Denial and distrust: explaining the partisan climate gap

被引:18
作者
Bugden, Dylan [1 ]
机构
[1] Washington State Univ, Pullman, WA 99164 USA
关键词
Partisanship; Climate policy; Climate denial; Trust; BLINDER-OAXACA DECOMPOSITION; UNITED-STATES; POLARIZATION; SCIENCE; IDEOLOGY; POLITICIZATION; COMMUNICATION; OPPOSITION; RELIGION; ORIGINS;
D O I
10.1007/s10584-022-03321-2
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Nowhere is the partisan politicization of science more pronounced than on the subject of climate change, with Republican and Democratic voters divided on whether climate change exists and how to address it. Existing research tends to explain the partisan climate gap through a process of manufactured doubt, with a network of corporate and conservative organizations using their considerable resources to spread denial about climate science among conservative and Republican voters. I argue that this explanation is incomplete and inconsistent with recent sociological research on scientific conflicts. I explore an alternative hypothesis for the partisan climate gap: distrust in science. I apply a Kitagawa-Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis to a large non-probability sample of Democrats and Republicans (n = 1808) to examine the relative contributions of climate science denial and scientific distrust to the partisan climate gap. Results show that lower levels of trust in science among Republicans explain a larger amount of the partisan climate gap than does climate science denial, though the magnitude of the difference in relative contribution varies by specific policy. These findings suggest that understanding the partisan climate gap requires extending our view beyond the climate change countermovement and toward a broader examination of the anti-scientific dimensions of the US conservative movement. I conclude by discussing how focusing on distrust, in conjunction with science denial, can enrich the study of climate change and science communication.
引用
收藏
页数:23
相关论文
共 100 条
  • [1] Arceneaux K., 2013, Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice, DOI [10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.001.0001, DOI 10.7208/CHICAGO/9780226047447.001.0001]
  • [2] Ballew MT, 2019, ENVIRONMENT, V61, P4
  • [3] End-Times Theology, the Shadow of the Future, and Public Resistance to Addressing Global Climate Change
    Barker, David C.
    Bearce, David H.
    [J]. POLITICAL RESEARCH QUARTERLY, 2013, 66 (02) : 267 - 279
  • [4] Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates
    Beall, Lindsey
    Myers, Teresa A.
    Kotcher, John E.
    Vraga, Emily K.
    Maibach, Edward W.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (11):
  • [5] Beck Ulrich, 1992, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity
  • [6] Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015
    Bjornberg, Karin Edvardsson
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Gilek, Michael
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2017, 167 : 229 - 241
  • [7] Blumenthal Sidney., 1986, RISE COUNTER ESTABLI
  • [8] The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion
    Bolsen, Toby
    Druckman, James N.
    Cook, Fay Lomax
    [J]. POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, 2014, 36 (02) : 235 - 262
  • [9] Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt
    Boussalis, Constantine
    Coan, Travis G.
    [J]. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2016, 36 : 89 - 100
  • [10] "I don't think anybody really knows": Constructing reflexive ignorance in climate change adaptation
    Bowden, Vanessa
    Nyberg, Daniel
    Wright, Christopher
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 2021, 72 (02) : 397 - 411