Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception

Using an experiment embedded within a representative survey, this study examined the interactive effect of party identification and risk/benefit perception on public opinion about biofuels. Democrats tended to be more supportive of biofuels than Republicans. However, the effect of party identification on opinion about biofuels varied when individuals considered the risk/benefit of biofuels in different domains. Individuals who reported greater affiliation with the Democratic Party were likely to support funding biofuels research when primed with the economic risks or the social/ethical benefits of biofuels. For those who considered the social/ethical benefits of biofuels, more self-identified Democrats were likely to support biofuels production and use. However, more self-identified Democrats were less supportive of biofuels production and use when they considered the political risks of biofuels. Implications are discussed.

[1]  Bret R. Shaw,et al.  Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science , 2012, Public understanding of science.

[2]  Robert Y. Shapiro,et al.  The New American Voter , 1980 .

[3]  William L. Benoit,et al.  Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952–2000 , 2003 .

[4]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[5]  Martin Kaiser,et al.  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel , 2003 .

[6]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels , 2010 .

[7]  Herbert F. Weisberg,et al.  The American Voter Revisited , 2008 .

[8]  Leslie D. Edgar,et al.  Consumer Awareness, Use, and Perceptions of Biodiesel in Northwest Arkansas , 2013 .

[9]  Steven Chu,et al.  The Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future: Progress Report , 2012 .

[10]  K. Kim.  Public understanding of the politics of global warming in the news media: the hostile media approach , 2011, Public understanding of science.

[11]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Think about it This Way: Attribute Agenda-Setting Function of the Press and the public's Evaluation of a Local Issue , 2002 .

[13]  E. Higgins.  Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. , 1996 .

[14]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies , 2007, American Political Science Review.

[15]  Robert Z. Lawrence.  How Good Politics Results in Bad Policy: The Case of Biofuel Mandates , 2010 .

[16]  J. McGowan.  American Liberalism: An Interpretation for Our Time , 2007 .

[17]  J. Hermans,et al.  Energy and transportation( , 2015 .

[18]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review , 2012, Public understanding of science.

[19]  David Pimentel,et al.  Food Versus Biofuels: Environmental and Economic Costs , 2009 .

[20]  Paul N. Goren.  Party Identification and Core Political Values , 2005 .

[21]  Robert Andersen,et al.  Do issues decide? Partisan conditioning and perceptions of party issue positions across the electoral cycle , 2004, British Elections & Parties Review.

[22]  E. López-Escobar,et al.  Candidate Images in Spanish Elections: Second-Level Agenda-Setting Effects , 1997 .

[23]  Christopher Wlezien,et al.  A Reference Group Theory of Partisan Coalitions , 1991, The Journal of Politics.

[24]  David P. Redlawsk,et al.  Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making , 2001 .

[25]  Shanto Iyengar,et al.  THE ACCESSIBILITY BIAS IN POLITICS: TELEVISION NEWS AND PUBLIC OPINION , 1990 .

[26]  The Press, Candidate Images, and Voter Perceptions , 2013 .

[27]  Jeffrey Levine,et al.  Accessibility and the Political Utility of Partisan and Ideological Orientations , 1999 .

[28]  M. Fishbein.  A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. , 1980, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[29]  D. Green,et al.  Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters , 2002 .

[30]  H. Tajfel,et al.  The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. , 2004 .

[31]  E. Steiner,et al.  Consumer Views on Transportation and Energy , 2003 .

[32]  Steven Greene,et al.  Social identity theory and party identification , 2004 .

[33]  M. Siegrist.  The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[34]  M. Hogg,et al.  Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms , 2006 .

[35]  William L. Benoit,et al.  A Functional Analysis of 2008 General Election Presidential TV Spots , 2012 .

[36]  William G. Jacoby.  The Impact of Party Identification on Issue Attitudes , 1988 .

[37]  A. Lucier,et al.  Communicating About Bioenergy Sustainability , 2013, Environmental Management.

[38]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies , 2006 .

[39]  M. Hogg,et al.  Social identity and attitudes , 2008 .

[40]  Toby Bolsen,et al.  The Polls—Trends Public Opinion on Energy Policy: 1974–2006 , 2008 .

[41]  James N. Druckman,et al.  A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments , 2007 .

[42]  Bret R. Shaw,et al.  Labeling renewable energies: how the language surrounding biofuels can influence its public acceptance. , 2012 .

[43]  S. Kent Hoekman,et al.  Biofuels in the U.S. – Challenges and Opportunities , 2009 .

[44]  M. Groom,et al.  Biofuels and Biodiversity: Principles for Creating Better Policies for Biofuel Production , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[45]  M. Douglas.  Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory , 1994 .

[46]  D. Brossard,et al.  There Is Water Everywhere: How News Framing Amplifies the Effect of Ecological Worldviews on Preference for Flooding Protection Policy , 2011 .

[47]  Evangelos C. Petrou,et al.  Biofuels: A Survey on Pros and Cons , 2009 .

[48]  Robert Bailis,et al.  Environmental and social implications of integrated seawater agriculture systems producing Salicornia bigelovii for biofuel , 2012 .

[49]  S. Worchel,et al.  Psychology of intergroup relations , 1986 .

[50]  M. Douglas,et al.  Risk and culture : an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers , 1983 .

[51]  Jacinto F. Fabiosa,et al.  Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change , 2008, Science.

[52]  P. Converse,et al.  The American voter , 1960 .

[53]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Social Psychological Dimensions of Bioenergy Development and Public Acceptance , 2008, BioEnergy Research.

[54]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.