Perceived support for climate policy in Australia: The asymmetrical influence of voting behaviour

IF 6.1 1区 心理学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Journal of Environmental Psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102488
Zoe Leviston , Samantha K. Stanley , Iain Walker
{"title":"Perceived support for climate policy in Australia: The asymmetrical influence of voting behaviour","authors":"Zoe Leviston ,&nbsp;Samantha K. Stanley ,&nbsp;Iain Walker","doi":"10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A comprehensive policy response from wealthy nations is a necessary step to limiting catastrophic climate change. Community attitudes toward policy, and polarisation along political lines, may threaten this response. Using two representative cross-sectional survey studies of Australian voters (<em>N</em> = 2013; <em>N</em> = 3834), we test levels of support for a range of climate policies, levels of partisan polarisation, and whether people misperceive support among other partisans (false polarisation). Importantly, we investigate how perceptions differ across voting groups spanning left-wing, centre-left-wing, centre-right-wing, and right-wing voting orientations. In Study 1, we find support for climate policy across the political spectrum. However, assumed support from others is routinely underestimated, with support estimates decreasing the less socially proximal the group being estimated is. Meanwhile, perceptions of others’ support relates positively to perceptions of policy legitimacy. While policy support is associated with partisanship, in Study 2 we find left-wing voters perceive partisan polarisation to be greater than it actually is (false polarisation), while right-wing voters <em>underestimate</em> actual polarisation. We also find perceived polarisation is associated with higher levels of issue relevance. We discuss our findings with respect to intergroup processes, and recommend that community consensus regarding support for climate policy action be emphasised.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48439,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","volume":"100 ","pages":"Article 102488"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424002615","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A comprehensive policy response from wealthy nations is a necessary step to limiting catastrophic climate change. Community attitudes toward policy, and polarisation along political lines, may threaten this response. Using two representative cross-sectional survey studies of Australian voters (N = 2013; N = 3834), we test levels of support for a range of climate policies, levels of partisan polarisation, and whether people misperceive support among other partisans (false polarisation). Importantly, we investigate how perceptions differ across voting groups spanning left-wing, centre-left-wing, centre-right-wing, and right-wing voting orientations. In Study 1, we find support for climate policy across the political spectrum. However, assumed support from others is routinely underestimated, with support estimates decreasing the less socially proximal the group being estimated is. Meanwhile, perceptions of others’ support relates positively to perceptions of policy legitimacy. While policy support is associated with partisanship, in Study 2 we find left-wing voters perceive partisan polarisation to be greater than it actually is (false polarisation), while right-wing voters underestimate actual polarisation. We also find perceived polarisation is associated with higher levels of issue relevance. We discuss our findings with respect to intergroup processes, and recommend that community consensus regarding support for climate policy action be emphasised.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚对气候政策的认知支持:投票行为的非对称影响
富裕国家采取全面的政策应对措施是限制灾难性气候变化的必要步骤。社区对政策的态度以及政治上的两极分化可能会威胁到这一对策。通过对澳大利亚选民(N = 2013; N = 3834)进行的两项具有代表性的横截面调查研究,我们测试了一系列气候政策的支持水平、党派两极分化水平以及人们是否误解了其他党派的支持(虚假两极分化)。重要的是,我们调查了不同投票群体(包括左翼、中左翼、中右翼和右翼)对气候政策的看法有何不同。在研究 1 中,我们发现各政治派别都支持气候政策。然而,假定的他人支持通常会被低估,被估计的群体与社会关系越疏远,支持估计值就越低。同时,对他人支持的看法与对政策合法性的看法呈正相关。虽然政策支持与党派相关,但在研究 2 中,我们发现左翼选民认为党派两极分化比实际严重(虚假两极分化),而右翼选民则低估了实际两极分化。我们还发现,感知到的两极分化与较高的议题相关性相关。我们就群体间进程讨论了我们的发现,并建议强调社区在支持气候政策行动方面的共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
8.70%
发文量
140
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Psychology is the premier journal in the field, serving individuals in a wide range of disciplines who have an interest in the scientific study of the transactions and interrelationships between people and their surroundings (including built, social, natural and virtual environments, the use and abuse of nature and natural resources, and sustainability-related behavior). The journal publishes internationally contributed empirical studies and reviews of research on these topics that advance new insights. As an important forum for the field, the journal publishes some of the most influential papers in the discipline that reflect the scientific development of environmental psychology. Contributions on theoretical, methodological, and practical aspects of all human-environment interactions are welcome, along with innovative or interdisciplinary approaches that have a psychological emphasis. Research areas include: •Psychological and behavioral aspects of people and nature •Cognitive mapping, spatial cognition and wayfinding •Ecological consequences of human actions •Theories of place, place attachment, and place identity •Environmental risks and hazards: perception, behavior, and management •Perception and evaluation of buildings and natural landscapes •Effects of physical and natural settings on human cognition and health •Theories of proenvironmental behavior, norms, attitudes, and personality •Psychology of sustainability and climate change •Psychological aspects of resource management and crises •Social use of space: crowding, privacy, territoriality, personal space •Design of, and experiences related to, the physical aspects of workplaces, schools, residences, public buildings and public space
期刊最新文献
Evidence gap: Data from clinical contexts needed to better support youth experiencing the mental health impacts of climate change Why humans form place attachment: A terror management perspective Perceived support for climate policy in Australia: The asymmetrical influence of voting behaviour Regret about environmental destruction: Examining the relative strengths of affective regret and cognitive regret in promoting pro-environmental behaviors Testing the effects of health-benefit, environmental-benefit and co-benefit priming for promoting sustainable food choice and their psychological mechanisms: A randomized controlled trial combined with eye tracking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1