Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy

This article has been updated


Ambitious policies for limiting climate change require strong public support1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. However, the public’s appetite for such policies, as observed in most countries, is rather limited2,9. One possibility for enhancing public support could be to shift the main justification in the public policy discourse on greenhouse gas mitigation from benefits of reducing climate change risks (the conventional justification) to other types of benefit. Technological innovation, green jobs, community building and health benefits are widely discussed candidates10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. The intuition is that reframing greenhouse gas mitigation efforts and their benefits in such terms could make them more personally relevant as well as more emotionally engaging and appealing to citizens20,21. On the basis of results from two survey-embedded experiments (combined N = 1,675), and in contrast to some earlier studies, we conclude that simple reframing of climate policy is unlikely to increase public support, and outline reasons for this finding. As the added value of other justifications remains unclear at best and potentially nil, sticking to climate risk reduction as the dominant justification seems worthwhile.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



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

Figure 1: Emphasis-framing experiments.
Figure 2: Climate policy support.
Figure 3: Framing effects.

Change history

  • 05 May 2016

    In the version of this Letter originally published, two coding errors led to 37 respondents in experiment 1 and 22 respondents in experiment 2 being incorrectly included in the statistical analysis. The Supplementary Information has been updated to reflect this, and Figure 3 has been corrected in all versions of this Letter.


  1. Allo, M. & Loureiro, M. L. The role of social norms on preferences towards climate change policies: a meta-analysis. Energy Policy 73, 563–574 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernauer, T. Climate change politics. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 16, 421–448 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kachi, A., Bernauer, T. & Gampfer, R. Climate policy in hard times: are the pessimists right? Ecol. Econ. 114, 227–241 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lam, S. P. Predicting support of climate policies by using a protection motivation model. Clim. Policy 15, 321–338 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Leiserowitz, A. et al. Public Support for Climate and Energy Policies in April 2013 (Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, Univ. Yale and Univ. George Mason, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E. & Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environ. Polit. 25, 338–358 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stehr, N. Climate policy: democracy is not an inconvenience. Nature 525, 449–450 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Stokes, B., Eike, R. & Carle, J. Global Concern about Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions Pew Research Centers Global Attitudes Project (2015);

  10. Bain, P. G. et al. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Clim. Change 2, 600–603 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bain, P. G. et al. Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Clim. Change 6, 154–157 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Drews, S. & van den Bergh, J. What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim. Policy (2015).

  13. Hardisty, D. J., Johnson, E. J. & Weber, E. U. A dirty word or a dirty world? Attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory. Psychol. Sci. 21, 86–92 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hart, P. S. One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Sci. Commun. 33, 28–51 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hart, P. S. & Nisbet, E. C. Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun. Res. 39, 701–723 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lakoff, G. Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environ. Commun. 4, 70–81 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lockwood, M. Does the framing of climate policies make a difference to public support? Evidence from UK marginal constituencies. Clim. Policy 11, 1097–1112 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Myers, T. A. et al. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change 113, 1105–1112 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Petrovic, N., Madrigano, J. & Zaval, L. Motivating mitigation: when health matters more than climate change. Climatic Change 126, 245–254 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Parag, Y., Capstick, S. & Poortinga, W. Policy attribute framing: a comparison between three policy instruments for personal emissions reduction. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 30, 889–905 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith, N. & Leiserowitz, A. The role of emotion in global warming support and opposition. Risk Anal. 34, 937–948 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Boykoff, M. T. Media discourse on the climate slowdown. Nature Clim. Change 4, 156–158 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Elsasser, S. W. & Dunlap, R. E. Leading voices in the denier choir: conservative columnists’ dismissal of global warming and denigration of climate science. Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 754–776 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mayer, F. M. Stories of Climate Change: Competing Narratives, the Media, and U.S. Public Opinion 2001–2010 Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Discussion Paper Series #D-72 (2012);

  26. O’Neill, S., Williams, H. T. P., Kurz, T., Wiersma, B. & Bookoff, M. Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nature Clim. Change 5, 380–385 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Painter, J. Poles Apart: the International Reporting of Climate Scepticism (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Druckman, J. N. & Leeper, T. J. Learning more from political communication experiments: pretreatment and its effects. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 56, 875–896 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kahan, D. M. et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change 2, 732–735 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The research for this article was financially supported by European Research Council (ERC) Advanced Grant no. 295456 (Sources of Legitimacy in Global Environmental Governance) and supported by ETH Zurich. We are particularly grateful to A. Kachi for contributing to the research design and data collection at an early stage of the project. We are also grateful to A. Prakash, R. Dunlap, and other participants of the Environmental Politics and Governance conference for very helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



T.B. conceived and designed the experiments and performed the experiments. L.F.M. analysed the data. T.B. and L.F.M. co-wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Bernauer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 2515 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bernauer, T., McGrath, L. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nature Clim Change 6, 680–683 (2016).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


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