Penny S. Visser

TL;DR: In this paper, a model of the causes and consequences of Americans' judgments of the national seriousness of global warming is proposed and tested, and data from two representative sample surveys offer support for all of these propositions, document effects of national seriousness judgments on support for ameliorative efforts generally and specific amelierative policies, and thereby point to psychological mechanisms that may be responsible for institutional and elite impact on the public's assessments of national problem importance and on public policy preferences.

TL;DR: Visser et al. as mentioned in this paper found that mail surveys were consistently more accurate and were generally less susceptible to sources of inaccuracy such as high rolloff and low publicity than face-to-face interviews.

TL;DR: Mediational evidence suggests that attitudinally congruous social networks may increase attitude strength by decreasing attitudinal ambivalence and perhaps by increasing the certainty with which people hold their attitudes.

TL;DR: The authors report the results of a representative national survey that incorporated five experiments, finding that respondents' attitudes, especially isolationism versus internationalism and assertiveness versus accommodativeness, consistently constrained policy preferences, whereas liberalism-conservatism did not.

TL;DR: The authors found that a majority of the American general public and of the global warming “issue public” endorsed the views advocated by President Clinton before the media campaign began, and that the debate did attract people's attention and strengthened the public's beliefs and attitudes.