Climate change is often perceived as a distant threat affecting people in distant places or distant future. Such perceptions could negatively affect implementation of necessary mitigation measures. Using experimental data from the Norwegian Citizen Panel 2014 (N=1714), we explore how different time and spatial context of risk reduction affects attitudes towards funding for climate and air pollution policies and how these characteristics interact with each other and with political orientation of citizens. The results of regression analyses indicate different rationale for both climate change and air pollution policies. Attitudes towards funding reduction of climate change risks are fairly consistent between different scenarios, whereas for air pollution a preference for homeland and delayed action is present. These results support the relevance of framing climate change as global. Moreover, we show that different segments of population based on their political orientation evaluate the funding aims diversely and assign different weights to the geographical attribute of the policies. We argue that better than framing climate change either locally, or globally, we should try to develop narratives bridging the division of global and local and making climate change a relevant issue rather than just a threatening and proximate one.
This study argues for a generic approach to selective exposure research. Empirically, we dismantle the relative importance of three different forms of selective exposure to like-minded political news that has dominated the communication literature: message cues, party cues and source cues. In a uniquely designed conjoint experiment, a large probability-based panel of Norwegian citizens was faced with news headline choices, randomly varying several different factors simultaneously. We not only show that the effects are in line with previous research but also, more importantly, that these effects are additive and distinct effects that prevail when three known countervailing forces are accounted for. We conclude that scholars should move towards a more generic and less country specific approach to selective exposure research.