai, S., Devine-Wright, P., Morton, T. A., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2015). Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1031–1037. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, C. J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the ELM’s argument quality × processing type predictions. Human Communication Research, 41(4), 501–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, A. E. (2015). Toward a theory of persuasive hope: Effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Communication, 30(6), 598–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.916777
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., & Ledgerwood, A. (2012). Chapter 12: A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1-1, pp. 246–266). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology (1st ed.). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS One, 12(5), e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., Carlton, J. S., Lewandowsky, S., Skuce, A. G., Green, S. A., Nuccitelli, D., Jacobs, P., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., & Rice, K. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2009). Evaluating science arguments: Evidence, uncertainty, and argument strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(3), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016533
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(6), 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1(9), 462–466. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, G., Bullock, O., & Adams, D. (2018). Unintended effects of emphasizing the role of climate change in recent natural disasters. Environmental Communication, 13(2), 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1546202
   Google Scholar
• Doberstein, C., Hickey, R., & Li, E. (2016). Nudging NIMBY: Do positive messages regarding the benefits of increased housing density influence resident stated housing development preferences? Land Use Policy, 54, 276–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612449177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geiger, N. (2020). Do people actually “Listen to the Experts”? A cautionary note on assuming expert credibility and persuasiveness on public health policy advocacy, Health Communication, https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1862449
   Google Scholar
• Geiger, N., Swim, J. K., & Fraser, J. (2017a). Creating a climate for change: Interventions, efficacy and public discussion about climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geiger, N., Swim, J. K., Fraser, J., & Flinner, K. (2017b). Catalyzing public engagement with climate change through informal science learning centers. Science Communication, 39(2), 221–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017697980
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2014). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2013–2015). Model templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxb14/M554/specreg/templates.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hodges, B. (2020, July 9). Opinion | As Mayor of Minneapolis, I Saw How White Liberals Block Change. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/opinion/minneapolis-hodges-racism.html
   Google Scholar
• Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krosnick, J., & MacInnis, B. (2020). Climate insights 2020: Overall trends. Resources for the Future. https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/climateinsights2020/
   Google Scholar
• Landrum, A. R., & Slater, M. H. (2020). Open questions in scientific consensus messaging research. Environmental Communication, 14(8), 1033–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1776746
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Coent, P., Préget, R., & Thoyer, S. (2017). Compensating environmental losses versus creating environmental gains: Implications for biodiversity offsets. Ecological Economics, 142, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1548369
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maibach, E. W., Kreslake, J. M., Roser-Renouf, C., Rosenthal, S., Feinberg, G., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2015). Do Americans understand that global warming is harmful to human health? Evidence from a national survey. Annals of Global Health, 81(3), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aogh.2015.08.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maibach, E. W., Nisbet, M., Baldwin, P., Akerlof, K., & Diao, G. (2010). Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 299. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowitz, E. M., & Guckian, M. L. (2018). Climate change communication: Challenges, insights, and opportunities 3. In S. Clayton & C. Manning (Eds.), Psychology and climate change (pp. 35–64). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813130-5.00003-5
   Google Scholar
• Mildenberger, M., & Tingley, D. (2017). Beliefs about climate beliefs: The importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. British Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 1279–1307. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mufson, S. (2018). The hottest fight in American politics? Arizona’s smackdown over solar power. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-hottest-fight-in-american-politics-arizonas-smackdown-over-solar-power/2018/11/02/9f761030-d3dc-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html
   Google Scholar
• Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113(3–4), 1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences. (2016). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. https://doi.org/10.17226/23674
   Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2015). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2015. LIWC. www.LIWC.net
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E. (1977). The importance of cognitive responses in persuasion. ACR North American Advances, NA-04. http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/5689/volumes/v04/NA-04
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 224–245, Chap. xx, 562p). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1015241465/EBBB633191E747D2PQ/10
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 722–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raimi, K. T., Stern, P. C., & Maki, A. (2017). The promise and limitations of using analogies to improve decision-relevant understanding of climate change. PLOS One, 12(1), e0171130. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randall, M. (2016, November 14). Why an unusual coalition defeated Washington state’s carbon tax initiative. Tax Policy Center. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/why-unusual-coalition-defeated-washington-states-carbon-tax-initiative
   Google Scholar
• Ranney, M. A., & Clark, D. (2016). Climate change conceptual change: Scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12187
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reser, J. P., & Bradley, G. L. (2017). Fear appeals in climate change communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.386
   Google Scholar
• Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x
   Google Scholar
• Schuldt, J. P., Yuan, Y. C., Song, Y., & Liu, K. (2019). Beliefs about whose beliefs? Second-order beliefs and support for China’s coal-to-gas policy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 66, 101367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, A., Volmert, A., Bunten, A., & Kendall-Taylor, N. (2014). The value of explanation: Using values and causal explanations to reframe climate and ocean change [A frameworks research report]. Frameworks Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Suldovsky, B. (2017). The information deficit model and climate change communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.301
   Google Scholar
• Swim, J. K., Geiger, N., Sweetland, J., & Fraser, J. (2018). Social construction of scientifically grounded climate change discussions. In S. Clayton & C. Manning (Eds.), Psychology and climate change: From denial and depression to adaptation and resilience, (pp. 65-93). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813130-5.00004-7
   Google Scholar
• Tannenbaum, M. B., Hepler, J., Zimmerman, R. S., Saul, L., Jacobs, S., Wilson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1178–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039729
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todorov, A., Chaiken, S., & Henderson, M. D. (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 195–212). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046
   Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A.A., & Maibach, E. W. (2016). Communicating the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is an effective and depolarizing public engagement strategy: Experimental evidence from a large national replication study. SSRN.
   Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLOS One, 10(2), e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2019a). The gateway belief model: A large-scale replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2019b). Exposure to scientific consensus does not cause psychological reactance. Environmental Communication, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1617763
   Google Scholar
• Weber, E. U., Johnson, E. J., Milch, K. F., Chang, H., Brodscholl, J. C., & Goldstein, D. G. (2007). Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice: A query-theory account. Psychological Science, 18(6), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01932.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittemore, A. H., & BenDor, T. K. (2019). Reassessing NIMBY: The demographics, politics, and geography of opposition to high-density residential infill. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(4), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1484255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H., & Seiden, J. (2016). Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yale. (2020). Yale climate opinion maps 2020. Yale program on climate change communication. http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/
   Google Scholar