United Nations, Uniting Nations: International Support Cues and American Attitudes on Environmental Sustainability

被引:3
|
作者
Johnson, Tyler [1 ]
Rickard, Victoria [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oklahoma, 209 DAHT,455 W Lindsey, Norman, OK 73019 USA
关键词
DOMESTIC POLITICS; MECHANICAL TURK; PUBLIC-OPINION; INSTITUTIONS; INFORMATION; LEGITIMACY; ELECTIONS; FORCE; MEDIA;
D O I
10.1111/ssqu.12431
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
Objective. We ask whether framing U.N. actions in terms of institutional origins or multilateral support has differential effects on attitudes toward environmental sustainability policy. Methods. A survey experiment exposed individuals to different descriptions of U.N. Agenda 21, a 1992 sustainable development policy document. Results. Individuals who learned about Agenda 21 in terms of the international consensus behind the document at its inception were significantly more likely to support it and find it important. Conservative individuals who learned Agenda 21 was a U.N. document were significantly less likely to believe it was important and to want the federal government to incentivize implementation. Conclusions. Framing U.N. action in terms of international consensus may be a gateway toward building support among Americans in general. Framing U.N. action in terms of the institution behind the action has little effect on opinion, except in some instances when it turns conservatives against said action.
引用
收藏
页码:876 / 893
页数:18
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [21] Impact of board gender diversity on environmental, social, and ESG controversies performance: The moderating role of United Nations Global Compact and ISO
    Mallidis, Ioannis
    Giannarakis, Grigoris
    Sariannidis, Nikolaos
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2024, 444
  • [22] Awareness of the Food-Energy-Water Nexus and Public Policy Support in the United States: Public Attitudes Among the American People
    Portney, Kent E.
    Hannibal, Bryce
    Goldsmith, Carol
    McGee, Peyton
    Liu, Xinsheng
    Vedlitz, Arnold
    ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, 2018, 50 (04) : 375 - 400