Search results

As social scientists have investigated the political and social factors influencing public opinion in science-related policy debates, there has been growing interest in the implications of this research for public communication and outreach. Given the level of political polarization in the United States, much of the focus has been on partisan differences in public opinion, the strategies employed by political leaders and advocates that promote those differences, and the counter-strategies for overcoming them. Yet this focus on partisan differences tends to overlook the processes by which core beliefs about science and society impact public opinion and how these schema are often activated by specific frames of reference embedded in media coverage and popular discourse. In this study, analyzing cross-sectional, nationally representative survey data collected between 2002 and 2010, we investigate the relative influence of political partisanship and science-related schema on Americans' support for embryonic stem cell research. In comparison to the influence of partisan identity, our findings suggest that generalized beliefs about science and society were more chronically accessible, less volatile in relation to media attention and focusing events, and an overall stronger influence on public opinion. Classifying respondents into four unique audience groups based on their beliefs about science and society, we additionally find that individuals within each of these groups split relatively evenly by partisanship but differ on other important dimensions. The implications for public engagement and future research on controversies related to biomedical science are discussed.

In our target article (Markowitz & Bowerman 2011), we reported findings from a series of surveys suggesting that a large majority of Americans possess positive attitudes towards reducing consumption, with implications for individual and policy actions. Commentators Katherine Arbuthnott, Keith Brown, and Susan Clayton draw attention to both strengths and weaknesses in our target manuscript and raise important points about the role of consumption‐related attitudes and norms in shaping behavior and policy. As readers following this prior discussion are aware, our initial research centered around a consistent finding regarding Oregonians' attitudes towards consumption: across a series of state‐wide surveys and in‐depth interviews, we found that the vast majority of Oregonians agreed that "Our country would be better off if we all consumed less." At the same time, we found decidedly mixed support regarding the translation of such "de‐consumption" beliefs into actual behavior and policy preferences. All three of the commentators appear to share our own guarded optimism regarding the potential implications of these findings for confronting issues related to over‐consumption (e.g., climate change). We are largely in agreement with the various points and critiques each raises and herein aim to offer an actionable response.

Relatively little public opinion research has explored beliefs about consumption. This lack of research is surprising given the increasing attention paid by many commentators to the relationship between consumption and ecological sustainability. Reporting on data collected from a series of five statewide surveys of Oregonians conducted between 2008 and 2009, we find that a strong majority (74-88%) of the Oregon public supports reducing consumption and believes doing so would improve societal and individual well-being. These findings appear to challenge conventional wisdom about our collective and never-ending need for consumption of material goods. Our results reveal broad agreement on the consumption issue across traditional ideological divides. We also conducted in-depth qualitative interviews, which allowed us to explore what "consumption" means to Oregonians and why people think our country would be better off if we reduced consumption. Our findings suggest that populist attitudes toward reducing consumption may fill a role that policymakers avoid for a variety of reasons. We discuss the relevance of consumption beliefs to public policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as directions for future research. Adapted from the source document.

Relatively little public opinion research has explored beliefs about consumption. This lack of research is surprising given the increasing attention paid by many commentators to the relationship between consumption and ecological sustainability. Reporting on data collected from a series of five statewide surveys of Oregonians conducted between 2008 and 2009, we find that a strong majority (74–88%) of the Oregon public supports reducing consumption and believes doing so would improve societal and individual well‐being. These findings appear to challenge conventional wisdom about our collective and never‐ending need for consumption of material goods. Our results reveal broad agreement on the consumption issue across traditional ideological divides. We also conducted in‐depth qualitative interviews, which allowed us to explore what "consumption" means to Oregonians and why people think our country would be better off if we reduced consumption. Our findings suggest that populist attitudes toward reducing consumption may fill a role that policymakers avoid for a variety of reasons. We discuss the relevance of consumption beliefs to public policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as directions for future research.

During the George W. Bush administration, intense debate focused on the administration's interference with the work of government scientists. In this study, analyzing a May/June 2009 survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), we evaluate the factors during this period that influenced scientists' awareness of political interference and their media outreach and communication activities. Controlling for demographic and professional-level influences, those members who were more liberal in their political outlook, who were frequent blog readers, and who felt strongly about global warming were substantially more likely to have heard "a lot" about political interference. However, neither ideology, partisanship, nor opinion-intensity were predictive of the various media and communication behaviors assessed. Instead, the strongest predictor was the belief that media coverage was important for an individual's career advancement. Implications for evaluating the expert community's participation in future political debates are discussed.

AbstractWhen corporations behave inappropriately, for example, by intentionally circumventing emissions regulation or jacking up the price of a life‐saving drug, assessing and assigning culpability is both natural and necessary. Such ascriptions of blame influence how consumers perceive and engage with corporations in the wake of misconduct. In a nationally representative sample of American adults, we examined how people's mental models of corporate wrongdoing influenced their awareness of and responses to a series of corporate scandals that broke between 2015 and 2017. Using a mixed effects modeling approach addressing both individual and scandal‐level variability, our results revealed that subscribing to the belief that corporate scandals are the product of the corporate culture (as opposed to the actions of a "few bad apples" within an organization) amplified people's awareness of, degree of concern about, and the probability of having taken action against transgressing corporations. The findings presented here highlight the importance of exploring consumers' complex responses to corporate scandals, particularly for regulators and consumer advocates interested in leveraging public outcry to hold corporations responsible.

AbstractFollowing unethical corporate behavior, consumers face decisions on how to engage with brands in the future. Consumers' beliefs about the underlying causes of a corporate scandal may influence future patronage intentions, for example, by influencing perceived likelihood of future wrongdoing. We investigated how beliefs about corporate culture and consumer proximity to the recent Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal influence expectations of future ethical action by Volkswagen Group (VW), feelings of anger, and future brand engagement. Results indicate that beliefs about corporate culture and proximity each independently influence future brand engagement. Specifically, owners who believed "a few bad apples" (rather than a "rotten" corporate culture) caused the scandal reported higher expectations of future ethical action by VW, less anger, and more positive intentions to engage with VW in the future. Those more proximately affected by the scandal, that is, turbocharged direct injection owners, were more likely to be angry and less likely to engage with VW. Expectation of future ethical action and anger mediated the effects of corporate culture on engagement, whereas only anger mediated the effects of proximity. This small set of factors accounted for over half of the observed variance in future brand engagement intentions, highlighting the importance of understanding consumer responses to corporate scandal.

AbstractOnline science communities can serve as powerful platforms for advancing scientific knowledge, capacity, and outreach by increasing collaboration and information sharing among geographically distant peers, practitioners, and the public. Here, we examine the value and role of the Early Career Climate Forum (ECCF), a climate-focused online science community that is based in the United States and is dedicated to training and providing support to the next generation of climate scientists. In a survey of community users and contributors, we find that the ECCF played a unique role in providing users access to career resources as well as climate-related research and insights. Respondents also indicated that the ECCF provides them with a strong sense of community and a sense of hope for the future of climate science research. These findings highlight the importance of online science communities in shaping and supporting the next generation of scientists and practitioners working at the science–management interface on climate change issues.

Background: Many sustainability initiatives are successful and produce results that benefit the environment. However, others miss the mark and fail to produce the desired outcome. Past research has typically focused on understanding why initiatives fail, without first considering differences in how they fail. Focus of the Article: This manuscript is related to Research and Evaluation—specifically, the social marketing concept it focuses on is evaluating the outcome of sustainability initiatives. Research Question: What are the different ways in which sustainability initiatives can fail? Program Design/Approach: A multi-day workshop of interdisciplinary behavioral sustainability scholars led to the identification of five systematic differences in how sustainability initiatives can fail, suggesting that failure can take on not only different levels of severity, but different forms altogether. Within this framework, we provide examples of each type of failure. Importance to the Social Marketing Field: We argue that diagnosing how instead of just why an initiative fails offers important insights that can reduce the likelihood of future failures—insights that may be missed by a narrow focus on the why behind any given failure. Recommendations for Research or Practice: The identification of the different ways in which sustainability initiatives fail can lead to improvements in the design and implementation of behavioral interventions, facilitating successful sustainability outcomes and preventing unintended outcomes. Specific recommendations are discussed for each type of failure. Limitations: The examples in our framework are not exhaustive, but are instead intended to be illustrative exemplars of each type of failure. Moreover, as our focus is on how sustainability initiatives fail, we do not attempt to diagnose why particular initiatives fail.

In recent years, a number of prominent elected officials on both sides of the partisan divide have weighed in on the possibility of making Washington, D.C., the nation's fifty-first state. While Democratic supporters of statehood for D.C. emphasize issues of equal representation, some Republican opponents have stressed the partisan and ideological consequences of D.C. statehood. Other Republican opponents, in justifying their position, have made the claim that Washington, D.C., lacks the necessary and sufficient characteristics associated with statehood, and these claims have been widely interpreted as implicitly racist appeals. In this paper, using three nationally representative surveys, we explore whether mass opinion on this issue is primarily shaped by partisanship, ideology, racial status threat, or racial prejudice. We find clear and consistent evidence that while partisan and ideological attachments, as well as perceptions of racial status threat, influence opinion on statehood for Washington, D.C., the strongest determinant of opposition to statehood are negative racial attitudes. We take these results as further evidence of the debate over D.C. statehood, like debates over public policies that are purported to benefit African Americans, is intimately intertwined with negative racial views expressed by the mass public.