The conditional effect of conspiracy thinking on attitudes toward climate change

Joseph Uscinski, Santiago Olivella

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Even though climate scientists are nearly unanimous that climate change is real and manmade, about 40% of Americans reject the scientific consensus. Why? The largest contributing factor is partisanship; however, recent studies argue that underlying conspiracy thinking exerts a positive, linear effect on climate change denial. In this article, we reexamine the effect of conspiracy thinking on climate change attitudes by accounting for the various pathways that conspiracy thinking could drive denialism in a politically polarized environment. We find the effects of conspiracy thinking on climate change denial are not only larger than previously suggested, but also non-monotonic and conditional on individuals’ party identification. Moreover, we find evidence suggesting conspiracy thinking affects independents’ positions, and even their partisan leanings. These findings further explain why people reject the scientific consensus on climate change, and suggest that climate change denial is not merely the product of partisan polarization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalResearch and Politics
Volume4
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2017

Fingerprint

climate change
polarization
climate
evidence

Keywords

  • Climate change
  • Conspiracist ideation
  • Conspiracy theory
  • Independents
  • Partisanship

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations
  • Public Administration

Cite this

The conditional effect of conspiracy thinking on attitudes toward climate change. / Uscinski, Joseph; Olivella, Santiago.

In: Research and Politics, Vol. 4, No. 4, 01.10.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{06c16539a3ab4dccbd6dda05037c21ee,
title = "The conditional effect of conspiracy thinking on attitudes toward climate change",
abstract = "Even though climate scientists are nearly unanimous that climate change is real and manmade, about 40{\%} of Americans reject the scientific consensus. Why? The largest contributing factor is partisanship; however, recent studies argue that underlying conspiracy thinking exerts a positive, linear effect on climate change denial. In this article, we reexamine the effect of conspiracy thinking on climate change attitudes by accounting for the various pathways that conspiracy thinking could drive denialism in a politically polarized environment. We find the effects of conspiracy thinking on climate change denial are not only larger than previously suggested, but also non-monotonic and conditional on individuals’ party identification. Moreover, we find evidence suggesting conspiracy thinking affects independents’ positions, and even their partisan leanings. These findings further explain why people reject the scientific consensus on climate change, and suggest that climate change denial is not merely the product of partisan polarization.",
keywords = "Climate change, Conspiracist ideation, Conspiracy theory, Independents, Partisanship",
author = "Joseph Uscinski and Santiago Olivella",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/2053168017743105",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
journal = "Research and Politics",
issn = "2053-1680",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The conditional effect of conspiracy thinking on attitudes toward climate change

AU - Uscinski, Joseph

AU - Olivella, Santiago

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Even though climate scientists are nearly unanimous that climate change is real and manmade, about 40% of Americans reject the scientific consensus. Why? The largest contributing factor is partisanship; however, recent studies argue that underlying conspiracy thinking exerts a positive, linear effect on climate change denial. In this article, we reexamine the effect of conspiracy thinking on climate change attitudes by accounting for the various pathways that conspiracy thinking could drive denialism in a politically polarized environment. We find the effects of conspiracy thinking on climate change denial are not only larger than previously suggested, but also non-monotonic and conditional on individuals’ party identification. Moreover, we find evidence suggesting conspiracy thinking affects independents’ positions, and even their partisan leanings. These findings further explain why people reject the scientific consensus on climate change, and suggest that climate change denial is not merely the product of partisan polarization.

AB - Even though climate scientists are nearly unanimous that climate change is real and manmade, about 40% of Americans reject the scientific consensus. Why? The largest contributing factor is partisanship; however, recent studies argue that underlying conspiracy thinking exerts a positive, linear effect on climate change denial. In this article, we reexamine the effect of conspiracy thinking on climate change attitudes by accounting for the various pathways that conspiracy thinking could drive denialism in a politically polarized environment. We find the effects of conspiracy thinking on climate change denial are not only larger than previously suggested, but also non-monotonic and conditional on individuals’ party identification. Moreover, we find evidence suggesting conspiracy thinking affects independents’ positions, and even their partisan leanings. These findings further explain why people reject the scientific consensus on climate change, and suggest that climate change denial is not merely the product of partisan polarization.

KW - Climate change

KW - Conspiracist ideation

KW - Conspiracy theory

KW - Independents

KW - Partisanship

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048760700&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048760700&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/2053168017743105

DO - 10.1177/2053168017743105

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85048760700

VL - 4

JO - Research and Politics

JF - Research and Politics

SN - 2053-1680

IS - 4

ER -