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:

The durable, bipartisan effects of emphasizing the cost savings of renewable energy

Nature Energy volume 7, pages 1023–1030 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Effective communication can help increase bipartisan support for renewable energy. Prior research suggests that support for renewable energy may be determined, in part, by which of its benefits are emphasized. Here we use a three-stage, longitudinal experiment (N = 2,891) to compare the immediate and over-time effects of three informational frames of renewable energy’s benefits (cost savings, economy boost and global warming mitigation). We tested each message’s effects on US Democrats’ and Republicans’ beliefs about and support for renewable energy, and we compared the longevity of these effects over a period of three weeks. We find that cost savings was the most effective frame—both in terms of immediate effect size on beliefs and in the longevity of those effects—with negligible differences between political groups. The durability of all effects exhibited a consistent pattern: an initial steep drop in effect size followed by a plateau.

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: The design of the three-stage longitudinal experiment.
Fig. 2: Framing effects on corresponding beliefs by political party.
Fig. 3: Portion of effect remaining by party.
Fig. 4: Framing effects on support by political party.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used for this study (all three time points) are available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6cf93/) as Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) data files (.sav). Alternative data formats are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

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

  2. Stokes, L. C. & Warshaw, C. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat. Energy 2, 17107 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rabe, B. G. Can We Price Carbon? American and Comparative Environmental Policy (MIT Press, 2018).

  4. Stokes., L. C. The politics of renewable energy policies: the case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada. Energy Policy 56, 490–500 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bayulgen, O. & Benegal, S. Green priorities: how economic frames affect perceptions of renewable energy in the United States. Energy Res. Social Sci. 47, 28–36 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. & Cook, F. L. How frames can undermine support for scientific adaptations: politicization and the status-quo bias. Public Opin. Q. 78, 1–26 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ansolabehere, S. & Konisky, D. M. Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming (MIT Press, 2014).

  8. Scrase, J. I. & Ockwell, D. G. The role of discourse and linguistic framing effects in sustaining high carbon energy policy—an accessible introduction. Energy Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.010 (2010).

  9. Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 10, 103–126 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Druckman, J. N. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behav. 23, 225–256 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Entman, R. M. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun. 43, 51–58 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bernauer, T. & Mcgrath, L. F. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 680–683 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R. & Jeffries, C. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 600–603 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Clarke, C. E. et al. Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy 81, 131–140 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychol. Sci. 22, 34–38 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W. & Leiserowitz, A. A. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change 113, 1105–1112 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nisbet, M. C. Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environment 51, 12–23 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dixon, G., Hmielowski, J. & Ma, Y. Improving climate change acceptance among U.S. conservatives through value-based message targeting. Sci. Commun. 39, 520–534 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Andre, H. Value orientation and framing as determinants of stated willingness to pay for eco-labeled electricity. Energy Effic. 4, 185–192 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mills, S. B., Rabe, B. G. & Borick, C. Widespread Public Support for Renewable Energy Mandates Despite Proposed Rollbacks (Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, 2015); https://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/22/widespread-public-support-for-renewable-energy-mandates-despite-proposed-rollbacks

  21. Gray, M., Ljungwaldh, S., Watson, L. & Kok, I. Powering Down Coal: Navigating the Economic and Financial Risks in the Last Years of Coal Power (Carbon Tracker Initiative, 2019); https://carbontracker.org/reports/coal-portal/

  22. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019 (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2020); https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019

  23. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q. J. Econ. 106, 1039–1061 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Q. 52, 155–194 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Guber, D. L. A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 93–115 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bergquist, P., Konisky, D. M. & Kotcher, J. Energy policy and public opinion: patterns, trends and future directions. Prog. Energy 2, 032003 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bergquist, P., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. C. Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 054019 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Benjamin, D., Por, H.-H. & Budescu, D. Climate change versus global warming: who is susceptible to the framing of climate change? Environ. Behav. 49, 745–770 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gustafson, A. et al. Republicans and Democrats differ in why they support renewable energy. Energy Policy 141, 111448 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lecheler, S. & De Vreese, C. D. How long do news framing effects last? A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11735254 (2016).

  32. Coppock, A., Ekins, E. & Kirby, D. The long-lasting effects of newspaper op-eds on public opinion. Q. J. Political Sci. 13, 59–87 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Feldman, L. & Hart., P. S. Climate change as a polarizing cue: framing effects on public support for low-carbon energy policies. Glob. Environ. Change 51, 54–66 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schuldt, J. P., Konrath, S. H. & Schwarz, N. “Global warming” or “climate change”?: whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opin. Q. 75, 115–124 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Edwards, K. & Smith, E. E. A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71, 5–24 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am. J. Political Sci. 50, 755–769 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Coppock, A. E. Positive, Small, Homogeneous, and Durable: Political Persuasion in Response to Information. PhD thesis, Columbia Univ. (2016).

  38. Guess, A. & Coppock, A. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br. J. Political Sci. 50, 1497–1515 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Coppock, A., Hill, S. J. & Vavreck, L. The small effects of political advertising are small regardless of context, message, sender, or receiver: evidence from 59 real-time randomized experiments. Sci. Adv. 6, 40–46 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bayer, P. & Ovodenko, A. Many voices in the room: a national survey experiment on how framing changes views toward fracking in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 56, 101213 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication. J. Environ. Psychol. 62, 49–58 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hart, P. S. & Feldman, L. Would it be better to not talk about climate change? The impact of climate change and air pollution frames on support for regulating power plant emissions. J. Environ. Psychol. 60, 1–8 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P. & Piquero, A. Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology 36, 859–866 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Broockman, D. E., Kalla, J. L. & Sekhon, J. S. The design of field experiments with survey outcomes: a framework for selecting more efficient, robust, and ethical designs. Political Anal. 25, 435–464 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gerber, A. S. & Green, D. P. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, & Interpretation (WW Norton, 2012).

  46. Cumming, G. Inference by eye: reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Stat. Med. 28, 205–220 (2009).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Energy Foundation, Heising–Simons Foundation, 11th Hour Project and the MacArthur Foundation. The authors thank N. Kirsch for assisting with the literature review. The design and analyses of study were greatly improved by ideas and insights from A. Coppock and M. Ballew.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Abel Gustafson

  2. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Matthew H. Goldberg, Karine Lacroix, Seth A. Rosenthal & Anthony Leiserowitz

  3. McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

    Parrish Bergquist

Authors
  1. Abel Gustafson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew H. Goldberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Parrish Bergquist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karine Lacroix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Seth A. Rosenthal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anthony Leiserowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.G. conceptualized the study and methodology. M.H.G., P.B., K.L., S.A.R. and A.L. advised on the study’s concept, design, measures and stimuli. A.G. and M.H.G. collected the data. A.G., M.H.G. and P.B. analysed the data. A.G. wrote the original draft, with contributions and revisions from M.H.G., P.B., K.L., S.A.R. and A.L. A.L. obtained funding for the project.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abel Gustafson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Energy thanks the anonymous reviewers 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 study details, analyses and results.

Reporting Summary.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor 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

Gustafson, A., Goldberg, M.H., Bergquist, P. et al. The durable, bipartisan effects of emphasizing the cost savings of renewable energy. Nat Energy 7, 1023–1030 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01099-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01099-2

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