No products in the cart.
Blog
The durable, bipartisan effects of emphasizing the cost savings of renewable energy – Nature.com
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Advertisement
Nature Energy (2022)
Metrics details
Effective communication can help increase bipartisan support for renewable energy. Prior research suggests that support for renewable energy may be determined, in part, by which of its benefits are emphasized. Here we use a three-stage, longitudinal experiment (N = 2,891) to compare the immediate and over-time effects of three informational frames of renewable energy’s benefits (cost savings, economy boost and global warming mitigation). We tested each message’s effects on US Democrats’ and Republicans’ beliefs about and support for renewable energy, and we compared the longevity of these effects over a period of three weeks. We find that cost savings was the most effective frame—both in terms of immediate effect size on beliefs and in the longevity of those effects—with negligible differences between political groups. The durability of all effects exhibited a consistent pattern: an initial steep drop in effect size followed by a plateau.
Your institute does not have access to this article
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
$119.00
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
$32.00
All prices are NET prices.
The datasets used for this study (all three time points) are available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6cf93/) as Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) data files (.sav). Alternative data formats are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
Stokes, L. C. & Warshaw, C. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat. Energy 2, 17107 (2017).
Article Google Scholar
Rabe, B. G. Can We Price Carbon? American and Comparative Environmental Policy (MIT Press, 2018).
Stokes., L. C. The politics of renewable energy policies: the case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada. Energy Policy 56, 490–500 (2013).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S. & Konisky, D. M. Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming (MIT Press, 2014).
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).
Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 10, 103–126 (2007).
Article Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behav. 23, 225–256 (2001).
Article Google Scholar
Entman, R. M. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun. 43, 51–58 (1993).
Article Google Scholar
Bernauer, T. & Mcgrath, L. F. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 680–683 (2016).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychol. Sci. 22, 34–38 (2011).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
Nisbet, M. C. Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environment 51, 12–23 (2009).
Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
Andre, H. Value orientation and framing as determinants of stated willingness to pay for eco-labeled electricity. Energy Effic. 4, 185–192 (2011).
Article Google Scholar
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
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/
Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019 (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2020); https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981).
MathSciNet Article Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q. J. Econ. 106, 1039–1061 (1991).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
Guber, D. L. A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 93–115 (2013).
Article Google Scholar
Bergquist, P., Konisky, D. M. & Kotcher, J. Energy policy and public opinion: patterns, trends and future directions. Prog. Energy 2, 032003 (2020).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
Gustafson, A. et al. Republicans and Democrats differ in why they support renewable energy. Energy Policy 141, 111448 (2020).
Article Google Scholar
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).
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).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
Edwards, K. & Smith, E. E. A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71, 5–24 (1996).
Article Google Scholar
Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am. J. Political Sci. 50, 755–769 (2006).
Article Google Scholar
Coppock, A. E. Positive, Small, Homogeneous, and Durable: Political Persuasion in Response to Information. PhD thesis, Columbia Univ. (2016).
Guess, A. & Coppock, A. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br. J. Political Sci. 50, 1497–1515 (2020).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication. J. Environ. Psychol. 62, 49–58 (2019).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P. & Piquero, A. Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology 36, 859–866 (1998).
Article Google Scholar
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).
Article Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S. & Green, D. P. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, & Interpretation (WW Norton, 2012).
Cumming, G. Inference by eye: reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Stat. Med. 28, 205–220 (2009).
MathSciNet Article Google Scholar
Download references
This study was supported by the Energy Foundation, Heising–Simons Foundation, 11th Hour Project and the MacArthur Foundation. The authors thank N. Kirsch for assisting with the literature review. The design and analyses of study were greatly improved by ideas and insights from A. Coppock and M. Ballew.
Department of Communication, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
Abel Gustafson
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Matthew H. Goldberg, Karine Lacroix, Seth A. Rosenthal & Anthony Leiserowitz
McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
Parrish Bergquist
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
A.G. conceptualized the study and methodology. M.H.G., P.B., K.L., S.A.R. and A.L. advised on the study’s concept, design, measures and stimuli. A.G. and M.H.G. collected the data. A.G., M.H.G. and P.B. analysed the data. A.G. wrote the original draft, with contributions and revisions from M.H.G., P.B., K.L., S.A.R. and A.L. A.L. obtained funding for the project.
Correspondence to Abel Gustafson.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Nature Energy thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary study details, analyses and results.
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and Permissions
Gustafson, A., Goldberg, M.H., Bergquist, P. et al. The durable, bipartisan effects of emphasizing the cost savings of renewable energy. Nat Energy (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01099-2
Download citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01099-2
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Advertisement
Advanced search
© 2022 Springer Nature Limited
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.