The durable, bipartisan effects of emphasizing the cost savings of renewable energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No abstract is available for this record. The assistant can identify its topic from the title, but cannot infer the study’s results.
Source: Not provided · Quality: missing
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Climate Change Communication and Perception · Environmental Education and Sustainability · Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (46)
Show source-provided references
1. IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
2. Stokes, L. C. & Warshaw, C. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat. Energy 2, 17107 (2017).10.1038/nenergy.2017.107 ↗
3. Rabe, B. G. Can We Price Carbon? American and Comparative Environmental Policy (MIT Press, 2018).10.7551/mitpress/11316.001.0001 ↗
4. Stokes., L. C. The politics of renewable energy policies: the case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada. Energy Policy 56, 490–500 (2013).10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.009 ↗
5. Bayulgen, O. & Benegal, S. Green priorities: how economic frames affect perceptions of renewable energy in the United States. Energy Res. Social Sci. 47, 28–36 (2019).10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.017 ↗
6. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. & Cook, F. L. How frames can undermine support for scientific adaptations: politicization and the status-quo bias. Public Opin. Q. 78, 1–26 (2014).10.1093/poq/nft044 ↗
7. Ansolabehere, S. & Konisky, D. M. Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming (MIT Press, 2014).10.7551/mitpress/9999.001.0001 ↗
8. Scrase, J. I. & Ockwell, D. G. The role of discourse and linguistic framing effects in sustaining high carbon energy policy—an accessible introduction. Energy Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.010 (2010).10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.010 ↗
9. Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 10, 103–126 (2007).10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054 ↗
10. Druckman, J. N. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behav. 23, 225–256 (2001).10.1023/A:1015006907312 ↗
11. Entman, R. M. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun. 43, 51–58 (1993).10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x ↗
12. Bernauer, T. & Mcgrath, L. F. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 680–683 (2016).10.1038/nclimate2948 ↗
13. Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R. & Jeffries, C. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 600–603 (2012).10.1038/nclimate1532 ↗
14. Clarke, C. E. et al. Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy 81, 131–140 (2015).10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.019 ↗
15. Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychol. Sci. 22, 34–38 (2011).10.1177/0956797610391911 ↗
16. Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W. & Leiserowitz, A. A. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change 113, 1105–1112 (2012).10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6 ↗
17. Nisbet, M. C. Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environment 51, 12–23 (2009).
18. Dixon, G., Hmielowski, J. & Ma, Y. Improving climate change acceptance among U.S. conservatives through value-based message targeting. Sci. Commun. 39, 520–534 (2017).10.1177/1075547017715473 ↗
19. Andre, H. Value orientation and framing as determinants of stated willingness to pay for eco-labeled electricity. Energy Effic. 4, 185–192 (2011).10.1007/s12053-010-9096-0 ↗
20. Mills, S. B., Rabe, B. G. & Borick, C. Widespread Public Support for Renewable Energy Mandates Despite Proposed Rollbacks (Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, 2015); https://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/22/widespread-public-support-for-renewable-energy-mandates-despite-proposed-rollbacks
21. Gray, M., Ljungwaldh, S., Watson, L. & Kok, I. Powering Down Coal: Navigating the Economic and Financial Risks in the Last Years of Coal Power (Carbon Tracker Initiative, 2019); https://carbontracker.org/reports/coal-portal/
22. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019 (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2020); https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019
23. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981).10.1126/science.7455683 ↗
24. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q. J. Econ. 106, 1039–1061 (1991).10.2307/2937956 ↗
25. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Q. 52, 155–194 (2011).10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x ↗
26. Guber, D. L. A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 93–115 (2013).10.1177/0002764212463361 ↗
27. Bergquist, P., Konisky, D. M. & Kotcher, J. Energy policy and public opinion: patterns, trends and future directions. Prog. Energy 2, 032003 (2020).10.1088/2516-1083/ab9592 ↗
28. Bergquist, P., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. C. Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 054019 (2020).10.1088/1748-9326/ab81c1 ↗
29. Benjamin, D., Por, H.-H. & Budescu, D. Climate change versus global warming: who is susceptible to the framing of climate change? Environ. Behav. 49, 745–770 (2017).10.1177/0013916516664382 ↗
30. Gustafson, A. et al. Republicans and Democrats differ in why they support renewable energy. Energy Policy 141, 111448 (2020).10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111448 ↗
31. Lecheler, S. & De Vreese, C. D. How long do news framing effects last? A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11735254 (2016).10.1080/23808985.2015.11735254 ↗
32. Coppock, A., Ekins, E. & Kirby, D. The long-lasting effects of newspaper op-eds on public opinion. Q. J. Political Sci. 13, 59–87 (2018).10.1561/100.00016112 ↗
33. Feldman, L. & Hart., P. S. Climate change as a polarizing cue: framing effects on public support for low-carbon energy policies. Glob. Environ. Change 51, 54–66 (2018).10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.004 ↗
34. Schuldt, J. P., Konrath, S. H. & Schwarz, N. “Global warming” or “climate change”?: whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opin. Q. 75, 115–124 (2011).10.1093/poq/nfq073 ↗
35. Edwards, K. & Smith, E. E. A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71, 5–24 (1996).10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5 ↗
36. Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am. J. Political Sci. 50, 755–769 (2006).10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x ↗
37. Coppock, A. E. Positive, Small, Homogeneous, and Durable: Political Persuasion in Response to Information. PhD thesis, Columbia Univ. (2016).
38. Guess, A. & Coppock, A. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br. J. Political Sci. 50, 1497–1515 (2020).10.1017/S0007123418000327 ↗
39. Coppock, A., Hill, S. J. & Vavreck, L. The small effects of political advertising are small regardless of context, message, sender, or receiver: evidence from 59 real-time randomized experiments. Sci. Adv. 6, 40–46 (2020).10.1126/sciadv.abc4046 ↗
40. Bayer, P. & Ovodenko, A. Many voices in the room: a national survey experiment on how framing changes views toward fracking in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 56, 101213 (2019).10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.023 ↗
41. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication. J. Environ. Psychol. 62, 49–58 (2019).10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009 ↗
42. Hart, P. S. & Feldman, L. Would it be better to not talk about climate change? The impact of climate change and air pollution frames on support for regulating power plant emissions. J. Environ. Psychol. 60, 1–8 (2018).10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.08.013 ↗
43. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P. & Piquero, A. Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology 36, 859–866 (1998).10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x ↗
44. Broockman, D. E., Kalla, J. L. & Sekhon, J. S. The design of field experiments with survey outcomes: a framework for selecting more efficient, robust, and ethical designs. Political Anal. 25, 435–464 (2017).10.1017/pan.2017.27 ↗
45. Gerber, A. S. & Green, D. P. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, & Interpretation (WW Norton, 2012).
46. Cumming, G. Inference by eye: reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Stat. Med. 28, 205–220 (2009).10.1002/sim.3471 ↗