Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

During natural disasters public administrators construct hazard messaging with the intention of encouraging behavior change that benefits the public good. But given the deluge of information and misinformation readily available, one question that arises is whether government messaging is effective, or whether it simply ads to the noise. As global warming trends accelerate, widespread buy-in from governments, residents, and corporations becomes critical, but roughly a quarter of U.S. residents still deny global warming trends. This project explores the relationship between government messaging and public opinion as a function of issue salience around climate opinion. Using a twenty-wave survey conducted between 2008 and 2018, this paper considers the impact that state-level signaling has on resident beliefs about climate change. Specifically, I explore whether scientific evidence supports a global warming trend, whether such a trend is problematic, and whether humans can be linked to its cause. To investigate this connection, I created an index measure of salience that captures frequency and intensity of extreme weather events in the U.S. as an indicator of awareness of weather extremes. Preliminary findings add to existing literature suggesting that salient weather events impact opinion on weather extremes, but those effects fade quickly over time. Further examination aims to isolate the effects of messaging, salience, and their interaction on climate opinions as a necessary first step to more clearly defining the role of governments in response to anthropogenic climate change.