Public attitudes toward biofuels

Abstract Despite large-scale investments and government mandates to expand biofuels development and infrastructure in the United States, little is known about how the public conceives of this alternative fuel technology. This study examines public opinion of biofuels by focusing on citizen knowledge and the motivated processing of media information. Specifically, we explore the direct effects of biofuels knowledge and the moderating effect of partisanship on the relationship between media use and benefit vs. risk perceptions in the following four domains: environmental impacts, economic consequences, ethical/social implications, and political ramifications. Our results suggest that more knowledgeable respondents see fewer benefits of biofuels relative to risks, and that Democrats and Republicans are affected differently by media use when forming opinions about biofuels. Among Democrats, greater attention to political media content leads to a more favorable outlook toward the technology across several domains of interest, while among Republicans, an increase in attention to political content has the opposite effect. Possible reasons for these results, as well as implications of the findings at the intersection of politics and the life sciences, are discussed.

[1]  Stefan Bringezu,et al.  Towards Sustainable Production and Use of Resources: Assessing Biofuels , 2009 .

[2]  Kyle C. Kopko,et al.  In the Eye of the Beholder? Motivated Reasoning in Disputed Elections , 2011 .

[3]  G. Gaskell,et al.  Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. , 1999, Science.

[4]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[5]  Lennart Sj,et al.  Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology , 2004 .

[6]  Jarret T. Crawford The ideologically objectionable premise model: Predicting biased political judgments on the left and right , 2012 .

[7]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology , 2011 .

[8]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs , 2006 .

[9]  Carol L. Silva,et al.  Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  T. Rudolph Triangulating Political Responsibility: The Motivated Formation of Responsibility Judgments , 2006 .

[11]  Susanna Hornig Priest,et al.  The “Trust Gap” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[13]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology , 1988 .

[14]  Z. Kunda,et al.  The case for motivated reasoning. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology , 2006 .

[16]  Anthony Leiserowitz,et al.  Framing peak petroleum as a public health problem: audience research and participatory engagement in the United States. , 2011, American journal of public health.

[17]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The changing information environment for nanotechnology: online audiences and content , 2010, Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology.

[18]  Susan Miles,et al.  The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[19]  R. J. Bord,et al.  Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change , 1999 .

[20]  Charles J. Brody,et al.  Differences by Sex in Support for Nuclear Power , 1984 .

[21]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

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

[23]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[24]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments , 2009 .

[25]  J. Besley,et al.  Media Attention and Exposure in Relation to Support for Agricultural Biotechnology , 2005 .

[26]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  A Computational Model of the Citizen as Motivated Reasoner: Modeling the Dynamics of the 2000 Presidential Election , 2010 .

[27]  A. Wohlers Regulating Genetically Modified Food , 2010, Politics and the Life Sciences.

[28]  J. Graham,et al.  Risk vs. Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment , 2009 .

[29]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology , 2009 .

[30]  Pamela R D Williams,et al.  Data available for evaluating the risks and benefits of MTBE and ethanol as alternative fuel oxygenates. , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[31]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Biotechnology and the American Media , 2002 .

[32]  Jon D. Miller,et al.  Public Acceptance of Evolution , 2006, Science.

[33]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social cognition, 2nd ed. , 1991 .

[34]  G. Gaskell,et al.  GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[35]  Milton Lodge,et al.  Motivated reasoning and public opinion. , 2011, Journal of health politics, policy and law.

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

[37]  Jon D. Miller,et al.  Public perceptions of science and technology : a comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada , 1997 .

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

[39]  Dan Ferber,et al.  Risks and Benefits: GM Crops in the Cross Hairs , 1999, Science.

[40]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[41]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[42]  R. Stedman Risk and Climate Change: Perceptions of Key Policy Actors in Canada , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[43]  Christine R. Harris,et al.  Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? , 2006, Judgment and Decision Making.

[44]  S. Norris,et al.  Causal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[45]  D. Kahan,et al.  Cultural cognition of scientific consensus , 2011 .

[46]  E. Zervas,et al.  Public acceptance of biofuels , 2010 .

[47]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  A Computational Model of the Citizen as Motivated Reasoner: Modeling the Dynamics of the 2000 Presidential Election , 2010 .

[48]  J. Mathews Opinion: is growing biofuel crops a crime against humanity? , 2008 .

[49]  Jon D. Miller Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know , 2004 .

[50]  P. Gustafson Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives , 1998, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[51]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public Support for Stem Cell Research , 2005 .

[52]  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.

[53]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Moral Politicking , 2009 .

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

[55]  Kyu S. Hahn,et al.  Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use , 2009 .

[56]  Linda G. Kimmel,et al.  Biomedical communications : purposes, audiences, and strategies , 2001 .

[57]  Janet Kaye,et al.  Biomedical Communications: Purposes, Audiences, and Strategies , 2002 .

[58]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  A Media Effects Model for Public Perceptions of Science and Technology , 2002 .

[59]  J. Gregory,et al.  Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility , 2000 .

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

[61]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[62]  Michael G Tyshenko,et al.  The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[63]  Michael F. Meffert,et al.  The Effects of Negativity and Motivated Information Processing During a Political Campaign. , 2006 .

[64]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework , 1988 .

[65]  Shirley S. Ho,et al.  Effects of Value Predispositions, Mass Media Use, and Knowledge on Public Attitudes Toward Embryonic Stem Cell Research , 2008 .

[66]  J. O. Whittaker COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATIONS , 1964 .