Climate Policy: Acceptance Influences Perceptions of Effectiveness

In climate policy research, there is debate as to whether the perceived effectiveness of a measure drives its acceptance – or whether a favourable attitude must first be established for a measure to be viewed as effective. The present study shows that both effects occur in parallel. It is based on an experimental survey of just under 2,600 respondents from the German population on the decarbonisation of the heating sector. 

Most acceptance models assume that citizens first assess the effectiveness of a measure, and that this assessment determines whether the measure is generally supported. However, the study suggests that, when it comes to assessing effectiveness, the reverse may be more accurate: the perceived effectiveness of a measure is often a consequence of support, rather than a prerequisite for it. The study suggests that for most people, the logic of acceptance is reversed: they don't support a measure because it is effective; they perceive it as effective because they already support it. This support is driven by two main factors: fairness and the extent to which measures impact an individual’s daily life. 

Methodology 

In the experiment, participants were presented with three randomly selected measures for replacing domestic heating systems with climate-friendly models. The study utilized both "push" and "pull" mechanisms: the former increased the cost of using climate-damaging technology, while the latter provided subsidies as incentive for switching to climate-friendly alternatives. Additionally, households were allocated either a uniform price increase or subsidy, or pricing was scaled according to either energy consumption (polluter-pays principle) or income (needs-based principle). Finally, participants were informed whether the estimated effectiveness of the measure was moderate or high. It was only at this point that respondents decided whether to support or reject the measure, and how effective they perceived it to be.

This approach allowed for an estimation of the relative influence of three key levers – the type of measure, the principle of fairness, and information on effectiveness – on both acceptance and perceived efficacy. In addition, it allowed for an assessment of which causal direction was more likely to be at play: whether communicating effectiveness first improves perception and subsequently increases acceptance, or whether the reverse occurs. In the latter case, characteristics such as the type of incentive or the distribution principle initially drive acceptance, which then leads participants to perceive the measure as more effective. This would indicate 'attitude-congruent information processing,' where effectiveness is appraised in a way that aligns with pre-existing judgments.

The data was more consistent with the latter mechanism. On average, people are more likely to support subsidies designed according to the polluter-pays principle or the needs-based principle than equally distributed price-hiking instruments. This higher level of acceptance means that these same measures were rated as more effective.

Different reactions depending on political stance

The study also shows that the response to information on effectiveness depends heavily on an individual’s broader views on climate policy. Among those who generally support or are undecided about efforts to shape individual behaviours through policy, the commonly assumed pattern holds true: additional information regarding high effectiveness leads to greater support.

However, this pattern is not evident among those fundamentally opposed to such regulation. For this group, communicating promises of effectiveness has little to no influence on acceptance. Instead, only the attitude-congruent pathway applies: these individuals perceive a measure as effective only if it is designed to be fair and minimizes negative personal consequences. Consequently, a communication strategy that emphasizes only technical effectiveness will fail to reach this group. 

Recommendation for policymakers

For policymakers, this means that when engaging with sceptics, the design of a measure—specifically its fairness and the personal burden it imposes—should take priority over the communication of effectiveness data. Lead author Jean-Henri Huttarsch explains: “Our findings show that to increase the acceptance of climate protection measures, we must rethink how they are designed and communicated. To reach everyone, emphasizing technical effectiveness alone is not enough; measures must be fair and their impacts on citizens perceived as tolerable. If these aspects are addressed, a positive assessment of the climate impact will follow.”
 

Publication:
Huttarsch, JH., Wolf, I.: Conditional bidirectionality between climate policy acceptance and perceived effectiveness, Communications Sustainability 1, 141 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44458-026-00149-0