A cross-sectional and experimental test of a climate policy systems threat account of climate change denial

Right-wing adherents are more likely to deny climate change and less likely to support climate mitigation policy than their left-wing counterparts. Correlational evidence suggests that this denial might be motivated by a need to preserve the existing socioeconomic and sociocultural systems against threats that arise from the implementation of climate change mitigation policies. We further interrogate this motivated threat account in the Australian context. Study 1 (N = 451) showed positive indirect effects for the conventionalism and dominance subdimensions of right-wing ideology on climate change denial via socioeconomic and sociocultural mitigation threat perceptions, partially replicating prior U.S. based cross-sectional research. We experimentally manipulated these mitigation threat types in Study 2 (N = 778), finding no differences between threat conditions and a no message control on climate change denial (and mitigation policy support) across levels of right-wing ideology endorsement. Although our Study 1 findings support the motivated threat account, threat-based arguments against climate policy action tested in Study 2 did not appear to increase climate change denial and reduce mitigation policy support among right-wing adherents. This suggests that prevailing ideological beliefs and existing beliefs about climate policy could be more important than threat-based messaging. We discuss theoretical and methodological reasons for these diverging results.