Climate change and ethical perceptions data set

This is the raw, but filtered, data set from the nationally representative survey I ran in Feb 2018, for my dissertation. I ran it through Survey Sampling International. While climate change has been a scientific reality for years, the American public trails behind in its acceptance of it. Targeted message framing has the ability to increase environmental pro-behavior and advocacy if these messages call upon previously-held values of traditionally skeptical groups. I frame messages about individuals’ ethical obligations to mitigate carbon emissions using the three normative ethical approaches of deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics, to determine if Americans find a particular ethical frame more relatable than others. By conducting a nationally representative survey of 1,202 respondents across the United States, I find that religiosity positively correlates with the deontologically framed message. This study highlights the advantages of using deontological appeals to frame mitigation messages in order to capture a greater audience of the religious demographic. Hypothesis: The more religious respondents are, the more likely they will agree with a deontologically framed message of their ethical obligations to mitigate carbon emissions.
The religious represent another group divided on climate change, and conceivably this is in part because many ethically-framed messages do not appeal to the group’s values. Choosing ethical frames that correspond to ethical worldviews that religious individuals already value can help to unify environmental attitudes (Markowitz & Shariff, 2012). In what follows, I will show why the religious should be more accepting of messages that use a deontological frame as deontology is a prevalent appeal and value among the religious. Reframing environmental issues using ethical values that are previously-held and revered by religious individuals will likely reap results comparable to Fienberg and Willer’s (2013) study on message framing for conservatives. Increasing evidence advances the idea that religious and non-religious individuals make ethical decisions fundamentally differently (Goodwin & Darley, 2008; J. Graham & Haidt, 2010; Piazza, 2012; Piazza & Sousa, 2014; Tetlock, 2003). While religious individuals characteristically rely on deontological judgements to navigate ethical dilemmas (Barak-Corren & Bazerman, 2017; Conway & Gawronski, 2013; Piazza, 2012; Piazza & Sousa, 2014; Szekely, Opre, & Miu, 2015; Tetlock, 2003), non-religious individuals prefer forms of utilitarianism (Banerjee, Huebner, & Hauser, 2010; Piazza & Landy, 2013). Religious individuals tend to evaluate ethical behavior according to whether actions follow certain norms or not, rather than in terms of what outcomes actions might cause (Banerjee et al., 2010; Conway & Gawronski, 2013; Piazza, 2012; Piazza & Sousa, 2014).
This hypothesis was supported at the p less than or equal to 0.05 level.