Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-g5lq8 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-11-11T19:50:17.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The exchange between citizens and elected officials: a social psychological framework for citizen climate activists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2020

DAVID K. SHERMAN Open the ORCID record for DAVID K. SHERMAN [Opens in a new window] ,
MICHELLE F. SHTEYN Open the ORCID record for MICHELLE F. SHTEYN [Opens in a new window] ,
HAHRIE HAN Open the ORCID record for HAHRIE HAN [Opens in a new window]  and
LEAF VAN BOVEN Open the ORCID record for LEAF VAN BOVEN [Opens in a new window]
DAVID K. SHERMAN*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
MICHELLE F. SHTEYN
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
HAHRIE HAN
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
LEAF VAN BOVEN
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder, CO, USA
*
*Correspondence to: Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9660, USA. E-mail: sherman@ucsb.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Citizen activists play a role in translating public concern about the climate crisis to policymakers and elevating it on the political agenda. We consider the dynamic between citizen activists and the decision-makers they seek to influence and we review psychological research relevant to advocating for climate legislation. We conducted a study with citizen activists who lobby the US Congress for a carbon pricing policy to address climate change. The study assessed how activists think about four social psychological approaches: affirmation, social norms, legacy and immediacy. The findings provide a window into activists’ intuitions about which strategies to use, whom to use them with and their perceived effectiveness. A strategy of establishing shared values and common ground (affirmation) was used most frequently overall. A strategy emphasizing the long-term costs and benefits of addressing climate change (legacy) was employed less frequently than affirmation and seen as less effective by activists but it was the only strategy that was associated with perceived increases in Congressional Representatives’ support of the policy. Citizen activists and their interactions with elected officials provide an opportunity for social-behavioral scientists to understand and potentially overcome barriers to enacting climate policy.

Information

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 5 , Special Issue 4: Behavioural Climate Policy , October 2021 , pp. 576 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baldwin, M. and Lammers, J. (2016), ‘Past-focused environmental comparisons promote proenvironmental outcomes for conservatives’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(52): 14953–14957.10.1073/pnas.1610834113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barclay, E. and Resnick, B. (2019), How big was the global climate strike? 4 million people, experts estimate. Vox. Available at: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/9/20/20876143/climate-strike-2019-september-20-crowd-estimate (Accessed: 25 September 2019).Google Scholar
Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., Nathan DeWall, C. and Zhang, L. (2007), ‘How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2): 167–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumgartner, F.R., Berry, J.M., Hojnacki, M., Leech, B.L. and Kimball, D.C. (2009), Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why, Ann Arbor: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berns, G.S., Laibson, D. and Loewenstein, G. (2007), ‘Intertemporal choice–toward an integrative framework’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(11): 482–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Binning, K.R., Sherman, D.K., Cohen, G.L. and Heitland, K. (2010), ‘Seeing the other side: Reducing political partisanship via self-affirmation in the 2008 presidential election’, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 10(1): 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, D. (2017), Cracking Washington's gridlock to save the planet. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/opinion/cracking-washingtons-gridlock-to-save-the-planet.html (Accessed: 10 June 2019).Google Scholar
Brauer, M. and Chaurand, N. (2010), ‘Descriptive norms, prescriptive norms, and social control: An intercultural comparison of people's reactions to uncivil behaviors’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3): 490–499.10.1002/ejsp.640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, T.H. and Kay, A.C. (2014), ‘Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5): 809–824.10.1037/a0037963CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canes-Wrone, B. (2015), ‘From mass preferences to policy’, Annual Review of Political Science, 18: 147–165.10.1146/annurev-polisci-050311-165552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinda, A. (2019), People in power are key to change. Boulder Daily Camera. Available at: https://www.dailycamera.com/2019/06/06/letters-boulder-agriculture-scott-miller-alyssia-chinda/ (Accessed: 13 June 2019).Google Scholar
Cialdini, R.B. (2007), ‘Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control’, Psychometrika, 72(2): 263–268.10.1007/s11336-006-1560-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G.L. and Sherman, D.K. (2014), ‘The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention’, Annual Review of Psychology, 65: 333–371.10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, G.L., Aronson, J. and Steele, C.M. (2000), ‘When beliefs yield to evidence: Reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9): 1151–1164.10.1177/01461672002611011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G.L., Sherman, D.K., Bastardi, A., Hsu, L., McGoey, M. and Ross, L. (2007), ‘Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3): 415–430.10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.415CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davenport, C. and Connelly, M. (2015), Most Republicans say they back climate action, poll finds. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html (Accessed: 8 October 2019).Google Scholar
Davidson, R.H., Oleszek, W.J., Lee, F.E. and Schickler, E. (2013), Congress and its members, Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.Google Scholar
DeNicola, E. and Subramaniam, P.R. (2014), ‘Environmental attitudes and political partisanship’, Public Health, 128(5): 404–409.10.1016/j.puhe.2014.03.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downs, A. (1957), ‘An economic theory of political action in a democracy’, Journal of Political Economy, 65(2): 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, R.E., McCright, A.M. and Yarosh, J.H. (2016), ‘The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the US’, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5): 4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagan, M. and Huang, H. (2019), A look at how people around the world view climate change. Pew Research. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/ (Accessed: 13 June 2019).Google Scholar
Fenno, R.F. (1977), ‘US house members in their constituencies: An exploration’, American Political Science Review, 71(3): 883–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, R.F. (1978), Home style: House members in their districts, Boston: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G. and O'Donoghue, T. (2002), ‘Time discounting and time preference: A critical review’, Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2): 351–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, L. (2019), Dianne Feinstein lectures children who want green new deal, portraying it as untenable. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/climate/feinstein-sunrise-green-new-deal.html (Accessed: 10 June 2019).Google Scholar
Gifford, R., Scannell, L., Kormos, C., Smolova, L., Biel, A., Boncu, S., Corral, V., Güntherf, H., Hanyu, K., Hine, D. and Kaiser, F.G. (2009), ‘Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: An 18-nation study’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1): 1–12.10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel-Fernandez, A., Mildenberger, M. and Stokes, L.C. (2019), ‘Legislative staff and representation in congress’, American Political Science Review, 113(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House of Representatives. (2020), Ways and Means; Energy and Commerce; Foreign Affairs. H.R.763 - Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763/cosponsors (Accessed: 7 August 2020).Google Scholar
Howe, P.D., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J.R. and Leiserowitz, A. (2015), ‘Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA’, Nature Climate Change, 5(6): 596–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, M., Van Boven, L., McGraw, A.P. and Johnson-Graham, L. (2011), ‘Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2): 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, D. (2012), ‘Why we are poles apart on climate change’, Nature News, 488(7411): 255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk’, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2): 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. and Rachlin, H. (2006), ‘Social discounting’, Psychological Science, 17(4): 283–286.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01699.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lammers, J. and Baldwin, M. (2018), ‘Past-focused temporal communication overcomes conservatives’ resistance to liberal political ideas’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4): 1–21.10.1037/pspi0000121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leiserowitz, A. (2005), ‘American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 25(6): 1433–1442.10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Ballew, M., Goldberg, M. and Gustafson, A. (2019), Climate change in the American mind: December 2018. Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 2018. Available at: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-december-2018/ (Accessed: 7 March 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K. (1951), Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin Cartwright). Harpers, Oxford.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G. (2005), ‘Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making’, Health Psychology, 24(4S), S49-S56.10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S49CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K. and Welch, N. (2001), ‘Risk as feelings’, Psychological Bulletin, 127(2): 267–286.10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Vraga, E., Bloodhart, B., Anderson, A., Stenhouse, N. and Leiserowitz, A. (2013), ‘A national survey of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents on energy and climate change’, George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication and Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (2003), ‘Rethinking representation’, American Political Science Review, 97(4): 515–528.10.1017/S0003055403000856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, A. (2017), ‘Political identity and paradox in oil and gas policy: A study of regulatory exaggeration in Colorado, US’, Energy Policy, 109: 452–459.10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D.R., (1974), Congress: The electoral connection (Vol. 26), New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCright, A.M. and Dunlap, R.E. (2011), ‘The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010’, The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2): 155–194.10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKibben, B. (2019), It's not entirely up to school students to save the world. The New Yorker. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/its-not-entirely-up-to-school-students-to-save-the-world (Accessed: 10 June 2019).Google Scholar
Mildenberger, M. and Tingley, D. (2017), ‘Beliefs about climate beliefs: The importance of second-order opinions for climate politics’, British Journal of Political Science, 49(4): 1–29.Google Scholar
Milfont, T.L., Evans, L., Sibley, C.G., Ries, J. and Cunningham, A. (2014), ‘Proximity to coast is linked to climate change belief’, PLoS One, 9(7): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, D.T. and Prentice, D.A. (2016), ‘Changing norms to change behavior’, Annual Review of Psychology, 67: 339–361.10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mrkva, K., Cole, J. C. and Van Boven, L. (2020), ‘Attention increases environmental risk perception’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, Z.P. (2018), ‘A sign of the times? Weak and strong polarization in the U.S. congress, 1973–2016’, Social Networks, 58: 1–10.Google Scholar
O'Donoghue, T. and Rabin, M. (1999), ‘Doing it now or later’, American Economic Review, 89(1): 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratto, F. and John, O. P. (1991), ‘Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3): 380–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, D. E. (2004), The congressional experience, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, A., Reher, S. and Toshkov, D. (2019), ‘The opinion-policy nexus in Europe and the role of political institutions’, European Journal of Political Research, 58(2): 412–434.10.1111/1475-6765.12286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogelj, J., Den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., Sha, F., Riahi, K. and Meinshausen, M. (2016), ‘Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 C’, Nature, 534(7609): 631–639.10.1038/nature18307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L., Lepper, M. and Ward, A. (2010), History of social psychology: Insights, challenges, and contributions to theory and application. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T. and Lindzey, G. (eds), Handbook of social psychology, Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
Scannell, L. and Gifford, R. (2013), ‘Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement’, Environment and Behavior, 45(1): 60–85.10.1177/0013916511421196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J. and Griskevicius, V. (2007), ‘The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms’, Psychological Science, 18(5): 429–434.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schultz, W.P., Khazian, A.M. and Zaleski, A.C. (2008), ‘Using normative social influence to promote conservation among hotel guests’, Social Influence, 3(1): 4–23.10.1080/15534510701755614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, D.K. and Cohen, G.L. (2006), The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. In Zanna, M.P. (ed), Advances in experimental social psychology, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sherman, D.K., Brookfield, J. and Ortosky, L., (2017), ‘Intergroup conflict and barriers to common ground: A self-affirmation perspective’, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(12): 1–13.10.1111/spc3.12364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, P., Jessop, D.C., Chapman, J. and Holmes, K. (2010), ‘Pro-environmental actions, climate change, and defensiveness: Do self-affirmations make a difference to people's motives and beliefs about making a difference? British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3): 553–568.10.1348/014466609X471976CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steele, C.M. (1988), The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In Zanna, M.P. (ed), Advances in experimental social psychology, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2018), Each country's share of CO2 emissions. Available at: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html (Accessed: 10 June 2019).Google Scholar
Van Boven, L. and Sherman, D.K. (2018), Actually, Republicans do believe in climate change. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/opinion/sunday/republicans-climate-change.html (Accessed: 10 June 2019).Google Scholar
Van Boven, L., Ehret, P.J. and Sherman, D.K. (2018), ‘Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4): 492–507.10.1177/1745691617748966CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Boven, L., Kane, J., McGraw, A.P. and Dale, J. (2010), ‘Feeling close: emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological distance’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6): 872–885.10.1037/a0019262CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., Welch, E. and Dunning, D. (2012), ‘The illusion of courage in self-predictions: Mispredicting one's own behavior in embarrassing situations’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(1): 1–12.10.1002/bdm.706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Boven, L., White, K. and Huber, M. (2009), ‘Immediacy bias in emotion perception: Current emotions seem more intense than previous emotions’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3): 368–382.10.1037/a0016074CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A.A., Feinberg, G.D. and Maibach, E.W. (2015a), ‘The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence’, PLoS One, 10(2): 1–8.10.1371/journal.pone.0118489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. and Maibach, E. (2018), ‘Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts’, Nature Human Behavior, 2(1): 2–3.10.1038/s41562-017-0259-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, S., Maibach, E. and Leiserowitz, A. (2015b), ‘Improving public engagement with climate change: Five “best practice” insights from psychological science’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6): 758–763.10.1177/1745691615598516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, S., Maibach, E. and Leiserowitz, A. (2019), ‘Exposure to Scientific Consensus Does Not Cause Psychological Reactance’, Environmental Communication, 13(7): 1–8.Google Scholar
Van Lange, P.A. and Bastian, B. (2019), Reducing climate change by making it less abstract. Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reducing-climate-change-by-making-it-less-abstract/ (Accessed: 10 June 2019).Google Scholar
Van Lange, P.A., Joireman, J. and Milinski, M. (2018), ‘Climate change: what psychology can offer in terms of insights and solutions’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(4): 269–274.10.1177/0963721417753945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Prooijen, A.M. and Sparks, P. (2014), ‘Attenuating initial beliefs: Increasing the acceptance of anthropogenic climate change information by reflecting on values’, Risk Analysis, 34(5): 929–936.10.1111/risa.12152CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wade-Benzoni, K.A. (1999), ‘Thinking about the future: An intergenerational perspective on the conflict and compatibility between economic and environmental interests’, American Behavioral Scientist, 42(8): 1393–1405.10.1177/00027649921954912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, G. M. and Wilson, T.D. (2018), ‘Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems’, Psychological Review, 125(5): 617–655.10.1037/rev0000115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaval, L., Markowitz, E.M. and Weber, E.U. (2015), ‘How will I be remembered? Conserving the environment for the sake of one's legacy’, Psychological Science, 26(2): 231–236.10.1177/0956797614561266CrossRefGoogle Scholar