Communicating Risk across the Political Divide

Abstract

Political polarization in the public’s perception of risk is an increasingly serious problem. In both Canada and the US, public opinion is sharply divided over basic facts about policy relevant risks associated with climate change, vaccine safety, and other issues. Research on motivated cognition in psychology suggests that individuals are more receptive to information that comes from sources aligned with their own views. In this paper, we draw on this literature to identify the impact of using a variety of common governance channels to communicate risk. We use experimental surveys to test for causal effects on perceived trust, and the credibility and persuasiveness of information about a set of current risks when communicated by a range of government and private actors. We administer our experimental survey to large samples in both Canada and the US, to gain a comparative perspective on the culture of public trust in these governance institutions.