An official website of the United States government
Abstract Public attitudes toward climate change influence climate and energy policies and guide individual mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Over the last decade, as scientific certainty about the causes and impacts of, and solutions to the climate crisis has increased, cities, states, and regions in the United States have pursued diverse policy strategies. Yet, our understanding of how Americans’ climate views are changing remains largely limited to national trends. Here we use a large US survey dataset ( N = 27 075 ) to estimate dynamic, state-level changes in 16 climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, and policy preferences over 13 years (2008–2020). We find increases in global warming issue importance and perceived harm in every state. Policy support, however, increased in more liberal states like California and New York, but remained stable elsewhere. Year-by-year estimates of state-level climate opinions can be used to support sub-national mitigation and adaptation efforts that depend on public support and engagement.
more »
« less
Are local policy attitudes distinct?
Abstract Scholars disagree as to whether Americans’ attitudes toward local issues are structured ideologically and whether these are related to national policy ideology. We use two surveys of American adults to assess whether and to what extent Americans' local policy attitudes exhibit a similar structure as do national policy attitudes. We find that items asking about local policy are just as likely to reflect a latent dimension of policy preferences as those asking about national policy. Additionally, when local and national items are scaled separately, those scales are highly correlated. Our findings indicate that attitudes toward many local issues are aligned with national ideology. A smaller subset of attitudes about local issues appears distinctively local and possibly structured by non-ideological cleavages.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2148907
- PAR ID:
- 10630605
- Publisher / Repository:
- Cambridge University Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Political Science Research and Methods
- ISSN:
- 2049-8470
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 18
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract IntroductionRecent research shows an increase in polyamory and acceptance of polyamorous relationships. However, there is still limited research on broader attitudes toward monogamy and polyamory, particularly regarding legal rights and with a national sample. This study examines the impact of cohort, sexual orientation, and contact with polyamorists on attitudes toward monogamy and polyamorous legal rights. This research has the potential to bring more attention to polyamorous relationships, disrupt heteronormative views of relationships, and consider legal rights for those in relationships involving more than two people. MethodsWe use data from a sample of 2665 adults from the 2021 American Marriage Survey, a national survey focused on attitudes toward marriage post-marriage equality, to consider the relationship between cohort, sexual orientation, contact, and attitudes toward mononormativity and polyamory. ResultsOverall, there is support for the idea that monogamy is the norm while people are generally not supportive of granting legal rights for polyamorous relationships. Younger cohorts, LGBQ individuals, and those who know a polyamorous person are less likely to support mononormativity and more likely to support legal rights for polyamorous relationships. Furthermore, contact has a stronger impact on attitudes of Millennials and LGBQ individuals. ConclusionWhile mononormativity remains the norm and polyamory is not widely supported, given patterns of greater acceptance among younger cohorts and LGBQ individuals, there is a good possibility that acceptance will increase over time. Policy ImplicationsThis research has the potential to bring more attention to polyamorous relationships, disrupt heteronormative views of relationships, and consider legal rights for those in relationships involving more than two people.more » « less
-
This study examines the idea that attitudes toward marriage are liberalizing in the US in the face of federal recognition of same-sex marriage legislation by examining attitudes toward conventional marriage ideals, same-sex marriage, and polyamorous marriage. It draws on a sample of liberal arts college students (n = 330) in the southeastern United States as a representation of a cohort more flexible to change and greater social tolerance. Findings indicate shifts away from conventional marriage and toward marriage as more inclusive of same-sex couples. At the same time, less than half support polyamorous marriage. Unsurprisingly, religious students are more likely to support conventional marriage ideals and less likely to support same-sex marriage and students with conservative political ideology are less likely to support same-sex marriage or polyamorous marriage. In particular, the negative impact of political ideology on these attitudes is stronger for men and straight students. Women are more likely than men to support same-sex marriage. LGBQ students are less likely to support conventional views of marriage and more likely to support polyamorous marriage than heterosexual students. While college students today have entered adulthood in the age of marriage equality, and are accepting of same-sex unions, students indicate more mixed feelings about what marriage encompasses, the value of marriage, and whether to support polyamorous marriage.more » « less
-
Windmann, Sabine (Ed.)Decades of research in social identity have shown that people instinctively hold positive attitudes towards ingroup members and negative attitudes towards outgroup members. However, it remains unclear how people respond to individuals explicitly identified with both one’s ingroup and outgroup. We propose that when people are exposed to dual-identified individuals and groups (e.g., Muslim-Americans explicitly identifying with both their Muslim and American identities), intergroup attitudes will improve, driven more by the ingroup component (American), despite the presence of the outgroup component (Muslim). Moreover, we suggest exposure to dual-identification can also improve attitudes toward the broader outgroup (Muslims more generally), a phenomenon called the gateway-group effect. To test these hypotheses, we created a new measure of dual-identification and conducted three studies involving both Muslim-Americans and Mexican-Americans. Results confirmed that exposure to explicitly dual-identified groups improved attitudes towards the dual-identified group (e.g., Mexican-Americans) as well as toward the respective outgroup (e.g., Mexicans).more » « less
-
Abstract Critical Race Theory (CRT) has become a flashpoint of elite political discord, yet how Americans actually perceive CRT is unclear. We theorize that Republican elites utilized a strong framing strategy to re-define CRT as an “empty signifier” representing broader racial and cultural grievances. Using a survey and a pre-registered experiment among U.S. adults (N = 19,060), we find that this strategy worked. Republicans exhibit more familiarity with CRT and hold more negatively valenced (and wide ranging) sentiments toward CRT, relative to Democrats. Moreover, compared to teaching the legacy of racism in schools, Republicans are significantly more opposed to teaching CRT while Democrats express greater uncertainty. Our findings suggest that by framing CRT as a broad term that envelopes many grievances (including those beyond the scope of CRT), Republican elites have shaped a subset of Americans’ understanding of and attitudes toward CRT.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2024.58
