| Description: |
Ambitious climate policies designed to reduce carbon emissions through behaviour change require public consent for their successful implementation, which is dependent on their design and the way they are appraised. The current study, involving a large UK-based sample (n = 2002), brings together research on policy attributes, policy-specific appraisals, and second-order beliefs to examine how they can help explain support for different types of climate policies. The results show that restrictive ‘push’ measures are supported far less than non-coercive ‘pull’ measures; financial measures are less popular than regulatory measures; and measures aimed at changing dietary behaviours are supported less than those aimed at energy and travel behaviours. It further finds that perceived effectiveness, perceived fairness and perceived levels of public policy support (‘second-order beliefs’) follow similar patterns and can explain support for the different climate policies. The study shows that both policy-specific appraisals and second-order beliefs mediate differences in support for the different types of climate policies. Furthermore, while support for the different climate policies is systematically underestimated by 18% and opposition systematically overestimated by 16% on average, the magnitude of pluralistic ignorance is smaller for push measures than for pull measures. The smaller perception gap for the less popular restrictive measures may limit the effectiveness of informational norm interventions in increasing public acceptance of these policies. |