Click here to see the slides for my presentation at Uni Leipzig “Annual Conference in Experimental Sociology” ’25.

Abstract: Accelerating the green transition towards climate neutrality is necessary, yet it risks deepening inequalities by disproportionately burdening lower-income households, potentially fueling opposition to ambitious climate policies. We address this dilemma through a survey experiment (n = 2,000; here a pilot of 200) where we elicit misperceptions about socio-ecological inequality and investigate whether correcting them affects justice evaluations and policy preferences. We build on previous research on environmental justice and policy support and hypothesize that when respondents sense that some groups bear a disproportionate burden, they will be more likely to back ambitious initiatives if they include redistribution. Our findings can thus help inform more equitable approaches to climate policy design – ones that also resonate with the public.

To elicit perceptions of socio-ecological inequalities, we ask respondents to compare two fictional Danish families with different income- or CO2 emission-levels. First, respondents are shown the annual income or emission level of the higher-income family and asked to state their belief about the corresponding level for the lower-income family, thereby establishing baseline perceptions. Second, we introduced a policy scenario requiring both families to make a green investment, such as improving home insulation or switching to an electric car. Respondents are then shown the relative impact of this investment on the higher-status family (either cost as a percentage of disposable income or the resulting percentage reduction in CO2 emissions) and asked to estimate the equivalent relative impact on the lower-status family.

To test the impact of information, a treatment group is subsequently informed of the factual baseline differences (income/emissions) and the actual relative impact of the investment on the lower-status family, correcting their earlier beliefs. This group’s responses are compared against a control group who undergoes the perception elicitation but receives no correction. Additionally, a priming control group skips the elicitation and correction phases altogether to isolate any priming effects of simply asking the elicitation questions. This multi-group setup enables us to analyze perceived socio-ecological inequalities and determine if correcting misperceptions shifts individuals’ justice evaluations and climate policy support. Data collection is scheduled for June 2025. Our pre-registered hypotheses predict that while overall support for climate action may remain high, correcting misperceptions about actual income-and emission differences will specifically boost support for policies that include redistributive elements. We further predict that exposing respondents to the true, potentially higher, levels of socio-ecological inequality will lead them to rate the green transition as more unjust. Finally, anticipating less familiarity with CO2 emissions than income, we hypothesize that perceptions of emission inequality will be less accurate than those concerning income inequality.

Underlying these hypotheses is the expectation that confronting the actual scale of inequality may raise fairness concerns, prompting worries that the green transition could disproportionately harm vulnerable groups. We therefore expect our findings to show that that redistributive measures can accommodate some of these concerns, thereby encouraging broader support for more ambitious climate initiatives.