Lasse Stötzer

Growing political polarization is often attributed to “echo chambers” among like-minded individuals and a lack of social interactions among contrary-minded individuals. We provide quasi-experimental evidence on the effects of in-person conversations on individual-level polarization outcomes, studying a large-scale intervention in Germany that matched pairs of strangers for private face-to-face meetings to discuss divisive political issues. We find asymmetric effects: conversations with like-minded individuals caused political views to become more extreme (ideological polarization); by contrast, conversations with contrary-minded individuals did not lead to a convergence of political views, but significantly reduced negative beliefs and attitudes toward ideological out-group members (affective polarization), while also improving perceived social cohesion more generally. These effects of contrary-minded conversations seem to be driven mostly by positive experiences of interpersonal contact. 

Climate change is arguably one of the greatest challenges nowadays. Albeit the scientific consensus that human activities caused climate change, a substantial part of the population downplays or denies human responsibilities. In this registered report, we present causal evidence on a potential explanation for this discrepancy: motivated reasoning. We conducted a tailored survey experiment on a broadly representative sample of 4,000 U.S. adults to provide causal evidence on how motivated cognition shapes beliefs about climate change and influences the demand for slanted information. We further explore the role of motives on environmentally harmful behavior. Contrary to our hypotheses, we find no evidence that motivated cognition can help to explain widespread climate change denial and environmentally harmful behavior.

In this note, we provide evidence that motivated reasoning can be a source of discriminatory beliefs. We employ a representative survey experiment where we exogenously manipulate the presence of a need for justification of anti-social behavior towards an out-group. We provide causal evidence that survey participants devalue members of an out-group to justify taking away money from the group. Our results speak to a long-standing debate on the causes of racism and discrimination and suggest an important role of motivated cognition.

According to a representative briq survey, two-thirds of the German population would be willing to pay higher prices for gas and heating if this were to increase pressure on the Russian government. Four out of five Germans would lower their room temperature to save energy. And more than half of higher-income households would be willing to spend some of their income to help poorer households cope with higher energy prices. 

Media Coverage: FAZ (Ausgabe 64/2022), Welt (12.04)  

According to a representative briq survey, more than two-thirds of the German population would support a halt to energy imports from Russia in order to increase pressure on the Russian government. A broad majority would also welcome additional measures to reduce energy dependence, including alternative energy sources and energy-saving. When it comes to helping the Ukrainian people, many of the respondents would support both aid and integration policies, including permanent residence and work permits for refugees. Germans are divided, however, on the question of further arms deliveries to Ukraine.

Media Coverage: FAZ Online(25.03), Welt (12.04) 

A broad majority of Germans is willing to donate a part of a freely disposable sum of money to climate protection. Higher income, economic preferences such as altruism or patience, and party preferences predict pro-climate donations. Moreover, a majority of Germans say they take the climate impact into account when deciding about consumption and transportation. 

Media Coverage: DIE ZEIT (Nr. 36/2022)

Germans misperceive the prevalent social norms and the willingness of others to act against climate change. The systematic underestimation of climate norms affects people’s willingness to fight climate change. Correcting these misperceptions can have a positive impact on climate protection. 

Media Coverage: DIE ZEIT (Nr. 36/2022)

A vast majority of Germans is convinced that climate change exists and that it is anthropogenic. However, 22 percent of respondents expressed skepticism about climate change. Reasons might be low trust in science or the widespread misconception that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. Most arguments against additional climate protection do not find support among Germans. 

Media Coverage: DIE ZEIT (Nr. 36/2022)

Germans consider the government’s current climate action inadequate. Many would be willing to give up some individual freedom for better climate protection. This willingness is in line with a widespread concern about climate change and its consequences. A majority would be in favor of a “climate solidarity tax” to help poorer households cope with the costs of climate protection. 

Media Coverage: DIE ZEIT (Nr. 36/2022)