The Power of Moral Words in Politicized Climate Change Communication

References

• Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N., & O'brien, K. (2013). Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ‪American Association for the Advancement of Science. (n.d.). What we know: The reality, risks and response to climate change. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
   Google Scholar
• Appelman, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015606057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, E. W., & Dong, Q. (1994). Source v. content effects on judgments of news believability. Journalism Quarterly, 71(4), 973–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909407100420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chinn, S., & Hart, P. S. (2021). Climate change consensus messages cause reactance. Environmental Communication, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1910530
   Google Scholar
• Cook, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2016). Rational irrationality: Modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlstrom, M. F., Dudo, A., & Brossard, D. (2012). Precision of information, sensational information, and self-efficacy information as message-level variables affecting risk perceptions. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(1), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01641.x
   PubMed 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
• Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fediuk, T. A., Coombs, W. T., & Botero, I. C. (2010). Exploring crisis from a receiver perspective: Understanding stakeholder reactions during crisis events. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication (pp. 635–656). Blackwell.
   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
• Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215607842
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, L., & Hart, P. (2018). Broadening exposure to climate change news? How framing and political orientation interact to influence selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 68(3), 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandes, D. (2020). Politics at the mall: The moral foundations of boycotts. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39(4), 494–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620943178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, D. H. (2013, September). The truth about genetically modified food. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/
   Google Scholar
• Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
   Google Scholar
• Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., … Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Devine P. & Plant A. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
   Google Scholar
• Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus: Special Issue on Human Nature, 133, 55–66. http://doi.org/10.1162/0011526042365555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton, L. C. (2015). Conservative and liberal views of science, does trust depend on topic? Carsey Research. https://doi.org/10.34051/p/2020.242
   Google Scholar
• Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, J., Yang, J. Z., & Chu, H. (2022). Framing climate change impacts as moral violations: The pathway of perceived message credibility. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 5210. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huff, C., & Tingley, D. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, 2(3), 2053168015604648. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015604648
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., Tarantola, T., Silva, C. L., & Braman, D. (2015). Geoengineering and climate change polarization: Testing a two-channel model of science communication. 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., 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
• Kidwell, B., Farmer, A., & Hardesty, D. M. (2013). Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: Political ideology and congruent appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1086/670610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Wang, Y., Ma, L., & Chatham, A. (2022). Engaging the public in disaster communication: The effect of message framing on sharing intentions for social media posts. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 16(4), 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2022.2033979
   Google Scholar
• Klas, A., & Clarke, E. J. (2020). The role of psychological variables in developing effective climate change message frames. In D. Holmes & L. Richardson (Eds.), Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 95–105). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00018
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Landrum, A. R., & Vasquez, R. (2020). Polarized U.S. publics, Pope Francis, and climate change: Reviewing the studies and data collected around the 2015 Papal Encyclical. WIRES Climate Change, 11(6), e674. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.674
   Google Scholar
• Ma, Y., Dixon, G., & Hmielowski, J. (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
• Marcus, G. (2004). The birth of the mind. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• McCright, A., & Dunlap, R. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mooijman, M., Meindl, P., Oyserman, D., Monterosso, J., Dehghani, M., Doris, J. M., & Graham, J. (2018). Resisting temptation for the good of the group: Binding moral values and the moralization of self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 585–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, T. A., Maibach, E., Peters, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: The results of two experiments. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120985. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagler, R. H., & LoRusso, S. M. (2018). Conflicting information and message competition in health and risk messaging. In R. Parrott (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health and risk message design and processing. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.292
   Google Scholar
• Nan, X., Wang, Y., Thier, K., Adebamowo, C., Quinn, S., & Ntiri, S. (2022). Moral foundations predict COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Evidence from a national survey of Black Americans. Journal of Health Communication, 27(11/12), 801–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2022.2160526
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, K. L., & Wolf, J. (2010). A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(2), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.30
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson, J., Sahlin, N. E., & Wallin, A. (2015). Climate change, values, and the cultural cognition thesis. Environmental Science & Policy, 52, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shim, K., Cho, H., Kim, S., & Yeo, S. L. (2021). Impact of moral ethics on consumers’ boycott intentions: A cross-cultural study of crisis perceptions and responses in the United States, South Korea, and Singapore. Communication Research, 48(3), 401–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218793565
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinn, J. S., & Hayes, M. W. (2017). Replacing the moral foundations: An evolutionary-coalitional theory of liberal-conservative differences. Political Psychology, 38(6), 1043–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tyson, A., & Kennedy, B. (2020, June 23). Two-thirds of Americans think government should do more on climate. Pew Research Center Science & Society. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/
   Google Scholar
• Tyson, A., Kennedy, B., & Funk, C. (2021, May 26). Gen Z, Millennials stand out for climate change activism, social media engagement with issue. Pew Research Center Science & Society. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/05/26/gen-z-millennials-stand-out-for-climate-change-activism-social-media-engagement-with-issue/
   Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S. L., 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
• Wang, R., & Liu, W. (2021). Moral framing and information virality in social movements: A case study of #HongKongPoliceBrutality. Communication Monographs, 88(3), 350–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2021.1918735
   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
• Wood, M. M., Mileti, D. S., Bean, H., Liu, B. F., Sutton, J., & Madden, S. (2018). Milling and public warnings. Environment and Behavior, 50(5), 535–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517709561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., & Roser-Renouf, C. (2011). Attention to science/environment news positively predicts and attention to political news negatively predicts global warming risk perceptions and policy support. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 713–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01563.x
   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