Framing effects on climate policy support: The role of values and ideology

One of the main challenges in tackling climate change is effectively communicating the issue and solutions to the public. Effective climate policy requires fundamental changes in individual citizens’ behaviour, and democratic policymakers are largely concerned with what citizens want. Policies designed to solve climate and environmental issues are unlikely to succeed unless they have broad public support. Scholars have argued that messages about politicized issues, including climate change, are most effective when adapted to target subgroups. Socio-political variables such as values, ideologies, worldviews and political orientation are important determinants of climate change perceptions and pro-environmental policy support. Research has shown that left-leaning ideological positions and egalitarian values increases support for pro-environmental policies, compared to right-leanings position and individualistic values. The nature of the policies also matters. An important explanation for the ideological divide in environmental support is the connection to market regulation, which is more compatible with the left. The aim of this study is to measure support for climate policy issues, the effect of framing on support, and the extent to which this effect is conditioned on core values and ideology. The main motivation is to analyse whether climate issues could be addressed and communicated differently to different groups based on their values and ideology – to gain policy support. Or if there is an effective way of framing policy issues for all, independent of values. In addition, I intend to explore to which degree preferences of citizens and representatives aligned, and whether a conditioned effect of values and ideology on framing is the same or different between citizens and representatives. I measure the effect of framing on climate policy support among both the general public and elected representatives in Norway, through a novel survey experiment fielded in the Norwegian Citizen Panel (NCP) and the Panel of Elected Representatives (PER). The experiment includes two policy issues, one of which deals with carbon tax on food, and the other concerns the use of public funded bicycle lanes. The frames cover two dimensions, responsibility versus benefit and individual versus collective. Specifically, they deal with public health and personal health, as well as national and personal emission reduction. Values and ideology is captured through preferences of taxation and government regulation, as well as left-right self-placement.