Skip to main content

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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Multidimensional partisanship shapes climate policy support and behaviours

Nature Climate Change volume 13, pages 32–39 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Partisanship is one of the largest and most studied social barriers to climate change mitigation in the United States. Here we expand conceptualizations of ‘left-right’ or ‘Democrat-Republican’ towards understanding partisanship as a multidimensional social identity with both negative and positive elements. Partisan support or opposition for climate action can be driven by identification with the partisan in-group (positive or ‘expressive’ partisanship), as well as perceived threats from the ‘out-group’ (negative partisanship). Using original survey data, we show that when negative and expressive partisanship is low, climate policy support is similar for Republicans and Democrats. However, differences in policy support increase when partisan identification amplifies. Yet, for climate behaviours, we find more limited partisan effects. The proposed multidimensional partisanship framework revisits the role of partisan polarization in shaping climate change action and points to alternative ways to transcend partisan barriers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Descriptive statistics of key partisan predictors.
Fig. 2: Distribution of responses to dependent variables.
Fig. 3: Interaction effect of partisan social identities by party affiliation for climate change policy support.
Fig. 4: Interaction effect of partisan social identities by party affiliation for ‘Willingness to engage in climate change behaviours’.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Full original survey data are available on the Harvard Dataverse63 with the identifier https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/8V9FDH.

Code availability

Analytical replication materials are available on the Harvard Dataverse63 with the identifier https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/8V9FDH.

References

  1. Cook, J. et al. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 048002 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8252–8259 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Unruh, G. C. Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30, 317–325 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sovacool, B. K., Hess, D. J. & Cantoni, R. Energy transitions from the cradle to the grave: a meta-theoretical framework integrating responsible innovation, social practices, and energy justice. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 75, 102027 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Compston, H. & Bailey, I. Climate policy strength compared: China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, and Japan. Climate Policy 16, 145–164 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Farrell, J. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 92–97 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011).

  8. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G. & Fielding, K. S. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 622–626 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McCright, A. M., Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., Shwom, R. L., Brechin, S. R. & Allen, S. Ideology, capitalism, and climate: explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 21, 180–189 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8, 239–260 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Allen, S., Dietz, T. & McCright, A. M. Measuring household energy efficiency behaviors with attention to behavioral plasticity in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10, 133–140 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. O’Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., Yarnal, B. & Wiefek, N. Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Soc. Sci. Q. 83, 1–17 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mildenberger, M., Howe, P. D. & Miljanich, C. Households with solar installations are ideologically diverse and more politically active than their neighbours. Nat. Energy 4, 1033–1039 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sintov, N. D., Abou-Ghalioum, V. & White, L. V. The partisan politics of low-carbon transport: why Democrats are more likely to adopt electric vehicles than Republicans in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 68, 101576 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Greene, S. Social identity theory and party identification. Soc. Sci. Q. 85, 136–153 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Iyengar, S., Sood, G. & Lelkes, Y. Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opin. Q. 76, 405–431 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lyons, J. The family and partisan socialization in red and blue america. Polit. Psychol. 38, 297–312 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sapiro, V. Not your parents’ political socialization: introduction for a new generation. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 7, 1–23 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bisgaard, M. & Slothuus, R. Partisan elites as culprits? how party cues shape partisan perceptual gaps. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 62, 456–469 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carmichael, J. T. & Brulle, R. J. Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013. Environ. Polit. 26, 232–252 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen, G. L. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 808 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mayer, A. National energy transition, local partisanship? Elite cues, community identity, and support for clean power in the United States’. Energy Res. Soc.Sci. 50, 143–150 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (eds Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S.) 33–47 (Brooks/Cole, 1979).

  24. Bankert, A. Negative and positive partisanship in the 2016 US presidential elections. Polit. Behav. 43, 1467–1485 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Green, D., Palmquist, B. & Schickler, E. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. (Yale Univ. Press, 2002).

  26. Huddy, L., Mason, L. & Aarøe, L. Expressive partisanship: campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 109, 1–17 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Huddy, L., Bankert, A. & Davies, C. Expressive versus instrumental partisanship in multiparty European systems. Polit. Psychol. 39, 173–199 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhong, Chen-Bo, Dijksterhuis, A. & Galinsky, A. D. The merits of unconscious thought in creativity. Psychol. Sci. 19, 912–918 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bankert, A. in Research Handbook on Political Partisanship (eds Oscarsson, H. & Holmberg, S.) 89–101 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020).

  30. Brewer, M. B. The psychology of prejudice: ingroup love and outgroup hate? J. Soc. Issues 55, 429–444 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Abramowitz, A. I. & Webster, S. The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of US elections in the 21st century. Elect. Stud. 41, 12–22 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Abramowitz, A. I. & Webster, S. W. Negative partisanship: why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Polit. Psychol. 39, 119–135 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee, A. H., Lelkes, Y., Hawkins, C. B. & Theodoridis, A. G. Negative partisanship is not more prevalent than positive partisanship. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 951–963 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Endres, K. & Panagopoulos, C. Boycotts, buycotts, and political consumerism in America. Res. Polit. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017738632 (2017).

  35. Webster, S. W. & Abramowitz, A. I. The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the US electorate. Am. Polit. Res. 45, 621–647 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Brennan, G. & Hamlin, A. Expressive voting and electoral equilibrium. Public Choice 95, 149–175 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mayer, A. Support for displaced coal workers is popular and bipartisan in the United States: evidence from western Colorado. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 90, 102593 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hazboun, S. O. The politics of decarbonization: examining conservative partisanship and differential support for climate change science and renewable energy in Utah. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70, 101769 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stadelmann-Steffen, I. & Dermont, C. The unpopularity of incentive-based instruments: what improves the cost–benefit ratio? Public Choice 175, 37–62 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M. & Siegrist, M. Addressing climate change: determinants of consumers’ willingness to act and to support policy measures. J. Environ. Psychol. 32, 197–207 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mize, T. D. Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociol. Sci. 6, 81–117 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Williams, R. Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata J. 12, 308–331 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gustafson, A. The development of partisan polarization over the green new deal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 940–944 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jenkins-Smith, H. C. Partisan asymmetry in temporal stability of climate change beliefs. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 322–328 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Goldberg, M. H. Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 573–577 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Valkengoed, A. M. & Steg, L. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 158–163 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Steg, L. Limiting climate change requires research on climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 759–761 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Otto, I. M. et al. Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 2354–2365 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Winkelmann, R. Social tipping processes towards climate action: a conceptual framework’. Ecol. Econ. 192, 107242 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Anti-reflexivity. Theory Cult. Soc. 27, 100–133 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Campbell, T. H. & Kay, A. C. Solution aversion: on the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 809 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hamilton, L. C. Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change 104, 231–242 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ballew, M. T., Pearson, A. R., Goldberg, M. H., Rosenthal, S. A. & Leiserowitz, A. Does socioeconomic status moderate the political divide on climate change? The roles of education, income, and individualism. Glob. Environ. Change 60, 102024 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Smith, E. K. & Hempel, L. M. Alignment of values and political orientations amplifies climate change attitudes and behaviors. Climatic Change 172, 1–28 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Soc. Probl. 50, 348–373 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Roulin, N. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater: comparing data quality of crowdsourcing, online panels, and student samples. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 8, 190–196 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Walter, S. L. A tale of two sample sources: do results from online panel data and conventional data converge? J. Bus. Psychol. 34, 425–452 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. European Social Survey. European Social Survey Round 8 Data: Edition 2.0. (Norwegian Centre for Research Data, 2016).

  59. Diekmann, A. & Preisendörfer, P. Green and greenback: the behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration. Soc. 15, 441–472 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pew Research Center. Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016 (Pew Research Center, 2016).

  61. Smith, E. K. & Mayer, A. A social trap for the climate? Collective action, trust and climate change risk perception in 35 countries. Glob. Environ. Change 49, 140–153 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Mood, C. Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 26, 67–82 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Smith, E. K. & Mayer, A. Replication Data for: Multi-dimensional Partisanship Shapes Climate Policy Support and Behaviors (Harvard Dataverse, 2022); https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/8V9FDH

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Bognar for insightful feedback and suggestions, and the Leibniz Association (project DOMINOES, E.K.S.) for the support provided by allowing the survey data collection. This work is further supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) within the framework of the National Research Programme ‘Sustainable Economy: resource-friendly, future-oriented, innovative’ (NRP 73 Grant: 407340−172363, E.K.S.).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Adam P. Mayer and E. Keith Smith.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Michigan State University – Center for Global Change and Earth Observations, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Adam P. Mayer

  2. ETH Zürich – International Political Economy and Environmental Politics, Zürich, Switzerland

    E. Keith Smith

Authors
  1. Adam P. Mayer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Keith Smith
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.P.M and E.K.S. designed the research, developed and analysed the results, and co-wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Keith Smith.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Clive Bean, Alexa Spence and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–3 and Tables 1–14.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) 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

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mayer, A.P., Smith, E.K. Multidimensional partisanship shapes climate policy support and behaviours. Nat. Clim. Chang. 13, 32–39 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01548-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01548-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing