Many voices in the room: a national survey experiment on how framing changes views toward fracking in the United States

Patrick Bayer, Alexander Ovodenko

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) is one of the most controversial energy production processes in the United States and globally. In democracies, maintaining energy policy on politically salient and controversial issues, such as the use of fracking, depends on popular support at local if not national levels. We therefore study the effectiveness of widely cited arguments about fracking in a representative sample of the United States. Consistent with framing theory, we find that arguments that emphasize the environmental costs of fracking drive down support, while arguments emphasizing job creation and energy security increase it. However, we also show that presenting competing information from pro-fracking and anti-fracking frames together neutralizes individual framing effects, albeit not for every combination of frames and counter-frames. Framing effects become stronger when arguments, particularly about water contamination, are congruent with respondents’ pre-existing beliefs, which may lead to further polarization in the public debate. The exact kinds of arguments and how they are paired with one another do matter—a finding that is relevant for our understanding of public opinion on climate change and renewable energy policy more broadly.

LanguageEnglish
Article number101213
Number of pages9
JournalEnergy Research and Social Science
Volume56
Early online date27 Jun 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 27 Jun 2019

Fingerprint

Hydraulic fracturing
energy policy
energy production
job creation
experiment
production process
renewable energy
environmental pollution
polarization
public opinion
climate change
Experiments
democracy
energy
Energy policy
water
costs
Energy security
Climate change
Contamination

Keywords

  • fracking
  • framing
  • hydraulic fracturing
  • public opinion
  • shale gas
  • survey experiment

Cite this

@article{0b474750b19d4957864a907c34afdcc2,
title = "Many voices in the room: a national survey experiment on how framing changes views toward fracking in the United States",
abstract = "Hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) is one of the most controversial energy production processes in the United States and globally. In democracies, maintaining energy policy on politically salient and controversial issues, such as the use of fracking, depends on popular support at local if not national levels. We therefore study the effectiveness of widely cited arguments about fracking in a representative sample of the United States. Consistent with framing theory, we find that arguments that emphasize the environmental costs of fracking drive down support, while arguments emphasizing job creation and energy security increase it. However, we also show that presenting competing information from pro-fracking and anti-fracking frames together neutralizes individual framing effects, albeit not for every combination of frames and counter-frames. Framing effects become stronger when arguments, particularly about water contamination, are congruent with respondents’ pre-existing beliefs, which may lead to further polarization in the public debate. The exact kinds of arguments and how they are paired with one another do matter—a finding that is relevant for our understanding of public opinion on climate change and renewable energy policy more broadly.",
keywords = "fracking, framing, hydraulic fracturing, public opinion, shale gas, survey experiment",
author = "Patrick Bayer and Alexander Ovodenko",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.023",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
journal = "Energy Research and Social Science",
issn = "2214-6296",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Many voices in the room

T2 - Energy Research and Social Science

AU - Bayer, Patrick

AU - Ovodenko, Alexander

PY - 2019/6/27

Y1 - 2019/6/27

N2 - Hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) is one of the most controversial energy production processes in the United States and globally. In democracies, maintaining energy policy on politically salient and controversial issues, such as the use of fracking, depends on popular support at local if not national levels. We therefore study the effectiveness of widely cited arguments about fracking in a representative sample of the United States. Consistent with framing theory, we find that arguments that emphasize the environmental costs of fracking drive down support, while arguments emphasizing job creation and energy security increase it. However, we also show that presenting competing information from pro-fracking and anti-fracking frames together neutralizes individual framing effects, albeit not for every combination of frames and counter-frames. Framing effects become stronger when arguments, particularly about water contamination, are congruent with respondents’ pre-existing beliefs, which may lead to further polarization in the public debate. The exact kinds of arguments and how they are paired with one another do matter—a finding that is relevant for our understanding of public opinion on climate change and renewable energy policy more broadly.

AB - Hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) is one of the most controversial energy production processes in the United States and globally. In democracies, maintaining energy policy on politically salient and controversial issues, such as the use of fracking, depends on popular support at local if not national levels. We therefore study the effectiveness of widely cited arguments about fracking in a representative sample of the United States. Consistent with framing theory, we find that arguments that emphasize the environmental costs of fracking drive down support, while arguments emphasizing job creation and energy security increase it. However, we also show that presenting competing information from pro-fracking and anti-fracking frames together neutralizes individual framing effects, albeit not for every combination of frames and counter-frames. Framing effects become stronger when arguments, particularly about water contamination, are congruent with respondents’ pre-existing beliefs, which may lead to further polarization in the public debate. The exact kinds of arguments and how they are paired with one another do matter—a finding that is relevant for our understanding of public opinion on climate change and renewable energy policy more broadly.

KW - fracking

KW - framing

KW - hydraulic fracturing

KW - public opinion

KW - shale gas

KW - survey experiment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067929736&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.023

DO - 10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.023

M3 - Article

VL - 56

JO - Energy Research and Social Science

JF - Energy Research and Social Science

SN - 2214-6296

M1 - 101213

ER -