This is repeated just to stress that we have data for the assertion.
There are effects, but they are small-to-medium only.
And the smaller effects are for specific policies vs general things.
(Remember this is people who *do* vs people who *do not* believe in anthropogenic climate change.)
Figure caption: ‘Correlations between climate change belief and outcome variables.
Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.’
I did look but I do not fully understand the methods. I think the key point here is that we are
asking whether, when there is a difference in climate scepticism, there is a corresponding difference
in support for various policies.
Hornsey, Harris, Bain, & Fielding (2016, p. figure 3)
(Bolderdijk, Steg, Geller, Lehman, & Postmes, 2013)
Bolderdijk et al, 2013 figure 1
Study in US on who picks up a coupon for a free tire-pressure check
from a billboard saying it will save money vs it will save the environment
vs it will make you safe vs just ‘have one’ ( = control)
(Severson & Coleman, 2015) also found that money doesn’t help,
whereas ethical appeals do.
This is a study in which.
Participants were just visitors
to a local garage in North
America and they were shown a
display which offered a leaflet
to get a free tire pressure
check on your car and the poster
advertising the Leaflet either
said get a free tire pressure
check on your car to save the
environment. So kind of
environmental motivation. It
could say nothing. It could say
get a free tire check to improve
your safety or it could say get
a free tire check to save you
money. Right now this is very
counterintuitive, so for me I
would be like, Yeah, save money.
That's it. I should go and get
my tires checked, but actually
the number of leaflets taken
from the save money thing was
almost non and the most leaflets
were taken from the post. As you
can see there was advertising
the environmental benefits of
getting your tires checked.
Good news you try to motivate
humans on climate issues by
money and they don't respond.
You try to motivate them with
the climate issue itself, the
ethical issues, save the planet
and they do tend to respond very
strongly. Many studies like
this, also indicating that when
you try to tell people look, you
know something bad will happen
to you or you can gain some
money. They're very unresponsive
in those cases. What tends to
have an effect on behavior, as
in this study, is the appeal to
the ethical issues around
climate change. That's what
appeals to motivate people.
So it's moral convictions and
the emotions they evoke that
shape political attitudes. These
are not the only factors, but by
that they are by far the most.
Important factors of those
that we can manipulate.
(van Leeuwen & Park, 2009, p. figure 1a)
van Leeuwen & Parks, 2009 figure 1a
Subjects are Dutch students
(van Leeuwen & Park, 2009, p. figure 1b)
van Leeuwen & Parks, 2009 figure 1b
Implicit measure: IAT test of conservative and liberal concepts; which are implicitly
associated with good things?
Graham et al, 2009 figure 1
Also works with a web sample collected in USA (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009, p. figure~1)
Graham et al, 2009 figure 3
Graham et al, 2009 figure 2
‘We tested whether the effects of political identity persisted after
partialing out variation in moral relevance ratings for other demographic
variables. We created a model representing the five foundations as latent
factors measured by three manifest variables each, simultaneously predicted
by political identity and four covariates: age, gender, education level,
and income. [...] Including the
covariates, political identity still predicted all five foundations in the
predicted direction [...]. Political identity was the key
explanatory variable: It was the only consistent significant predictor
[...] for all five foundations’
(Graham et al., 2009, p. 1032)
example:
purity
(Kivikangas et al., 2021, p. figure 6 (part))
There is a similar figure for each foundation. This one is for purity (which shows the largest effects).
effect sizes are small to medium (purity is the strongest)
BACKGROUND ‘Cohen suggests that r values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 represent small, medium, and large effect sizes respectively.’
https://www.statmethods.net/stats/power.html#:~:text=We%20use%20the%20population%20correlation,and%20large%20effect%20sizes%20respectively.
(Other sources say .25 is medium)
Some studies do not find a non-zero estimate of effect size (cross 0.0),
but very few confidently find an effect in the opposite direction ...