by: Chris Brown
Although nearly all domain experts agree that carbon dioxide emissions are altering the world’s climate, some segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Can their strong political attitudes be changed?
Recently Donald Trump said we need to bring back global warming in reference to the freezing temperatures from the polar vortex. In fact, what President Trump is referring to is climate change, but he is stating “global warming”. Yet, global warming and climate change are two different things. Global warming is the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature. Climate change is the resulting global changes in climate caused by this global warming.
The theory of global warming has been around since the late 1890s when Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius said it was caused by fossil fuel combustion. And, thus the relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature was born. Since then much research has been conducted on global warming.
Global warming has become a much-publicized political issue because legislation is needed to reduce national carbon fuel use. Billions of dollars have been spent by lobbyists in hopes of pushing through supportive legislation. Yet, there are still millions of people – apparently like the president of the United States – who still do not believe in global warming or even fully understand what it is.
Recently Donald Trump said we need to bring back global warming in reference to the freezing temperatures from the polar vortex. In fact, what President Trump is referring to is climate change, but he is stating “global warming”. Yet, global warming and climate change are two different things. Global warming is the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature. Climate change is the resulting global changes in climate caused by this global warming.
The theory of global warming has been around since the late 1890s when Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius said it was caused by fossil fuel combustion. And, thus the relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature was born. Since then much research has been conducted on global warming.
Global warming has become a much-publicized political issue because legislation is needed to reduce national carbon fuel use. Billions of dollars have been spent by lobbyists in hopes of pushing through supportive legislation. Yet, there are still millions of people – apparently like the president of the United States – who still do not believe in global warming or even fully understand what it is.
Some of the most difficult attitudes to change are political beliefs because of their strong connection to self. Topics defined by scientific evidence on competing claims about whether a risk exists incorrectly increases doubts about scientific information and the issue itself. Additionally, political conservatism best predicts climate change skepticism.
So how does the scientific community go about educating and changing the minds of those who do not believe in global warming? One way is to change the way media presents scientific evidence. Rather than using the common approach of featuring competing claims in a balanced way that more than likely leads to uncertainty perceptions, present messages that reflect the certainty of scientific evidence. Use of weight-of-evidence messages are associated with positive attitudes indirectly via reduced information uncertainty as well as issue uncertainty.
So how does the scientific community go about educating and changing the minds of those who do not believe in global warming? One way is to change the way media presents scientific evidence. Rather than using the common approach of featuring competing claims in a balanced way that more than likely leads to uncertainty perceptions, present messages that reflect the certainty of scientific evidence. Use of weight-of-evidence messages are associated with positive attitudes indirectly via reduced information uncertainty as well as issue uncertainty.
ne could also provide rational counter arguments to the arguments presented by those who do not believe that global warming exists, or one could simply outright ridicule their arguments. Rational arguments targeting the link between the object of belief and its characteristics appear to be an effective tool in fighting strongly held beliefs. Ridiculing one’s arguments of their beliefs were also found to be effective in reducing one’s beliefs. However, it is important to note that the perceived intelligence and competence of the individual who conveys the belief-reduction information contributed to the success of the belief reduction
Another method of changing attitudes is that of exposure to a binding moral frame. A binding moral frame is binding together attitudes that are important to an individual and then using those in an argument that supports a particular view. This technique specifically addresses conservatives in that, research showed that conservatives shifted their climate change attitudes and conservative behaviors substantially in the pro-environmental direction after exposure to a bind moral frame , in which protecting the natural environment was portrayed as a matter of obeying authority, defending the purity of nature, and demonstrating one’s patriotism to the United States.
As a final recommendation, recent research has shown that within a choice blind paradigm, confabulatory reasoning can lead to lasting changes in political attitudes. Confabulation is a memory error defined as the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive.
Political expressions can be both stable in the context of everyday life, yet flexible when argumentative processes are engaged . With how politically divided people are these days, and the increasing amount of information isolation, it’s important that we find ways not just to change minds but to also make people reach across the aisle.
Another method of changing attitudes is that of exposure to a binding moral frame. A binding moral frame is binding together attitudes that are important to an individual and then using those in an argument that supports a particular view. This technique specifically addresses conservatives in that, research showed that conservatives shifted their climate change attitudes and conservative behaviors substantially in the pro-environmental direction after exposure to a bind moral frame , in which protecting the natural environment was portrayed as a matter of obeying authority, defending the purity of nature, and demonstrating one’s patriotism to the United States.
As a final recommendation, recent research has shown that within a choice blind paradigm, confabulatory reasoning can lead to lasting changes in political attitudes. Confabulation is a memory error defined as the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive.
Political expressions can be both stable in the context of everyday life, yet flexible when argumentative processes are engaged . With how politically divided people are these days, and the increasing amount of information isolation, it’s important that we find ways not just to change minds but to also make people reach across the aisle.
References
- Clarke, C. E., McKeever, B. W., Holton, A., & Dixon, G. N. (2015). The influence of weight-of-evidence messages on (vaccine) attitudes: A sequential mediation model. Journal of Health Communication, 20(11), 1302–1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1023959
- Kaplan, J. T., Gimbel, S. I., & Harris, S. (2016). Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39589
- Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K., & Gignac G. E. (2013). NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. Psychological Science, 24(5), 622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457686
- Orosz G., Krekó,P. Paskuj, B., Tóth-Király, I., Bőthe, B., & Roland-Levy, C. (2016). Changing Conspiracy Beliefs through Rationality and Ridiculing. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 7 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01525/full
- Rutjens, B. T., Sutton, R. M., & van der Lee, R. (n.d.). Not All Skepticism Is Equal: Exploring the Ideological Antecedents of Science Acceptance and Rejection. PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 44(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741314
- Springer. (2018, July 18). Money talks when trying to influence climate change legislation: New research examines the amounts different sectors spent on lobbying on climate-related issues in the US between 2000 and 2016. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 9, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180718223101.htm
- Strandberg, T., Sivén, D., Hall, L., Johansson, P., & Pärnamets, P. (2018). False beliefs and confabulation can lead to lasting changes in political attitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(9), 1382–1399. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000489.supp (Supplemental)
- Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H., & Seiden, J. (2016). Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.005
- Tacopina, J. (2019). Trump mocks global warming in tweet amid Midwest chill. New York Post. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2019/01/28/trump-mocks-global-warming-in-tweet-amid-midwest-chill/