Abstract

We suggest that policies will be less popular when individuals personally have to pay for them rather than when others have to pay (i.e., a Not Out of My Bank Account or NOMBA effect). Dual process models of persuasion suggest that personally having to pay would motivate scrutiny of persuasive messages making it essential to use effective science communication tactics when using climate science to support climate change policies. A pilot experiment (N = 186) and main study (N = 758) support a NOMBA effect with less policy support (Pilot study) and lower recommended fees (Main study) for a policy that would require participants, rather than another group, to pay a fee for community solar panels. Consistent with dual process models and suggesting systematic processing, only when participants would have to pay the fee, messages using strong (vs. weak) science communication tactics increased support for policies (Pilot study), increased the favorability of thoughts about the policy (Main study) and these thoughts subsequently predicted policy support (Main study). Inconsistent with propositions that information about expert sources would be a heuristic or bolster science messages, expert consensus information did not influence thoughts or policy support in any study condition. Efforts to understand climate change policy support would benefit from attending to research on dual process models of persuasion, including understanding how different types and degree of outcome relevance can alter how people process science information used to bolster support for climate change policies.

摘要

我们建议，当个人必须为保单付费而不是其他人必须付费时（即，未从我的银行账户中转出或 NOMBA 效应），保单将不那么受欢迎。说服的双重过程模型表明，个人必须付费会激发对说服性信息的审查，因此在使用气候科学支持气候变化政策时，使用有效的科学传播策略至关重要。初步实验 ( N  = 186) 和主要研究 ( N = 758) 支持 NOMBA 效应，政策支持较少（试点研究）和建议费用较低（主要研究），政策要求参与者而不是其他群体为社区太阳能电池板支付费用。与双过程模型一致并建议系统处理，只有当参与者必须支付费用时，使用强（vs.弱）科学传播策略的消息增加了对政策的支持（试点研究），增加了对政策的看法的好感度（主要研究），这些想法随后预测了政策支持（主要研究）。与关于专家来源的信息将是启发式或支持科学信息的命题不一致，专家共识信息不会影响任何研究条件下的思想或政策支持。