Is it possible to overcome climate polarization?
Issue #154: The biggest lessons from climate change studies in psychology
Last week, in one of his first acts as incoming President, Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. 2024 set a new record for the warmest year on record, and this dealt a serious blow to worldwide efforts to address climate change. Addressing climate change will require a massive level of cooperation and having American leaders pull in and out of international agreements seriously undercuts these efforts.
To get a better handle on how we might address this issue, Jay attended a conference last semester with several experts on climate change hailing from backgrounds in law and policy to business and media gathered at Vanderbilt Law School for the Bypassing Climate Polarization Conference (organized by Michael Vandenbergh). Jay was one of the few psychologists at the event and gave the keynote talk (Nate Luce wrote an excellent summary of his talk, along with the rest of the conference, which we share below).
One of the most interesting things about the conference is that it was not only interdisciplinary, but it intentionally included speakers from across the political spectrum who believed in climate change and wanted to find common ground. This made the conversation about climate change solutions more wide ranging than most psychology conferences which are dominated by liberal perspectives.
Many speakers and audience members were intimately familiar with the types of messages that resonated with conservative leaders (e.g., focused on job creation) and rural communities (e.g., building solar panels over a sheep farm). This type of perspective is often completely missing from many academic communities and yet critical to scaling up green energy since green energy solutions are often built in rural, conservative areas and require genuine engagement with those communities. The talking points that resonate with the left often fall flat with these audiences.
Some of the speakers also revealed other political challenges. For instance, one speaker presented data revealing that liberals report they strongly support climate change, but nevertheless use the same levels of energy as conservatives (when you measure their actual carbon footprint). We have found that same pattern in our own global study. This suggests that the polarization of climate change may be largely expressive or symbolic, rather than behavioral (although there are important party differences in policy support).
Although with these types of eye-opening findings, there was a sense of hope that people from a wide variety of backgrounds were eager to find concrete solutions. This was an excellent model for a conference: A highly diverse group of experts, coming from every field, career stage, and political perspective, but who nevertheless share the same common set of assumptions about climate change. This allowed us to bypass any discussions about whether the earth is warming (of course it is), and instead get right to the research and serious debates about what to do about it. And given the diversity of perspectives in the room, the discussions and disagreements were sharp and on point.
Jay explained that, between 1949 and 2011, the divide between votes in the U.S. House of Representatives grew dramatically. Whereas representatives in different parties once worked to together to pass bills, this tradition had largely disappeared by the 21st century. This level of increase polarization among political leaders was eventually mirrored by citizens.
A paper Jay co-wrote with political sciences, psychologists, and sociologists found hints of political sectarianism in the current U.S. landscape. Political sectarianism is an extreme form of divide where separate parties see the other side as, not just wrong, but evil.
“People hate the other party more than they like their own party,” Jay explained. “This means that you are willing to look the other way if your party leader is corrupt, because you cannot let the other party get power because they’re evil.”
He mentioned several studies that demonstrated the wide-reaching consequences of this sectarianism. It has shortened Thanksgiving dinners. Parents approve less of their children’s partners for representing a different political group than a different race. Democrats and Republicans have been found to grossly overestimate the percentage of the other party that approve of basic moral wrongs such as tax fraud and animal abuse.
The more research and data that accumulates on climate change, the more polarized the U.S. public grows. Republican support for climate change as a top policy priority grows at a slower rate than Democrat support.
His research found that, while more liberals believe in climate change and support changes to policies, conservatives were just as willing to act as liberals. In this case, taking action meant working hard to plant trees, and conservatives were just as likely to work as hard as liberals to plant trees.
“It might be helpful to start by finding things where there is consensus and get people to take action on them,” Jay said. “If you find yourself planting trees, you start to think of yourself more as somebody who cares about the environment. You’re more likely to engage in other actions and beliefs that align with that over time. This is called self-perception theory.”
He has found that “doom and gloom” messages (like the one below), commonly used to raise awareness of climate change, have backfired. While they increased social media sharing by 12%, these messages reduced tree planting by 10%.
“You have to think about messages that are effective for your audience and also your goals,” Jay said.
Jay also discussed the Strengthening Democracy Challenge, wherein teams proposed interventions to reduce polarization that would be tested on a sample of 30,000 representative Americans. Of the 252 teams that applied, Bavel’s team was selected among the top 25 and deemed the third-most effective.
“We created a message about how Democrats and Republicans both care about democracy, and we found quotes among leaders from both parties that supported those norms,” Jay explained. “[It] was the third most effective strategy … It also lasted multiple weeks.”
Here are five takeaway lessons about climate polarization based on research from social psychology:
We are not as polarized as we think (don’t fall for false polarization)
Remove partisan identities from discussions
Find actions that are not polarized and move forward on those
Use messages that are effective for your audience + goals (not “doom-erism”)
Highlight common identities
These offer a small step in the right direction. Other fields and communities are also going to play a key role in making a difference, but finding a way to move past these divides is going to be critical for building the coalition necessary to address climate change in a meaningful way.
Catch up on the last one…
Last week,
author Sunita Sah gave us a preview of her new book: Defy. She explains how defiance is an important tool that can save a group or team from heading in the wrong direction.