How might perceived political power and institutional responsiveness relate to climate skepticism?
A closer account of the question, evidence, and how to interpret this work.
Disempowered by Design examines climate skepticism in relation to political efficacy. Knowing a scientific finding, trusting the institution reporting it, and believing one can influence the policy response are different judgments. A person may accept climate science but think government action is unresponsive; someone may question scientific authority for reasons not reducible to factual knowledge.
Personal efficacy concerns a citizen’s capacity to participate or influence politics; external efficacy concerns the responsiveness of governing institutions. Those evaluations may shape receptivity to policy demands that ask people to trust public authorities. The manuscript’s stated inquiry is how such perceptions relate to climate-skeptical positions, not whether efficacy is the sole explanation for dissent.
The collaboration listed in the 2026 CV is under review. Its model specifications, variables, and estimates are not verified in the materials currently available for this page. The project's potential contribution is clear, but its empirical conclusions must come from the actual manuscript rather than be reconstructed from the title or from findings in a different efficacy study.
Source: Young, Vanderhoof, Bourland, McGuire, Cross and Hoar, Disempowered by Design, manuscript under review.
The full manuscript was unavailable in the verified materials. Its particular measures and empirical results are not inferred from the title. The site describes the work as under review, not accepted or published.
Under review · Manuscript · Laura D. Young, Alexis Vanderhoof, L. Lea Bourland, Peyton McGuire, Andre Cross, and Alfie Hoar · Current manuscript listed in the 2026 CV.