Global warming vs. climate change frames: revisiting framing effects based on new experimental evidence collected in 30 European countries.

Existing evidence suggests that climate change beliefs can be subject to how the issue is framed. Particularly, the choice between a "global warming" versus a "climate change" framing influenced survey responses in some previous experiments. Furthermore, since the issue of climate change has become strongly polarized politically, framing effects were found to be moderated by political identification. Nevertheless, most of these framing effects were observed in the USA and may not be generalized in other cultures. To contribute to this area of research, we embedded an experiment in nationally representative telephone surveys conducted in 30 European countries in August–September 2021. We manipulated the wording of four climate change-related questions ("global warming" vs. "climate change") and assessed treatment effects both in the full sample and separately among leftist, rightist, green, and right-wing party voters. Our results regarding climate change existence belief replicated earlier findings since existence belief was significantly higher in the climate change group. We also found that the perceived negative impact was slightly lower when the issue was framed as "climate change." In contrast, little evidence was found of people being more skeptical or less worried when asked about "global warming" compared to "climate change." In general, skepticism was higher on the political right; however, leftists, rightists, green, and right-wing voters reacted similarly to the two frames in our European sample. We consider possible explanations for the null findings and argue that the use of "climate change" framing in communication strategies promoting climate action itself will do little to lower skepticism in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]