Changing Attitudes on Climate Change: Public Deliberation versus Elite Direction

Climate change skepticism and policy support varies between and within countries (Lee et al 2015). Scholars disagree on how to convince skeptics and increase support for policies (Druckman and McGrath 2019). Research shows behavioral messages often have small or negligible effects on climate change action and policy support (Nisa, Schumpe, and Faller 2019; van der Linden and Goldberg 2020). Sometimes the intended effects of messages are limited or even reversed (e.g. Schultz et al. 2016). We present evidence from two concurrent preregistered survey-experiments in Germany and the United States of America focusing on the source of a message promoting a climate change tax. In both countries, we tested the effect of the same message from the government, an environmental NGO, or a deliberative minipublic—randomly selected small groups of citizens that deliberate on a public issue—on citizens’ support and willingness to pay for said tax, as well as belief in the consequences of climate change. Taken together, the findings suggest that deliberative minipublics are more likely to raise or sustain policy support among citizens compared to the government or environmental NGOs. Across our three treatments in two countries (six tests) we found, on average, a significant small to moderate impact of minipublics in five instances, compared to two significant effects across 12 tests of messages from the government or an NGO. The evidence shows a minipublic endorsement of a climate change tax can a) prevent policy backlash; b) convince citizens to pay higher taxes; and c) influence beliefs about climate change consequences. These findings call for further research and experimentation on message sources, and especially minipublics.