Research Report Final

Marissa Haeny and Lauren ShursonResearch Report

Introduction

Political scientists have been interested in influences of political ideology on views of

nature and the environment for several decades (Bowman 1977; Buttel and Flinn 1976). In more

recent years, the interest has turned from the influence of political ideology on views of nature

and environment to the level of environmental concern an individual exhibits (Davidson and

Haan 2012; Neumayer 2004). Political ideology is one of many demographic factors that have

been studied when examining environmental attitudes. Education, age, social class and

socioeconomic factors, sex and gender, religion, ethnicity, and place of residence have also been

examined (Bonnett and Williams 1998; Bradley, Waliczek, and Zajicek 1999; Davidson and

Haan 2012; Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998; Van Liere and Dunlap 1980).

However, the impact of self-identified political ideology on beliefs and views on climate

change of college students, has not been studied. In this study, climate change is defined as any

long-term significant change in the weather patterns of an area. This study asks about the

relationship between the two, as it is important to study because climate change and

environmental concern have become hotly debated political issues and the two main American

political parties have differing beliefs on the topics. The age group is also significant, as the

years spent in college are when people begin to develop their own political beliefs, independent

of other influences (Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009). It’s hypothesized that self-identified

political ideology influences beliefs on climate change, and that people aligning more on the left

side of the political spectrum – very liberal, liberal, or moderately liberal – will hold the opinion

that climate change is occurring and is a current problem, while those on the other side of the

spectrum – very conservative, conservative, or moderately conservative – will either believe that

climate change is occurring, but is not an issue, or that it is not occurring at all.

1


Literature Review

The literature examined in this review spans 36 years, with topics ranging from primary

school children’s attitudes towards nature and the environment to gender, political ideology, and

climate change beliefs. The sources focus on either views of the environment and nature or levels

of environmental concern, while using certain demographic factors as predictive mechanisms.

One thing none of the literature does, though, is examine whether or not there is a relationship

between self-identified political ideology and views of climate change. Two articles come close

to filling this gap in the literature; however, both are from the 1970s, where the results are likely

outdated. Buttel and Flinn’s research compares ideology to environmental attitudes, but not

among college-aged students, and Bowman’s research analyzes college-aged students’

environmental opinions without considering their political ideology (Bowman 1977; Buttel and

Flinn 1976). This gap needs to be filled for a modern, holistic analysis to be done on

demographic factors and their influence on environmental attitudes of the general public. Neglect

to do so will lead to a misrepresentation of certain sectors of society, as data from high school

students cannot be extrapolated to college students, nor can data on views of nature be

extrapolated to views on climate change.

Impact of age and knowledge on environmental concern

Attitudes towards nature and the environment were examined in a 1998 study of primary

school aged children (Bonnett and Williams 1998). The study posits that many experiences

children have while in primary school have considerable impact on their attitudes towards the

environment. Its findings indicate that, while the attitudes of children of this age towards nature

and the environment are generally very positive, they can involve a number of limitations,

dichotomies and ambivalences. Children felt a strong empathy towards certain aspects of nature,

2


particularly 'animals' and trees, and once these aspects were associated with the idea of 'the

environment', strong protective feelings were invoked. There also appeared to be a strong moral

component to their relationship with these same aspects of nature.

In another study performed in 1999, high school students were administered a

questionnaire before and after an environmental science course (Bradley, Waliczek, and Zajicek

1999). This study addressed the question of whether increased knowledge concerning the

environment could improve students' environmental attitudes, hypothesizing that an increased

knowledge would positively impact a student’s environmental attitude. The results indicated

significant differences in both knowledge gain and attitudes of students after exposure, with

students' environmental knowledge scores increasing by 22% after completing the short course.

Students' environmental attitudes became more environmentally favorable, too. A statistically

significant correlation was found between pretest knowledge scores and pretest attitude scores

and between posttest knowledge scores and posttest attitude scores. In both cases, students

having higher knowledge scores had more favorable environmental attitudes compared with

students with lower knowledge scores, supporting the hypothesis.

In 1977, a survey of college-aged students was conducted on student awareness of the

environment (Bowman 1977). It addressed the students’ current degree of environmental concern

and background knowledge of the subject. The study yielded that many students are pro-

environmental, even over issues that uphold materialism, including the national economy. It was

also found that most students also believe there is a need for strong environmental action.

These sources examine how age and knowledge impact views of nature and the

environment. Klineberg et al. suggests that age is one of two demographic variables that are

consistently correlated with environmental concern across all the different measures. They argue

3


that younger members of the public are more concerned about issues of environmental quality

and more committed to environmental protection than their older counterparts (Klineberg,

McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). Van Liere and Dunlap argued a similar hypothesis, stating

that younger people are more inclined to care about environmental issues as opposed to older

people (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980).

Gender and sex as predictive factors of environmental concern

Many demographic characteristics have been studied as predictive factors for

environmental concern. Van Liere and Dunlap examined several demographic indicators of

environmental concern, sex being one of them, in their 1980 review. While they had limited data,

as not many researchers before 1980 had looked at sex as a predictive or influential factor, they

concluded that the overall pattern suggests that sex is not substantially associated with

environmental concern (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980).

In a recent 2012 study, a similar relationship between attitudes towards climate change

and gender were found in Alberta, Canada (Davidson and Haan 2012). The authors hypothesized

that gendered differences in the perceived significance of impacts are more likely the outcome of

socialization, rather than social roles. In general, the findings supported this hypothesis, with

women expressing significantly greater awareness and sense of perceived impacts about climate

change than men. Potentially the most noteworthy finding is that the gender gap in climate

change beliefs and perceived impacts is not due to gendered social roles, but rather appear to be

caused by the lower tendency for women to hold to a conservative political ideology relative to

men. While these differences were present, Davidson and Haan believe that the cleavages were

more predominantly associated with socioeconomic factors, therefore making gender a weaker

predictive factor.

4


Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach found opposing results in their 1998 study

(Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). The found that gender is a significant predictor

for environmental concern. They posit that women are more prepared than men to pay the

economic or regulatory costs of environmental protection. Women showed more support for pro-

environment choices and are more likely than men to reject the suggestion that pollution control

measures are unfair to industry, the authors argue. These varying results could be due to the time

periods in which the data was collected, but discrepancies in the data will be discussed later.

Socioeconomic status as a predictive factor of environmental concern

Davidson and Haan not only examined gender in their study, but also socioeconomic

factors (Davidson and Haan 2012). While women exhibited greater environmental awareness,

the authors posit that these differences appeared to be predominantly associated with

socioeconomic factors. Other research examines household income as a strong predictor of

respondents' willingness to pay $200 more each year for the products they consume, if price

increases are a result of new pollution controls (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998).

Klineberg et al. states that income is also related to the belief that environmental protection

should be given priority over the creation of jobs.

Van Liere and Dunlap hypothesize that environmental concern is positively associated

with social class as indicated by education, income, and occupational prestige (Van Liere and

Dunlap 1980). This hypothesis rests on Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory, and assumes that

concern for environmental quality is a luxury, which can be indulged only after more basic

material needs are met. Their results negate their hypothesis, as evidence provides very weak

support for the assertion that social class is positively associated with environmental concern.

5


What support there is, they argue, rests primarily on the moderately strong relationship between

environmental concern and education (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980).

Education as a predictive factor of environmental concern

Education is another demographic element that is often examined as a predictive factor

for environmental concern. Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach found education is one of

only two demographic variables that is consistently correlated with environmental concern

across all the different measures, the second being age. The authors argue that younger and

better-educated members of the public appear to be more concerned about issues of

environmental quality and are more committed to environmental protection, almost regardless of

the way the dependent variable is measured. They found that there are consistently positive

relationships between education and willingness to increase public spending to protect the

environment (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). The level of education an individual

has obtained consistently exhibits a positive relationship with approval of explicit trade-offs with

economic costs or government intervention for positive environmental action and higher levels

of concern about various types of pollution in one’s own community (Klineberg, McKeever, and

Rothenbach 1998).

Political ideology as a predictive factor of environmental concern

Self –identified political ideology is likely the most commonly used demographic

characteristic that is studied as a predictive factor of environmental concern. In 2004, Neumayer

examined the causal relationship between individual’s ideological orientation and party positions

within left-right wing politics in regards to pro-environmental beliefs. His results showed that

self-identified ideology plays a large role in determining individual’s willingness to support the

environment. They also indicate that Democrats are more supportive of the environment as

6


opposed to their Republican counterparts. Internationally, it was found that left-wing parties not

only embrace support of environmental issues in elections, but also are more willing to sacrifice

economically to preserve the environment (Neumayer 2004).

Davidson and Haan also discussed political ideology as a predictive element in

environmental concern and beliefs on climate change. They found that differences in climate

change beliefs are most closely associated with differences in political ideology, with individuals

voting for the conservative party being significantly less likely to anticipate societal climate

change impacts (Davidson and Haan 2012). In three of the four models used, conservative voting

patterns were significantly and negatively associated with climate change beliefs. Davidson and

Haan cite other research where political ideology has been identified as a significant predictor of

climate change beliefs and/or concern (Whitmarsh 2011; Eurobarometer 2009; Dunlap and

McCright 2008; Hamilton 2008; Tjernstrom and Tietenberg 2008). Buttel and Flinn, in 1976,

argued contrasting results. They found that, in several statewide surveys in Wisconsin and

Washington, neither political party identification nor political ideology has a substantial effect on

awareness of environmental problems, though a relationship does exist between party

identification and environmental concern among middle and upper class samples. Despite the

major impact of political liberalism on support for environmental reform, they argued that there

were no partisan differences in such support (Buttel and Flinn 1976).

When measuring the espousal of an ecological worldview, Klineberg et al. found similar

results to Buttel and Flinn. Political moderates, the authors posit, are more likely than

conservatives to reject the belief that nature exists to be used by humans and that concerns about

the global environment are exaggerated. Liberals are more likely to believe that global warming

is a serious threat (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). However, when measuring the

7


approval of explicit trade-offs with economic costs or government intervention for positive

environmental action, Klineberg et al. found political ideology to be a consistent predictive

factor; respondents who consider themselves liberal or moderate were consistently more likely

than self-identified conservatives to support stronger government regulations or more public

spending to protect the environment (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). These

inconsistent results will be discussed later.

Discrepancies

Differing results have been found throughout the literature on this topic, namely with the

demographic elements of gender and political ideology as predictive factors. Van Liere and

Dunlap and Davidson and Haan found that gender was not a strong predictive factor for

environmental concern, while Klineberg et al. argued opposing views. Similarly, for political

ideology, Neumayer and Davidson and Haan argued that political ideology could be used as a

predictive factor for environmental concern, while Klineberg et al. argued the opposite.

The main purpose of Klineberg et al.’s study was to “clarifies the reasons for the

inconsistent relationships reported in previous research between measures of environmental

concern and standard demographic predictors,” (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998).

From the beginning of their study, the authors claimed that it matters greatly how experiments

measure environmental concern. They argue that the only two demographic variables that are

consistently correlated with environmental concern across all the different measures are age and

education; otherwise, the determinants of environmental concern vary greatly depending on the

wording and framing of the questionnaire items (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998).

In relation to the discrepancies seen in the specific sources analyzed in this literature

review, Klineberg et al. suggests that political ideology is most consistently predictive for

8


questions that measure environmental protection against an explicit acceptance of increased

government intervention, but cannot be reliably used for other questions. A clear picture was not

found for the predictive role gender plays, as was found for political ideology, and Klineberg et

al. suggests further research for more clarification. However, they did find that women were

more likely to reject traditional human-over-nature beliefs, and to express concern about local

and statewide pollution. They were more prepared than men to pay the regulatory, but not the

economic, costs of environmental protection, and were more likely to report taking part in

"green" shopping, but not in recycling or contributing to environmental organizations.

(Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998).

Methodology

To answer the question of whether or not a relationship exists between self-identified

political ideology and beliefs on climate change, we conducted interviews with four Gustavus

Adolphus College students, chosen through stratified sampling, and a college-wide survey was

emailed to the four different class lists. It was hypothesized that self-identified political ideology

influences beliefs on climate change, and that people aligning more on the left side of the

political spectrum – very liberal, liberal, or moderately liberal – will hold the opinion that

climate change is occurring and is a current problem, while those on the other side of the

spectrum – very conservative, conservative, or moderately conservative – will either believe

climate change is occurring, but is not an issue, or that it is not occurring at all. Our independent

variable was the respondent’s political ideology, and the dependent variable was their beliefs on

climate change.

Two interviewed students were a part of the Gustavus Greens Club, one was a part of the

College Republicans, and one was a part of the College Democrats. Emails were sent out to the

9


student organizations with the consent form attached and a description of the research. Times

were set up to meet, and the interviews were digitally recorded for analysis later on.

The campus organizations were chosen for a couple of reasons. The two political groups

were chosen because their members have clearly identified with a certain political ideology, and

the questions could ask their views and beliefs on climate change. The environmental group was

chosen because we believed that their views and beliefs on climate change would be fairly

uniform - that climate change does exist, and that it is currently an issue and that they would take

a more liberal stance on the issue. The following questions then asked what political ideology

these members align with to be able to analyze their responses.

The interview questions included: 1) Where would you label yourself on the political

spectrum? Why would you give yourself this label? What were your earliest influences on your

ideology? 2) What are you beliefs on climate change? Is it an issue? Is it not? Why have your

opinions formed the way they have? What were your earliest influences on your beliefs? 3)

When did your concern for the environment begin? How did it begin? 4) Has your political

ideology influenced your beliefs on climate change in any form? Explain? 5) Have your beliefs

on climate changed influenced your political ideology in any form? Explain? Answers were

recorded and responses were typed or handwritten during the interview.

Interviews with the College Republicans and the College Democrat members were

conducted on Wednesday, October 29th, 2014 and Thursday October 30th, 2014, respectively.

Interviews with the Gustavus Greens members were conducted on Wednesday, October 22nd

and Thursday October 30th, 2014. The interviews averaged around a half an hour for each.

The survey was sent via email to students, to the four different class lists - class of 2015,

class of 2016, class of 2017, and class of 2018. This method was chosen because we only wanted

10


current Gustavus students to respond and not any faculty, staff, or former students. The email

explained the survey; that it would take ~10-15 minutes to complete and that participants could

enter their name in a drawing if they completed the survey. The response rate was 29.129%.

Once the survey closed, results were coded into SPSS and the data was analyzed.

Themes in the data appeared to be that people aligning on the left side of the political

spectrum, more with the Democratic Party, had stronger views on climate change and were

seeking immediate change in how climate change is dealt with. However, the member of College

Republicans did believe climate change was an issue and that something needed to be done about

it. His one concern was that he was not sure whether the climate change we are seeing is man-

made or a natural occurrence.

Themes in the Gustavus Greens data supported our hypotheses in that both participants

labeled themselves as liberals as opposed to identifying with a political party such as Democrat

or Republican. Both individuals also said that they look to see which party they believe is

addressing climate change in the best manner, when it comes to voting. In their opinion, it

doesn't matter as much which party they vote for but it does matter how that particular party is

addressing climate change and the importance of the issue to that party. Both participants

additionally agreed that their views on climate change more so affected their ideology versus the

other way around. We coded our responses and identified how each individual’s political

ideology has influenced their beliefs towards climate change.

Data

According to a crosstabulation (Table 1), 94% of liberals responded to a question on climate

change beliefs, stating that they believe climate change exists and is a current issue. This affirms

the hypothesis that students identifying as liberals are more likely to say that climate change

11


exists and is an issue, where more conservative students are more likely to say that climate

change either exists but is not an issue or does not exist at all. When analyzing moderate

students’ responses, it is notable that the percentage of responses increases from response 2 to

response 3. This is the only political ideology category that does so, and potentially indicates that

some students who identify as moderates on the Gustavus campus could lean more liberal, but

would not like to classify themselves as such. As political ideology moves from more liberal ot

more conservative, there is an increase in responses 2 and 3. This supports the hypothesis that

more conservatively leaning students are more likely to respond saying that climate change is not

an issue, or that it does not exist at all.

Table 1: A crosstabulation analyzing political ideology and climate change beliefs, in percentages of responses.

Very Liberal, Liberal, Moderately Liberal

Moderate

Moderately Conservative, Conservative, Very Conservative

% response to “Climate change is exists and is currently an issue”

94.2% 86.4% 56.4%

% response to “Climate change exists, but is not currently an issue”

4.0% 6.4% 23.9%

% response to “Climate change is not an issue”

1.8% 7.3% 19.6%

A chi-squared statistical significance test (Table 2) was run on the data given from the

crosstabulation. A Pearson Chi-squared value of 109.014 was found, with 4 degrees of freedom,

and a p value of 0.000, meaning that the observed values were significantly different from

expected, equal values. While we cannot accept the hypothesis that liberal students will respond

saying climate change is an issue while more conservative students will respond saying it is not

an issue or doesn’t exist at all, we can say that we are 99.999999% confident that the data and

relationships we found are not due to random chance.

12


Table 2: A chi-squared statistical significance test for the crosstabulation in Table 1. The data is significant at p=0.000.

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-squared 109.014 4 0.000

When analyzing data from the survey, factors other than ideology showed relationships

with beliefs on climate change. One factor in particular was political party affiliation. When

breaking down climate change beliefs into three responses - climate change exists and is an

issue, climate change exists but is not an issue, and climate change does not exist - a relationship

develops with political party affiliation (Figure 1). People responding with climate change

existing and being a problem were more likely to identify themselves as a Democrat. As the

responses moved towards climate change not being an issue or not existing, respondents became

more likely to identify as a Republican. This aligned with our hypothesis, as people identifying

as Democrats were more likely to say climate change exists and is an issue, and Republicans

were more likely to give one of the other two responses. Democrats align as liberal on the

political spectrum, and Republicans align conservatively, typically.

Figure 1: The relationship between climate change beliefs and percent response within a political party affiliation. As views shift more towards climate change not existing, respondents identify themselves more frequently as Republicans.

13


Literature Cited

Bonnett, Michael, and Jacquetta Williams. 1998. “Environmental Education and Primary Children’s Attitudes towards Nature and the Environment.” Cambridge Journal of Education 28(2): 159–75.

Bowman, J.S. 1977. “Public Opinion and the Environment: Post-Earth Day Attitudes among College Students.” Environment and Behavior 9(3): 385–416.

Bradley, Jennifer Campbell, T.M. Waliczek, and J.M. Zajicek. 1999. “Relationship Between Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Attitudes of High School Students.” Journal of Environmental Education 30(3): 17–21.

Buttel, Frederick H., and William L. Flinn. 1976. “Environmental Politics: The Structuring of Partisan and Ideological Cleavages in Mass Environmental Attitudes.” The Sociological Quarterly 17(4): 477–90.

Davidson, Debra J., and Michael Haan. 2012. “Gender, Political Ideology, and Climate Change Beliefs in an Extractive Industry Community.” Population and Environment 34(2): 217–34.

Guber, D. L. 2013. “A Cooling Climate for Change? Party Polarization and the Politics of Global Warming.” American Behavioral Scientist 57(1): 93–115.

Jost, John T., Christopher M. Federico, and Jaime L. Napier. 2009. “Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities.” Annual Review of Psychology 60(1): 307–37.

Klineberg, Stephen L., Matthew McKeever, and Bert Rothenbach. 1998. “Demographic Predictors of Environmental Concern: It Does Make a Difference How It’s Measured.” Social Science Quarterly 79(4): 734–53.

Neumayer, Eric. 2004. “The Environment, Left-Wing Political Orientation and Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics 51(3): 167–75.

Van Liere, Kent D., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44(2): 181–97.

14

Documents

Research Report Final