New study shows: politicians underestimate the public's willingness to take action on climate change

Together with colleagues, you recently published a new study in the Nature Portfolio journal Communications Earth & Environment on public support for climate action. Could you briefly explain the main findings of the study?

Prof. Wilhelm Hofmann from Ruhr University Bochum, the two Leuphana students Luisa Hoslowsky and Fenja Styhler, and I investigated how accurately politicians can assess the extent to which the public supports climate action.

To do this, we surveyed a representative sample of around 1,000 people in Germany about their support for climate action: for example, how strongly they perceive climate change as a problem, to what extent they accept government climate policies, and whether they themselves would be willing to contribute. We also surveyed around 1,600 politicians at different levels of government—from the German Bundestag and state parliaments to local politics—and asked them how they thought the public would answer these questions. For comparison, we also asked members of the public how they perceived the attitudes of their fellow citizens.

The key finding is that politicians underestimate the extent to which the public supports climate protection. Three findings are particularly interesting in this regard. First, this perception gap was even wider among politicians than among the general public. Second, it was particularly pronounced when it came to measures that are the subject of highly controversial political debate, such as regulations and taxes. And third, we found this underestimation across nearly all political parties. While there were differences, they were smaller than one might expect. A significantly larger perception gap was evident only among AfD supporters.

What causes this perception gap?

We did not directly examine this in our study. However, research in psychology and political science offers some plausible explanations. One possibility is that dissenting and particularly vocal voices are more visible in public debates than others. Politicians might therefore get the impression that opposition to climate protection measures is more widespread than it actually is. This could be amplified by social media, but also by direct contact with particularly passionate citizens. Ten angry letters may stick in one’s memory more than a hundred people who silently support a measure.

There is also a psychological mechanism for which we find evidence in our own data: people tend to project their own attitudes onto others. Politicians who themselves are less supportive of a particular climate policy also tend to estimate public support for that policy as lower.

This can have political consequences: If policymakers believe a measure is highly unpopular among the public, they may be reluctant to propose or advocate for it—even if there is, in fact, significant public support for it.

From a scientific perspective, are there any recommendations for how these findings should be addressed?

Of course, our study does not dictate which specific climate protection measures policymakers should adopt. That is for policymakers and society to decide through democratic processes. Nor do our findings indicate that the public supports every conceivable climate protection measure.
What we can show, however, is that political decisions may be based on a false assumption: namely, that the public is less supportive of climate protection measures than is actually the case. One consequence, therefore, would be to begin by narrowing this perception gap. It might help, for example, to base assessments of public opinion more heavily on systematic and representative data and less on particularly visible voices on social media or in public debates.

Similar gaps in perception are well-documented in research on so-called pluralistic ignorance. This term refers to situations in which many people share a certain attitude but, at the same time, believe that others share that attitude to a lesser extent. In this field of research, there are already efforts underway to provide people with accurate information about what others actually think. An interesting next step would therefore be to investigate whether such interventions also work with policymakers—and whether they might also lead to changes in political decisions.

What are your main research interests, and how did you come to work on these topics?

I’ve been interested in environmental protection and nature conservation ever since I was in school. Back then, the focus was partly on different issues than today: the ozone hole, acid rain, lead in gasoline, and the severe pollution of rivers like the Rhine and the Elbe. It’s worth noting that significant progress has been made on many of these problems since then. This is sometimes forgotten, precisely because successful environmental protection can, in a sense, make itself invisible. If we hardly ever talk about the ozone hole or lead in gasoline today, it’s also because we took action. For me, that’s an important message: environmental problems can be solved, even if it often doesn’t happen overnight.

Back then, I supported Greenpeace; today, I’m involved with WePlanet. My research focuses on motivation, self-regulation, future-oriented thinking, and social perception. I’m fundamentally interested in how people translate their goals into actual action, but also in how they perceive other people and societal attitudes—and where systematic misperceptions arise in the process. For me, this creates a natural connection to sustainability research. In addition, I now also study conflicts between social groups and am involved in science communication.

My academic path was less straightforward than career paths sometimes seem in hindsight. I have often explored questions that interested me personally or that were currently relevant to society. At the same time, chance encounters have played a major role—the people I’ve met, shared ideas with colleagues, and the new projects that have emerged from them. Many of my research projects therefore arose from a combination of my own interests, current debates, and opportunities that emerged through exchanges with others.

How does your research fit into the broader context of Leuphana’s School of Sustainability?

The School of Sustainability brings together various disciplines to understand how sustainable development can be achieved and promoted. As a psychologist, I’m particularly interested in the human aspect. In this context, I focus primarily on two questions. The first is: How do people actually manage to change their behavior? We can offer sustainable products and recycling options, or build good bike paths. But such offerings only help if people actually use them. And we know from psychology that behavioral changes are often not easy. This applies just as much to exercising more or spending less time on smartphones as it does to mobility, nutrition, or energy consumption. That’s why I’m investigating what helps people actually follow through on their intentions.

Together with colleagues and students at Leuphana, I am conducting research on this topic in various areas. For example, together with Stefan Schaltegger and Sebastian Wallot, we investigated which psychological traits help sustainability managers drive change within organizations. Together with Astrid Kause, I examined how well people can assess which foods they purchase contribute more or less to the loss of biodiversity.

However, individual behavioral changes alone will not be enough to address challenges such as climate change. We also need policy measures. In democracies, the implementation of these measures depends, in turn, on whether people accept them—and whether policymakers accurately gauge this acceptance. It is precisely at this intersection of psychology and politics that the second question of my research comes into play: What determines whether people accept policy measures, and how are these attitudes perceived by others? This includes, for example, our current study on how politicians assess public support for climate protection.