“We map people’s moral orientation between two poles,” says Florian Zimmermann from the EPoS
Economic Research Center. “A ‘universalist’ believes that moral obligations apply to everyone, not
just the people close to us, such as our family or nation. At the opposite pole are what we call
‘communitarians’ who tend to give moral priority to their own group.”
Findings: Moral outlook affects support for climate action
The researchers then compared people’s moral orientation with their views on climate action. The
results show that people who score higher on the universalism measure are significantly more likely to
support specific climate policies such as, for instance, a domestic carbon tax or a green infrastructure
program. This holds even after the researchers accounted for factors, such as income, political
affiliation, or skepticism about climate change. They conclude that people’s moral outlook appears to
matter in its own right.
“Us versus them” mentality
Communitarians were less likely to support specific climate policies. Their written explanations
revealed that communitarians disproportionately used group- or place-based reasoning, such as
prioritizing help for their own country over people elsewhere. “Our results show that climate policy
attitudes are not just a matter of economic self-interest or information gaps — they are in parts rooted
in people’s moral worldviews,” says Zimmermann.
Gap between general support and support for specific policies
“The experiment furthermore confirms the pattern that support for ‘fighting climate change’ is high in
general terms but drops substantially when individuals are asked about specific policies,” says
Zimmermann. “The gap between abstract and concrete support is something policymakers should take
into account.”
About the survey
Researchers s urveyed about 1,300 U.S. adults online via the online survey provider Prolific, with a
sample matched to the U.S. population on age, gender, and ethnicity. Participants completed a
universalism measure, answered questions about their support for specific climate policies, and
completed “who should pay” tasks. After each donation decision, participants explained their
reasoning in their own words.