Supplementary Material
Table 1. OLS Regression Testing Emotion Prime, Social Distance, and Political Party Identification as Predictors of Individual-targeted Policy Support
Predictors / b(SE) / tGuilt (versus Neutral) / .25 (.21) / 1.18
Anger (versus Neutral) / .05 (.21) / .23
Social Distance (SD) / -.20 (.29) / -.70
Independent (versus Democrat) / -.57 (.21) / -2.71**
Republican (versus Democrat) / -1.22 (.27) / -4.47***
Guilt × SD / .04 (.42) / .10
Anger × SD / .23 (.41) / .55
Independent × SD / -.48 (.42) / -1.13
Republican × SD / .53 (.55) / .97
Guilt × Independent / .15 (.31) / .48
Guilt × Republican / -.17 (.40) / -.43
Anger × Independent / -.12 (.31) / -.39
Anger × Republican / -.15 (.40) / -.38
Guilt × Independent × SD / 1.21 (.62) / 1.95+
Guilt × Republican × SD / -.68 (.80) / -.85
Anger × Independent × SD / .35 (.62) / .57
Anger × Republican × SD / -.56 (.81) / -.69
% explained R2 / 11.5
Note. Social distance coded as -0.5 = France, +0.5 = U.S; +p = .05, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 2. OLS Regression Testing Emotion Prime, Social Distance, and Political Party Identification as Predictors of Industry-targeted Policy Support
Predictors / b(SE) / tGuilt (versus Neutral) / .35 (.21) / 1.70
Anger (versus Neutral) / .10 (.20) / .49
Social Distance (SD) / .12 (.28) / .42
Independent (versus Democrat) / -.40 (.21) / -1.91
Republican (versus Democrat) / -1.53 (.27) / -5.72***
Guilt × SD / -.10 (.41) / -.24
Anger × SD / -.12 (.40) / -.31
Independent × SD / -.54 (.41) / -1.31
Republican × SD / .65 (.54) / 1.22
Guilt × Independent / .10 (.30) / .34
Guilt × Republican / -.04 (.39) / -.10
Anger × Independent / -.42 (.31) / -1.39
Anger × Republican / .05 (.40) / .12
Guilt × Independent × SD / .63 (.61) / 1.04
Guilt × Republican × SD / -1.02 (.79) / -1.30
Anger × Independent × SD / .41 (.61) / .67
Anger × Republican × SD / -.53 (.79) / -.66
% explained R2 / 14.5
Note. Social distance coded as -0.5 = France, +0.5 = U.S; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 3. OLS Regression Testing Emotion Prime, Social Distance, and Political Party Identification as Predictors of Individual-targeted Behavioral Modification Willingness
Predictors / b(SE) / tGuilt (versus Neutral) / .49 (.27) / 1.85
Anger (versus Neutral) / .22 (.26) / .84
Social Distance (SD) / -.42 (.37) / -1.13
Independent (versus Democrat) / -.17 (.27) / -.65
Republican (versus Democrat) / -1.35 (.35) / -3.86***
Guilt × SD / .49 (.53) / .91
Anger × SD / .37 (.52) / .71
Independent × SD / -.44 (.54) / -.81
Republican × SD / 1.18 (.70) / 1.69
Guilt × Independent / -.12 (.40) / -.31
Guilt × Republican / -.34 (.51) / -.66
Anger × Independent / -.45 (40) / -1.13
Anger × Republican / -.33 (.52) / -.63
Guilt × Independent × SD / .40 (.79) / .51
Guilt × Republican × SD / -1.35 (1.02) / -1.32
Anger × Independent × SD / .13 (.80) / .17
Anger × Republican × SD / -1.36 (1.03) / -1.32
% explained R2 / 9.8
Note. Social distance coded as -0.5 = France, +0.5 = U.S; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 4. OLS Regression Testing Emotion Prime, Social Distance, and Political Party Identification as Predictors of Industry-targeted Behavioral Modification Willingness
Predictors / b(SE) / tGuilt (versus Neutral) / .41 (.24) / 1.70
Anger (versus Neutral) / .11 (.24) / .46
Social Distance (SD) / .40 (.33) / 1.19
Independent (versus Democrat) / -.35 (.24) / -1.42
Republican (versus Democrat) / -1.63 (.32) / -5.17***
Guilt × SD / -.15 (.48) / -.32
Anger × SD / -1.13 (.47) / -2.38*
Independent × SD / -1.06 (.49) / -2.17*
Republican × SD / -.36 (.63) / -.56
Guilt × Independent / -.03 (.36) / -.08
Guilt × Republican / -.11 (.46) / -.24
Anger × Independent / -.48 (.36) / -1.34
Anger × Republican / .20 (.47) / .44
Guilt × Independent × SD / 1.11 (.72) / 1.55
Guilt × Republican × SD / -.72 (.93) / -.77
Anger × Independent × SD / 1.80 (.72) / 2.50*
Anger × Republican × SD / 1.09 (.93) / 1.16
% explained R2 / 13.1
Note. Social distance coded as -0.5 = France, +0.5 = U.S; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 5. Pairwise Comparisons for Individual-targeted Policy Support
Social Distance / Party Identification / Emotioni j / Mean Difference (i-j) / SE
U.S. / Independent / Anger / Neutral / .22 / .31
Guilt / Neutral / 1.02** / .32
Guilt / Anger / .80** / .31
Democrat / Anger / Neutral / .16 / .29
Guilt / Neutral / .27 / .31
Guilt / Anger / .11 / .32
Republican / Anger / Neutral / -.27 / .46
Guilt / Neutral / -.24 / .44
Guilt / Anger / .03 / .48
France / Independent / Anger / Neutral / -.36 / .35
Guilt / Neutral / -.23 / .33
Guilt / Anger / .14 / .38
Democrat / Anger / Neutral / -.07 / .29
Guilt / Neutral / .23 / .28
Guilt / Anger / .29 / .27
Republican / Anger / Neutral / .06 / .52
Guilt / Neutral / .39 / .52
Guilt / Anger / .33 / .54
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 6. Pairwise Comparisons for Industry-targeted Policy Support
Social Distance / Party Identification / Emotioni j / Mean Difference (i-j) / SE
U.S. / Independent / Anger / Neutral / -.18 / .30
Guilt / Neutral / .72* / .32
Guilt / Anger / .90** / .30
Democrat / Anger / Neutral / .04 / .29
Guilt / Neutral / .30 / .30
Guilt / Anger / .27 / .31
Republican / Anger / Neutral / -.18 / .46
Guilt / Neutral / -.25 / .44
Guilt / Anger / -.07 / .47
France / Independent / Anger / Neutral / -.47 / .35
Guilt / Neutral / .19 / .32
Guilt / Anger / .66 / .38
Democrat / Anger / Neutral / .16 / .28
Guilt / Neutral / .40 / .28
Guilt / Anger / .24 / .27
Republican / Anger / Neutral / .47 / .51
Guilt / Neutral / .87 / .51
Guilt / Anger / .40 / .53
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 7. Pairwise Comparisons for Individual-targeted Behavioral Modification Willingness
Social Distance / Party Identification / Emotioni j / Mean Difference (i-j) / SE
U.S. / Independent / Anger / Neutral / .03 / .40
Guilt / Neutral / .82* / .41
Guilt / Anger / .79* / .39
Democrat / Anger / Neutral / .41 / .38
Guilt / Neutral / .74 / .39
Guilt / Anger / .33 / .41
Republican / Anger / Neutral / -.60 / .59
Guilt / Neutral / -.28 / .57
Guilt / Anger / .32 / .61
France / Independent / Anger / Neutral / -.48 / .45
Guilt / Neutral / -.07 / .42
Guilt / Anger / .41 / .49
Democrat / Anger / Neutral / .03 / .37
Guilt / Neutral / .25 / .36
Guilt / Anger / .22 / .35
Republican / Anger / Neutral / .39 / .66
Guilt / Neutral / .59 / .66
Guilt / Anger / .20 / .69
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 8. Pairwise Comparisons for Industry-targeted Behavioral Modification Willingness
Social Distance / Party Identification / Emotioni j / Mean Difference (i-j) / SE
U.S. / Independent / Anger / Neutral / -.04 / .36
Guilt / Neutral / .86* / .37
Guilt / Anger / .89* / .35
Democrat / Anger / Neutral / -.45 / .34
Guilt / Neutral / .33 / .36
Guilt / Anger / .79* / .37
Republican / Anger / Neutral / .29 / .54
Guilt / Neutral / -.14 / .51
Guilt / Anger / -.43 / .55
France / Independent / Anger / Neutral / -.71 / .41
Guilt / Neutral / -.10 / .38
Guilt / Anger / .61 / .44
Democrat / Anger / Neutral / .67* / .33
Guilt / Neutral / .49 / .33
Guilt / Anger / -.19 / .32
Republican / Anger / Neutral / .33 / .60
Guilt / Neutral / .73 / .60
Guilt / Anger / .40 / .63
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
[Socially Proximal Condition]
AP Health News Wire
March 20, 2014
Climate Change Brings More Lyme Disease to the U.S.
According to scientific experts, climate change is expected to have dramatic changes on the weather, ecosystems, and health. For instance, climate change is expected to dramatically increase temperatures and alter precipitation patterns in many parts of the United States, which in turn will substantially raise the number of insects like mosquitoes and ticks. Unfortunately, more bugs mean significantly more risk from Lyme disease and other infectious diseases that are transmitted by mosquito and tick bites.
The symptoms of Lyme disease include fever, headache, fatigue, and a telltale “bulls eye” rash near the site of the tick-bite. Unless treated early, Lyme disease can spread to affect the joints (causing arthritis), heart, and nervous system – often causing irritability and mood swings.
Once Lyme disease becomes established in an area, it is almost impossible to eradicate. Health organizations believe this is a worrisome prospect for many Americans. Children are especially vulnerable to catching a life-threatening disease like Lyme disease. For example, a quarter of all Lyme disease cases are among children. At highest risk: kids ages 5 to 14, who are more likely to play outdoors and close to the ground, where ticks are ready to pounce.
The blame for climate change falls on many shoulders, from individuals’ daily energy consumption to industries and businesses’ greenhouse gas emissions. Researchers are now investigating how to reduce climate change in order to avoid disastrous impacts in many parts of the United States like dangerous diseases from insects. Dr. Tim Spencer, a noted climatologist, states, “There is an urgent need to support government policies, and promote individual and industrial actions to keep kids and adults in the United States safe from infectious diseases and other hazardous effects of climate change.”
[Socially Distal Condition]
AP Health News Wire
March 20, 2014
Climate Change Brings More Lyme Disease to France
According to scientific experts, climate change is expected to have dramatic changes on the weather, ecosystems, and health. For instance, climate change is expected to dramatically increase temperatures and alter precipitation patterns in many parts of France, which in turn will substantially raise the number of insects like mosquitoes and ticks. Unfortunately, more bugs mean significantly more risk from Lyme disease and other infectious diseases that are transmitted by mosquito and tick bites.
The symptoms of Lyme disease itself include fever, headache, fatigue, and a telltale “bulls eye” rash near the site of the tick-bite. Unless treated early, Lyme disease can spread to affect the joints (causing arthritis), heart, and nervous system – often causing irritability and mood swings.
Once Lyme disease becomes established in an area, it is almost impossible to eradicate. Health organizations believe this is a worrisome prospect for many French people. Children are especially vulnerable to catching a life-threatening disease like Lyme disease. For example, a quarter of all Lyme disease cases are among children. At highest risk: kids ages 5 to 14, who are more likely to play outdoors and close to the ground, where ticks are ready to pounce.
The blame for climate change falls on many shoulders, from individuals’ daily energy consumption to industries and businesses’ greenhouse gas emissions. Researchers are now investigating how to reduce climate change in order to avoid disastrous impacts in many parts of France like dangerous diseases from insects. Dr. Tim Spencer, a noted climatologist, states, “There is an urgent need to support government policies, and promote individual and industrial actions to keep kids and adults in France safe from infectious diseases and other hazardous effects of climate change.”