Suchergebnisse

This paper explores whether invoking social norms, in the context of a persuasive appeal, affects individuals' willingness to take action for the public good. The framework I develop brings together a host of factors treated as distinct in past work, including attitudes, rhetoric, and social norms. I test predictions from this framework in an experiment that focuses on a particularly important behavior-actions regarding the consumption of energy. I find that highlighting norms in the context of an appeal for energy conservation increases the importance individuals' associate with these actions, intentions to conserve energy, and actual behavior on a light-bulb purchasing decision. The findings have implications more generally for understanding when individuals take actions that promote the public good. Adapted from the source document.

Much of what people learn about politics comes from the mass media. How media outlets construct their reports have direct consequences for what people think about politics. Scholars and pundits have long debated about the factors that shape media choices. Yet there have been few direct investigations into how three major determinants shape political news: world events, advocacy groups, and the government. This article examines the relative impact of these factors by focusing on the construction of news related to energy conservation in the United States. Specifically, it looks at how events, messages crafted by interest groups, and government-sponsored public service announcements (PSAs) affect news frames and attributions of responsibility for the extant energy situation. It finds that events are the most important factor driving news coverage; advocacy groups are second, followed by PSAs. This suggests that news about conservation is driven more by events than messages supplied by agents seeking to influence public discourse. Thus, groups with specific agendas such as government and advocacy organizations can, at least at times, be limited in terms of their capacity to shape news coverage-which has implications for theories of media choice. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Inc.]

Much of what people learn about politics comes from the mass media. How media outlets construct their reports have direct consequences for what people think about politics. Scholars and pundits have long debated about the factors that shape media choices. Yet there have been few direct investigations into how three major determinants shape political news: world events, advocacy groups, and the government. This article examines the relative impact of these factors by focusing on the construction of news related to energy conservation in the United States. Specifically, it looks at how events, messages crafted by interest groups, and government-sponsored public service announcements (PSAs) affect news frames and attributions of responsibility for the extant energy situation. It finds that events are the most important factor driving news coverage; advocacy groups are second, followed by PSAs. This suggests that news about conservation is driven more by events than messages supplied by agents seeking to influence public discourse. Thus, groups with specific agendas such as government and advocacy organizations can, at least at times, be limited in terms of their capacity to shape news coverage—which has implications for theories of media choice.

Intro -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- References -- Chapter 2: The Science of Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise -- 2.1 How Does the Climate Work? -- 2.2 Evidence That the Climate Is Changing -- 2.3 Projected Impacts of Climate Change -- 2.4 Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise -- 2.5 Implications of Climate Change for Sea-Level Rise in South Florida -- References -- Chapter 3: A Partisan and Polarized Issue in the United States -- 3.1 Polarization of Climate Change in the United States -- 3.2 Demographic, Social, and Personal Predictors of Climate Change Beliefs in the US -- 3.3 Strategic Messaging to Influence Climate Change Beliefs -- 3.4 Summary -- References -- Chapter 4: The South Florida Study Area -- 4.1 The Physical Setting: Topography and Water in South Florida -- 4.2 Settlement of South Florida -- 4.3 Population and Economic Characteristics of the Study Sites -- 4.4 Climate Change in South Florida -- References -- Chapter 5: Study Methods and General Findings -- 5.1 Experimental Design: Use of a Map of Projected Local Flooding -- 5.2 General Findings -- 5.2.1 Demographic and Geographic Characteristics of the Respondents -- 5.2.2 Residence and Homeownership -- 5.2.3 Climate Change Beliefs -- 5.2.4 Other Responses to Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change -- 5.3 Regional Effects -- References -- Chapter 6: Results from South Florida Experiment -- 6.1 Effect of Demographic and Political Characteristics on Beliefs and Policy Support -- 6.2 Summary -- References -- Chapter 7: Denial of Risk -- 7.1 Discussion -- Chapter 8: Prospects for Mitigation -- 8.1 Legislation in Florida to Mitigate Impacts of Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change -- 8.2 General Support for Additional Measures to Mitigate Climate Change and Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise -- 8.3 Some Final Words -- References.

"Motivated Reasoning and Political Decision Making" published on by Oxford University Press.

Abstract
A central challenge to effectively communicating scientific consensus is that people often reject information counter to their prior beliefs. People who believe that human-induced climate change is a hoax, for instance, may dismiss scientific consensus messages that human activity is a primary cause of climate change. We argue that such people can be persuaded, however. We hypothesize that validating an individual's belief about the existence of conspiracies makes him or her more likely to accept contrary scientific consensus information. We present experimental evidence that such validation leads individuals who previously believed human-induced climate change is a hoax to become more believing in human-induced climate change following exposure to scientific consensus information.