Recent public opinion surveys indicate substantial American support for climate mitigation policies, including among Republicans. However, a significant portion of the population, particularly Republicans, underestimate this support, demonstrating pluralistic ignorance—a misperception of others' views. This misperception can hinder public mobilization. Republicans are especially susceptible due to an information environment heavily featuring policy opponents, often reflecting industry lobbying rather than public opinion. While correcting misperceived opinions is a potential solution, it often fails due to self-censorship. This study investigates whether pluralistic ignorance differs between Republicans supporting and opposing climate policies, hypothesizing that underestimation of in-group support is more prevalent among opponents (minority), while supporters, despite potentially accurate perceptions, may self-censor due to the hostile information environment. The study aims to explore if highlighting public consensus effectively motivates action among the majority, considering both their awareness and their reluctance to express their views in a minority-dominated information environment.

Existing research highlights widespread pluralistic ignorance regarding climate change policy support among Americans, with Republicans showing a particularly strong underestimation of public support. Studies demonstrate that individuals may withhold their views when they perceive themselves as outliers within their social group, fearing isolation. This is exacerbated in a media environment often dominated by voices opposing climate action, particularly within right-wing media and the official Republican party platform. While attempts to correct these misperceptions often prove ineffective, this study builds on this research by exploring the differential effects of pluralistic ignorance based on an individual's stance on climate policy within the Republican party.

This study employed an online survey of a nationally representative sample of 1000 registered Republican voters in the United States, obtained through YouGov between December 7th and 14th, 2022. The sample was matched to a sampling frame based on gender, age, race, and education from the 2020 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Post-stratification weights provided by YouGov were used in the analyses. Participants rated their support for five climate mitigation policies (carbon taxation, power plant restrictions, solar farms, wind farms, and tax credits for carbon capture) on a six-point scale. They also estimated the percentage of Republicans supporting each policy. Further questions assessed their perceived information environment regarding climate change, their willingness to speak out about their views to other Republicans, their past engagement in sharing climate-related views, and their anticipated social conflict from doing so. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, OLS regression, and moderated mediation analysis using PROCESS model 7.

The survey revealed substantial Republican support for climate mitigation policies (over 50% for four out of five policies). However, respondents significantly underestimated the actual level of support, demonstrating pluralistic ignorance, though less pronounced than in studies examining general public opinion. This underestimation was primarily observed among those opposed to the policies. Supporters' estimates were generally accurate or slightly above the actual support levels. Regression analysis showed a significant negative association between personal support/opposition for climate policies and the sharing of views, indicating that opponents shared their views more frequently. Moderated mediation analysis revealed that the relationship between perceived information environment and willingness to speak out was conditioned by support/opposition for climate policies. For supporters, perceiving a hostile environment (dominated by opposing views) increased anticipated social conflict and reduced their willingness to speak out. Conversely, for opponents, perceiving a hostile environment decreased anticipated social conflict and potentially increased their willingness to speak out. This suggests that factors beyond pluralistic ignorance, such as fear of social conflict within a hostile information environment, discourage supporters from expressing their views.

The findings indicate that pluralistic ignorance manifests differently based on an individual's stance on climate policy. Simply correcting misperceptions of public opinion may be insufficient to encourage action, especially among supporters who might already hold accurate perceptions but are hesitant to speak out due to a hostile information environment. This highlights the importance of considering the information environment when designing interventions. The impact of the information environment on willingness to express views is contingent on whether the individual supports or opposes climate policies. For supporters, a hostile environment creates a barrier to action, while for opponents, it might have the opposite effect.

This study clarifies the complexity of pluralistic ignorance in climate change policy support among Republicans. Underestimation of in-group support is primarily driven by opponents experiencing a false consensus effect. Supporters, while possessing relatively accurate estimations, may self-censor due to the minority-dominated information environment. Future interventions should address both misperceptions and the hostile information environment, perhaps utilizing self-affirmation techniques to increase resilience among supporters. Carefully crafted messaging respecting shared values could address the false consensus bias among opponents, avoiding potential backfire effects.

The study's cross-sectional design limits causal inference. The reliance on self-reported data may introduce biases. The focus on Republican voters limits the generalizability of findings to other political groups. Future research should explore longitudinal designs, utilize mixed methods, and investigate diverse political demographics to enhance the robustness and generalizability of the findings.