Carbon tax acceptance in a polarized society: bridging the partisan divide over climate policy in the US

References

• Aasen, M. (2017). The polarization of public concern about climate change in Norway. Climate Policy, 17(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1094727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, S. T., Marinescu, I., & Shor, B. (2019). Can Pigou at the polls stop us melting the poles? (Working Paper No. 26146; Working Paper Series). National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Bayes, R., & Druckman, J. N. (2021). Motivated reasoning and climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayes, R., Druckman, J. N., Goods, A., & Molden, D. C. (2020). When and how different motives can drive motivated political reasoning. Political Psychology, 41(5), 1031–1052. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014a). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolsen, T., Leeper, T. J., & Shapiro, M. A. (2014b). Doing what others do. American Politics Research, 42(1), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X13484173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullock, J. G., Gerber, A. S., Hill, S. J., & Huber, G. A. (2015). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(10), 519–578. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00014074
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carattini, S., Carvalho, M., & Fankhauser, S. (2018). Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes. WIRES Climate Change, 9(5), e531. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.531
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmichael, J. T., Brulle, R. J., & Huxster, J. K. (2017). The great divide: Understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014. Climatic Change, 141(4), 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1908-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, T. P., Pogacar, R., Pullig, C., Kouril, M., Aguilar, S., LaBouff, J., Isenberg, N., & Chakroff, A. (2019). Survey-software implicit association tests: A methodological and empirical analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 51(5), 2194–2208. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01293-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chinn, S., & Hart, P. S. (2021). Climate change consensus messages cause reactance. Environmental Communication, 0(0), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1910530
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 333–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2015). Measuring justice and fairness. In R. S. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 187–202). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crowley, K. (2017). Up and down with climate politics 2013–2016: The repeal of carbon pricing in Australia. WIRES Climate Change, 8(3), e458. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.458
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, E., & Zhou, J. (2022). Whose policy is it anyway? Public support for clean energy policy depends on the message and the messenger. Environmental Politics, 31, 991–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1969844
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, G., Hmielowski, J., & Ma, Y. (2017). Improving climate change acceptance among U.S. conservatives through value-based message targeting. Science Communication, 39(4), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017715473
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dominioni, G. (2022). Motivated reasoning and implicit carbon prices: Overcoming public opposition to carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 13(1), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douenne, T., & Fabre, A. (2020). French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies. Ecological Economics, 169, 106496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106496
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douenne, T., & Fabre, A. (2022). Yellow vests, pessimistic beliefs, and carbon tax aversion. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(1), 81–110. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20200092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drews, S., Savin, I., & van den Bergh, J. (2022). Biased perceptions of other people’s attitudes to carbon taxation. Energy Policy, 167, 113051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreyer, S. J., Teisl, M. F., & McCoy, S. K. (2015). Are acceptance, support, and the factors that affect them, different? Examining perceptions of U.S. fuel economy standards. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 39, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019). The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change, 9(2), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehret, P. J., Van Boven, L., & Sherman, D. K. (2018). Partisan barriers to bipartisanship. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(3), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618758709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, L., & Hart, P. S. (2018). Climate change as a polarizing cue: Framing effects on public support for low-carbon energy policies. Global Environmental Change, 51, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., Mason, L., McGrath, M. C., Nyhan, B., Rand, D. G., Skitka, L. J., Tucker, J. A., Van Bavel, J. J., Wang, C. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533–536. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fremstad, A., Mildenberger, M., Paul, M., & Stadelmann-Steffen, I. (2022). The role of rebates in public support for carbon taxes. Environmental Research Letters, 17(8), 0084040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., Rosenthal, S. A., & Leiserowitz, A. (2021). Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising. Nature Climate Change, 11(7), 573–577. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01070-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goren, P., Federico, C. M., & Kittilson, M. C. (2009). Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00402.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goulder, L. H., & Parry, I. W. H. (2008). Instrument choice in environmental policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(2), 152–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/ren005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2020). Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 1497–1515. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardisty, D. J., Johnson, E. J., & Weber, E. U. (2010). A dirty word or a dirty world? Psychological Science, 21(1), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609355572
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennes, E. P., Kim, T., & Remache, L. J. (2020). A goldilocks critique of the hot cognition perspective on climate change skepticism. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.009
   Web of Science ®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
• Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000604
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Krupenkin, M. (2018). The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and themeasurement problem. Political Psychology, 36(S1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 465–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., Tarantola, T., Silva, C. L., & Braman, D. (2015). Geoengineering and climate change polarization. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2016.2
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konc, T., Drews, S., Savin, I., & van den Bergh, J. (2022). Co-dynamics of climate policy stringency and public support. Global Environmental Change, 74, 102528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102528
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konc, T., & Savin, I. (2019). Social reinforcement with weighted interactions. Physical Review E, 100(2), 022305. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.100.022305
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Understanding and using the implicit association test: IV: What we know (so far) about the method. In B. Wittenbrink & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit Measures of Attitudes (pp. 59–102). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levendusky, M., & Malhotra, N. (2016). Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Political Communication, 33(2), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1038455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linde, S. (2018). Political communication and public support for climate mitigation policies: A country-comparative perspective. Climate Policy, 18(5), 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1327840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice and the bounds of rationality (pp. 183–213). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luo, Y., & Zhao, J. (2019). Motivated attention in climate change perception and action. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1541. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01541
   PubMed 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
• Maestre-Andrés, S., Drews, S., Savin, I., & van den Bergh, J. (2021). Carbon tax acceptability with information provision and mixed revenue uses. Nature Communications, 12(1), 7017. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27380-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maestre-Andrés, S., Drews, S., & van den Bergh, J. (2019). Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: A review of the literature. Climate Policy, 19(9), 1186–1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1639490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malka, A., & Adelman, M. (2022). Expressive survey responding: A closer look at the evidence and its implications for American democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721004096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, L. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrath, M. C. (2017). Economic behavior and the partisan perceptual screen. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11(4), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00015100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, J. P., Squires, N. K., Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2003). Activation of political attitudes: A psychophysiological examination of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 24(4), 727–745. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9221.2003.00349.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muradova, L., Walker, H., & Colli, F. (2020). Climate change communication and public engagement in interpersonal deliberative settings: Evidence from the Irish citizens’ assembly. Climate Policy, 20(10), 1322–1335. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1777928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, C., Howlett, E., Burton, S., Kozup, J., & Tangari, A. (2012). The influence of consumer concern about global climate change on framing effects for environmental sustainability messages. International Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-31-3-511-527
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015). The partisan brain. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR) & Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC). (2018). Guide to Communicating Carbon Pricing.
   Google Scholar
• Pogacar, R., Carpenter, T. P., Shenk, C., & Kouril, M. (2019). Tools and methods for measuring implicit consumer cognition. In F. R. Kardes, P. M. Herr, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in consumer psychology (pp. 160–181). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. The Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinscheid, A., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2018). Divesting, fast and slow: Affective and cognitive drivers of fading voter support for a nuclear phase-out. Ecological Economics, 152, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rode, J. B., & Ditto, P. H. (2021). Can the partisan divide in climate change attitudes be bridged?: A review of experimental interventions. In J. W. van Prooijen (Ed.), The psychology of political polarization (pp. 149–168). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rode, J. B., Iqbal, S., Butler, B. J., & Ditto, P. H. (2021). Using a news article to convey climate science consensus information. Science Communication, 43(5), 651–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211027235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savin, I., Drews, S., Maestre-Andrés, S., & van den Bergh, J. (2020). Public views on carbon taxation and its fairness: A computational-linguistics analysis. Climatic Change, 162(4), 2107–2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02842-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, S. P., & Swanson, M. (2017). How issue frames shape beliefs about the importance of climate change policy across ideological and partisan groups. PLOS ONE, 12(7), e0181401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E. K., & Mayer, A. (2019). Anomalous Anglophones? Contours of free market ideology, political polarization, and climate change attitudes in English-speaking countries, Western European and post-communist states. Climatic Change, 152(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2332-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer, S., Mattauch, L., & Pahle, M. (2022). Supporting carbon taxes: The role of fairness. Ecological Economics, 195, 107359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107359
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, H., McComas, K. A., & Schuler, K. L. (2018). Source effects on psychological reactance to regulatory policies: The role of trust and similarity. Science Communication, 40(5), 591–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018791293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
   Google Scholar
• Unsworth, K. L., & Fielding, K. S. (2014). It’s political: How the salience of one’s political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Global Environmental Change, 27, 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Way, B. M., & Masters, R. D. (1996). Emotion and cognition in political information-processing. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01488.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2009). Mindful judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 53–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163633
   PubMed 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
• Zhou, J. (2016). Boomerangs versus javelins: How polarization constrains communication on climate change. Environmental Politics, 25(5), 788–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1166602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar