It is essential to increase public understanding of the existence, causes and harms of climate change. In the United States, Republicans are one important audience, as the bipartisan support needed for ambitious and durable climate policy is currently lacking. An important limitation of most climate change message testing is that it is usually based on controlled experiments, which may or may not be equally effective in the real world. Here we report the effects of a one-month advertising campaign field experiment (N = 1,600) that deployed videos about the reality and risks of climate change to people in two competitive congressional districts (Missouri-02 and Georgia-07). The videos were designed to appeal to Republicans and were targeted to this audience via online advertisements. The study finds that, within the targeted congressional districts, the campaign increased Republicans’ understanding of the existence, causes and harms of climate change by several percentage points.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
All data used in this article are available on our OSF project page at https://osf.io/6emgj/.
All code used to analyse data and create figures for this article is available on our OSF project page at https://osf.io/6emgj/.
IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018); https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Leiserowitz, A. in A Better Planet: 37 Big Ideas for a Sustainable Future (ed. Esty, D.) 155–162 (Yale Univ. Press, 2019).
Leiserowitz, A. et al. Climate Change in the American Mind, April 2020 (Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 2020).
Leiserowitz, A. et al. Politics & Global Warming, April 2020 (Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 2020).
Raile, E. D., Raile, A. N. W., Salmon, C. T. & Post, L. A. Defining public will. Polit. Policy 42, 103–130 (2014).
Benegal, S. D. & Scruggs, L. A. Correcting misinformation about climate change: the impact of partisanship in an experimental setting. Climatic Change 148, 61–80 (2018).
Hurst, K. & Stern, M. J. Messaging for environmental action: the role of moral framing and message source. J. Environ. Psychol. 68, 101394 (2020).
Luong, K. T., Garrett, R. K. & Slater, M. D. Promoting persuasion with ideologically tailored science messages: a novel approach to research on emphasis framing. Sci. Commun. 41, 488–515 (2019).
Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H. & Seiden, J. Red, white and blue enough to be green: effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 65, 7–19 (2016).
Hogg, M. A. & Reid, S. A. Social identity, self-categorization and the communication of group norms. Commun. Theory 16, 7–30 (2006).
Zaller, J. R. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).
Druckman, J. N. On the limits of framing effects: who can frame? J. Polit. 63, 1041–1066 (2001).
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. in Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change (eds Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T.) 1–24 (Springer, 1986).
Bullock, J. G. Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 105, 496–515 (2011).
Ehret, P. J., van Boven, L. & Sherman, D. K. Partisan barriers to bipartisanship: understanding climate policy polarization. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 9, 308–318 (2018).
Coppock, A. E. Positive, Small, Homogeneous and Durable: Political Persuasion in Response to Information. PhD thesis, Columbia Univ. (2016); https://doi.org/10.7916/D8J966CS
Zhang, B. et al. Experimental effects of climate messages vary geographically. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 370–374 (2018).
Cheon, B. K., Melani, I. & Hong, Y. How USA-centric is psychology? An archival study of implicit assumptions of generalizability of findings to human nature based on origins of study samples. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11, 928–937 (2020).
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, eabc4046 (2020).
Kalla, J. L. & Broockman, D. E. The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: evidence from 49 field experiments. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 112, 148–166 (2018).
Coppock, A., Ekins, E. & Kirby, D. The long-lasting effects of newspaper op-eds on public opinion. Quart. J. Polit. Sci. 13, 59–87 (2018).
Goldstein, H. & Healy, M. J. R. The graphical presentation of a collection of means. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 158, 175–177 (1995).
Schmidt, S. Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 13, 90–100 (2009).
Ballew, M. T. et al. Climate change in the American mind: data, tools and trends. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 61, 4–18 (2019).
McCright, A. M. The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Popul. Environ. 32, 66–87 (2010).
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. Polit. Anal. 25, 435–464 (2017).
Gerber, A. S. & Green, D. P. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis and Interpretation (WW Norton, 2012).
We thank G. Briscoe, B. Morton and J. Etter-Krause from Centro for running and managing the advertisements throughout the campaign period; D. Burrell and his team from Wick for managing sampling and survey data collection; M. Ballew for input during the early stages of development of the experimental materials; J. Marshall for advice on the campaign; and our funders: Fenton Communications (A.L.), the Heising-Simons Foundation (A.L.), and the MacArthur Foundation (A.L.).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Phillip Ehret, Małgorzata Kossowska and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended Data Fig. 1 Pre- versus post-campaign comparisons within treatment and control group zip codes.
A threat to internal validity is that pro-climate opinion could have already been increasing regardless of the campaign. This could create apparent treatment effects that were instead driven by asymmetric changes in public opinion in the direction of the intended treatment. To rule out this explanation, we tested for differences on all dependent variables on independent samples within treatment and control zip codes. This figure shows that there were only significant positive changes in beliefs, worry, and risk perceptions among people in treatment zip codes (left panel), and virtually no changes among people in control zip codes (right panel). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
To examine whether the overall treatment effects varied depending on geographic location, we examined treatment effects on the beliefs and risk perceptions index separately for each of the two congressional districts. Results show that the overall treatment effect was very similar across the two districts. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Gray points represent predicted individual respondent scores on the dependent measure. A small horizontal jitter was applied to aid visibility of predicted individual points. MO-02 = Missouri congressional district 02; GA-07 = Georgia congressional district 07.
About this article
Cite this article
Goldberg, M.H., Gustafson, A., Rosenthal, S.A. et al. Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 573–577 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01070-1
Clear consensus among international public for government action at COP26: patriotic and public health frames produce marginal gains in support
Climatic Change (2022)
Nature Climate Change (2021)
Climatic Change (2021)