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.

  • Registered Report
  • Published:

A representative survey experiment of motivated climate change denial

Nature Climate Change volume 14, pages 198–204 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Climate change is arguably one of the greatest challenges today. Although the scientific consensus is that human activities caused climate change, a substantial part of the population downplays or denies human responsibility. In this registered report, we present causal evidence on a potential explanation for this discrepancy: motivated reasoning. We conducted a tailored survey experiment on a broadly representative sample of 4,000 US adults to provide causal evidence on how motivated cognition shapes beliefs about climate change and influences the demand for slanted information. We further explore the role of motives on environmentally harmful behaviour. Contrary to our hypotheses, we find no evidence that motivated cognition can help to explain widespread climate change denial and environmentally harmful behaviour.

protocol registration The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 10 May 2023. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24523357.v1.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: Distribution of beliefs about climate change.
Fig. 2: Estimated average treatment effects for three comparisons.
Fig. 3: Estimated heterogeneous treatment effects for three comparisons (median split income).

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data and materials are openly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) website at this link: https://osf.io/etsf2/.

Code availability

All analysis code (completed in STATA) are openly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) website at this link: https://osf.io/etsf2/.

References

  1. IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  2. Powell, J. Scientists reach 100% consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 37, 183–184 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lynas, M., Houlton, B. Z. & Perry, S. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 114005 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Funk, C. & Hefferon, M. US Public Views on Climate and Energy (Pew Research Center, 2019); https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2019/11/PS.11.25.19_climate-energy-FINAL.pdf

  5. Leiserowitz, A. et al. Climate Change in the American Mind: April 2019 (Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., 2019).

  6. 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  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hornsey, M. J. & Lewandowsky, S. A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1454–1464 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Druckman, J. N. & McGrath, M. C. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 111–119 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Haaland, I., Roth, C. & Wohlfart, J. Designing information provision experiments. J. Econ. Lit. 61, 3–40 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dana, J., Weber, R. A. & Kuang, J. X. Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Econ. Theory 33, 67–80 (2007).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Bénabou, R. & Tirole, J. Identity, morals, and taboos: beliefs as assets. Q. J. Econ. 126, 805–855 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grossman, Z. & der Weele, J. J. Self-image and willful ignorance in social decisions. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 15, 173–217 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Di Tella, R., Perez-Truglia, R., Babino, A. & Sigman, M. Conveniently upset: avoiding altruism by distorting beliefs about others’ altruism. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 3416–3442 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Haisley, E. C. & Weber, R. A. Self-serving interpretations of ambiguity in other-regarding behavior. Games Econ. Behav. 68, 614–625 (2010).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Exley, C. L. & Kessler, J. B. Information avoidance and image concerns. Econ. J. 133, 3153–3168 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Golman, R., Hagmann, D. & Loewenstein, G. Information avoidance. J. Econ. Lit. 55, 96–135 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. In denial—Facebook’s growing friendship with climate misinformation. Stop Funding Heat https://stopfundingheat.info/facebook-in-denial/ (2021).

  18. Scheufele, D. A. & Krause, N. M. Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7662–7669 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cook, J. in Research Anthology on Environmental and Societal Impacts of Climate Change (eds Chiluwa, I. E. & Samoilenko, S. A.) 1633–1658 (Information Science Reference, IGI Global, 2022).

  20. der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. & Maibach, E. Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Glob. Chall. 1, 1600008 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bursztyn, L., Egorov, G., Haaland, I., Rao, A. & Roth, C. Justifying dissent. Q. J. Econ. 138, 1403–1451 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hainmueller, J., Mummolo, J. & Xu, Y. How much should we trust estimates from multiplicative interaction models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice. Polit. Anal. 27, 163–192 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Blackwell, M. & Olson, M. P. Reducing model misspecification and bias in the estimation of interactions. Polit. Anal. 30, 495–514 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Beiser-McGrath, J. & Beiser-McGrath, L. F. The consequences of model misspecification for the estimation of nonlinear interaction effects. Polit. Anal. 31, 278–287 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ballew, M. T. et al. Climate change in the American mind: data, tools, and trends. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 61, 4–18 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Lowe, L. & Visser, P. S. The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: a study of popular concern about global warming. Climatic Change 77, 7–43 (2006).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C. & Leiserowitz, A. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 462–466 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature 465, 686–687 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Chopra, F., Haaland, I. & Roth, C. Do People Value More Informative News? (CESifo, 2019).

  30. Andre, P., Boneva, T., Chopra, F. & Falk, A. Misperceived Social Norms and Willingness to Act Against Climate Change (ECONtribute, 2022).

  31. Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108, 480–498 (1990).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Epley, N. & Gilovich, T. The mechanics of motivated reasoning. J. Econ. Perspect. 30, 133–140 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stötzer, L. S. & Zimmermann, F. A Note on Motivated Cognition and Discriminatory Beliefs (CESifo, 2022).

  34. Exley, C. L. Excusing selfishness in charitable giving: the role of risk. Rev. Econ. Stud. 83, 587–628 (2016).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Konow, J. Fair shares: accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Am. Econ. Rev. 90, 1072–1092 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gneezy, U., Saccardo, S., Serra-Garcia, M. & van Veldhuizen, R. Bribing the self. Games Econ. Behav. 120, 311–324 (2020).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Saccardo, S. & Serra-Garcia, M. Cognitive Flexibility or Moral Commitment? Evidence of Anticipated Belief Distortion (CESifo, 2020).

  38. Kahan, D. M., Scott, R. & Kosslyn, S. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Wiley, 2016).

  39. Dietz, T. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14081–14087 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. Mullainathan, S. & Shleifer, A. The market for news. Am. Econ. Rev. 95, 1031–1053 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Charness, G., Oprea, R. & Yuksel, S. How do people choose between biased information sources? Evidence from a laboratory experiment. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 19, 1656–1691 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Chopra, F., Haaland, I. & Roth, C. Do people demand fact-checked news? Evidence from US Democrats. J. Public Econ. 205, 104549 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Falk, A. & Zimmermann, F. Attention and dread: experimental evidence on preferences for information. Manage. Sci. (in the press).

  44. Ganguly, A. & Tasoff, J. Fantasy and dread: the demand for information and the consumption utility of the future. Manage. Sci. 63, 4037–4060 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nielsen, K. Preferences for the resolution of uncertainty and the timing of information. J. Econ. Theory 189, 105090 (2020).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Zimmermann, F. Clumped or piecewise? Evidence on preferences for information. Manage. Sci. 61, 740–753 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bago, B., Rand, D. G. & Pennycook, G. Reasoning about climate change. PNAS Nexus 2, pgad100 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A. & Fielding, K. S. Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 614–620 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  49. Palm, R., Lewis, G. B. & Feng, B. What causes people to change their opinion about climate change? Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 107, 883–896 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bolsen, T. & Druckman, J. N. Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change? Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21, 389–402 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. & Cook, F. L. The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Polit. Behav. 36, 235–262 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Peterson, E. & Iyengar, S. Partisan gaps in political information and information-seeking behavior: motivated reasoning or cheerleading? Am. J. Polit. Sci. 65, 133–147 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bayes, R., Druckman, J. N., Goods, A. & Molden, D. C. When and how different motives can drive motivated political reasoning. Polit. Psychol. 41, 1031–1052 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Charness, G., Gneezy, U. & Halladay, B. Experimental methods: pay one or pay all. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 131, 141–150 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Blanco, M., Engelmann, D., Koch, A. K. & Normann, H.-T. Belief elicitation in experiments: is there a hedging problem? Exp. Econ. 13, 412–438 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Myers, K. F., Doran, P. T., Cook, J., Kotcher, J. E. & Myers, T. A. Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 104030 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  57. Exley, C. L. & Kessler, J. B. Motivated Errors (NBER, 2019).

  58. Stantcheva, S. How to run surveys: a guide to creating your own identifying variation and revealing the invisible. Annu. Rev. Econ. 15, 205–234 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Heen, M., Lieberman, J. D. & Meithe, T. D. A Comparison of Different Online Sampling Approaches for Generating National Samples (Center for Crime and Justice Policy, Univ. Nevada, 2014).

  60. Stötzer, L. & Zimmermann, F. Motivated climate change denial [registered report stage 1 protocol]. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24523357.v1 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy - EXC 2126/1 - 390838866. Funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through CRC TR 224 (Project A01) is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IZA, Bonn, Germany

    Lasse S. Stoetzer & Florian Zimmermann

  2. Department of Economics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Florian Zimmermann

Authors
  1. Lasse S. Stoetzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Zimmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the paper equally. L.S.S. and F.Z. both formalized and contributed to the research goals, designed the survey experiment and prepared the manuscript with feedback from each other. L.S.S. conducted the power analysis in consultation with F.Z., and F.Z. developed the outcome measures in consultation with L.S.S. L.S.S and F.Z. contributed to data collection, analysed the data and reviewed and approved the final manuscript together.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Zimmermann.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks James Druckman 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. 1–4, Tables 1–26 and Discussions.

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

Stoetzer, L.S., Zimmermann, F. A representative survey experiment of motivated climate change denial. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14, 198–204 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01910-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01910-2

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