The role of policy appraisals and second-order beliefs in public support for climate policies in the UK

Ambitious climate policies designed to reduce carbon emissions through behaviour change require public consent for their successful implementation, which is dependent on their design and the way they are appraised. The current study, involving a large UK-based sample (<i>n</i> = 2002), brings together research on policy attributes, policy-specific appraisals, and second-order beliefs to examine how they can help explain support for different types of climate policies. The results show that restrictive ‘push’ measures are supported far less than non-coercive ‘pull’ measures; financial measures are less popular than regulatory measures; and measures aimed at changing dietary behaviours are supported less than those aimed at energy and travel behaviours. It further finds that perceived effectiveness, perceived fairness and perceived levels of public policy support (‘second-order beliefs’) follow similar patterns and can explain support for the different climate policies. The study shows that both policy-specific appraisals and second-order beliefs mediate differences in support for the different types of climate policies. Furthermore, while support for the different climate policies is systematically underestimated by 18% and opposition systematically overestimated by 16% on average, the magnitude of pluralistic ignorance is smaller for push measures than for pull measures. The smaller perception gap for the less popular restrictive measures may limit the effectiveness of informational norm interventions in increasing public acceptance of these policies. Public support for climate policies varies systematically by policy type and behavioural domain, with restrictive ‘push’ policies and those targeting diets receiving the least support.Perceived fairness, effectiveness, and popularity of climate policies significantly mediate these differences, helping to explain why certain policies are more widely supported.Public support for climate policies is systematically underestimated (and opposition overestimated), but the perception gap is smaller for unpopular policies, potentially limiting the effectiveness of norm-based informational interventions for those policies.Communicating actual levels of public support may help promote already popular policies, but additional strategies are needed to increase acceptability of less supported measures.Policy design should account for perceived fairness and tailor framing strategies accordingly, especially in sensitive domains such as diet, to improve public acceptance and avoid backlash. Public support for climate policies varies systematically by policy type and behavioural domain, with restrictive ‘push’ policies and those targeting diets receiving the least support. Perceived fairness, effectiveness, and popularity of climate policies significantly mediate these differences, helping to explain why certain policies are more widely supported. Public support for climate policies is systematically underestimated (and opposition overestimated), but the perception gap is smaller for unpopular policies, potentially limiting the effectiveness of norm-based informational interventions for those policies. Communicating actual levels of public support may help promote already popular policies, but additional strategies are needed to increase acceptability of less supported measures. Policy design should account for perceived fairness and tailor framing strategies accordingly, especially in sensitive domains such as diet, to improve public acceptance and avoid backlash.