Holly Peterson

Do presidential climate change narratives increase related congressional attention in the United States? Narrative theory says since narratives leverage cognitive heuristics, they should focus policy‐making attention in institutions more efficiently than non‐narrative statements. This study identifies and tests climate change statements and narratives, including those focused on solutions, or “stories of hope,” and those focused on problems and victims, “stories of fear,” for relationships with congressional attention using time series analysis. Findings suggest a relationship between narrative and hearings, but not for non‐narrative statements and hearings. Furthermore, while narratives are related to hearings generally, stories of fear have larger effects, but only in conditions of single party control of the US Presidency and Congress. This analysis supports theory about narratives and institutional influence and offers the additional concept of stories of fear and hope as impactful on political institutions.