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

Timothy K.F. Fung a,n, Doo Hun Choi b, Dietram A. Scheufele b, Bret R. Shaw c

a Department of Communication Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University, CVA921, Communication and Visual Arts Building, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SARb Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1545 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USAc Department of Life Sciences Communication and Environmental Communication Specialist in UW Extension, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1545Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA

H I G H L I G H T S

� We examined public opinion about biofuels policies.� Effect of risk/benefit perception varied across respondents' party identification.� Democrats favored more research when considering economic risks or social benefits.� Democrats favored biofuels more when considering social benefits.� Democrats favored biofuels less when considering political risks.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 15 December 2013Received in revised form5 May 2014Accepted 7 May 2014Available online 18 June 2014

Keywords:BiofuelsPublic opinionPartisanshipRisk/benefit perceptionInteractive effect

a b s t r a c t

Using an experiment embedded within a representative survey, this study examined the interactiveeffect of party identification and risk/benefit perception on public opinion about biofuels. Democratstended to be more supportive of biofuels than Republicans. However, the effect of party identification onopinion about biofuels varied when individuals considered the risk/benefit of biofuels in differentdomains. Individuals who reported greater affiliation with the Democratic Party were likely to supportfunding 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 werelikely to support biofuels production and use. However, more self-identified Democrats were lesssupportive of biofuels production and use when they considered the political risks of biofuels.Implications are discussed.

& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In midst of energy independence and environmental concerns,the U.S. government and industry invested heavily in biofuelsduring recent years to foster its development as a viable renewableenergy source. For instance, the U.S. government spent 22 billiondollars to subsidize biofuels production and consumption from2009 to 2011 (Energytribune, 2012). As a result, U.S. production ofethanol and biodiesel increased more than 40% between 2008 and2011 and has become the most common source of renewableenergy in the U.S. transportation (The White House, 2011).

Although some federal biofuels programs and subsidies haverecently been allowed to expire, scientific research is ongoing toimprove biofuels technology. Specifically, scientists are developingsecond-generation biofuels for sustainable growth in productionand consumption. Biofuels remain the most promising potentialsubstitute for petroleum. However, opinion polls about biofuels asan alternative energy source are mixed. Some studies (Bolsen andCook, 2008; Rabe and Borick, 2008) indicated a favorable view,and others showed growing concerns and doubts (Belden,Russonello & Stewart, 2010). These mixed opinions signify biofuelsas a controversial science issue. Furthermore, the internationaldebate surrounding recent large-scale corn imports from Braziland Argentina to the United States for ensuring grain supply maypotentially influence the public's opinion about biofuels (IndexMundi, 2014; PIERS, 2014; Reuters, 2012).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Energy Policy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.0160301-4215/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ852 3411 7381.E-mail address: tfung@hkbu.edu.hk (T.K.F. Fung).

Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355

When facing complex and uncertain science and technologyissues, people tend to use judgmental heuristics to form opinions(Scheufele, 2006). Party identification (e.g., Kim, 2011) andtechnology-specific risk and benefit perceptions (e.g., Siegrist,2000), for instance, are common decision cues for making judg-ments about science and technology issues. Literature in sciencecommunication has examined how these two heuristics indepen-dently contribute to opinion formation; however, little attentionhas been paid to the interplay of these two different heuristics toinfluence public attitudes toward science and technology. Self-identification with a political party is part of an individual's self-concept and has a referent influence on opinion formation (Smithand Hogg, 2008). Furthermore, perceived risks and benefitsinfluence opinion about whether a technology is acceptable andsafe (Siegrist and Cvetkovich, 2000). Specific to the case ofbiofuels, a bipartisan divide exists in support of biofuels and itspolicies, and this gap is widening (Pew Research Center, 2011).Studies suggest biofuels are associated with advantages anddisadvantages (Petrous and Pappis, 2009). As such, party identifi-cation and risks and benefits considerations may work in tandemto influence public opinion about biofuels. The general public playsa determinant role in the development of a technology (Guptaet al., 2012). A technology's success depends on its acceptance bythe public, and public attitudes related to biofuels can influencegovernment policy decisions. Therefore, understanding how theinterplay between partisanship and risk/benefit perception ofbiofuels can provide critical insights into potential sources ofinfluence on public opinion and the process of democratic decisionmaking about public policies related to science and technology.

This study provides a systematic attempt to examine how partyidentification and risk/benefit perception may jointly influencepublic opinion toward biofuels. Specifically, we conducted arepresentative survey in a Midwestern state where biofuels areof political, economic, and social interests. Further, we designed anexperiment embedded in a survey to activate risks/benefits con-siderations of biofuels to test the interaction between partyidentification and risk/benefit perception.

2. Literature review

2.1. Public opinion about biofuels

Despite the considerable increase in the production and use ofbiofuels in the past several years and the large amount of publicand private funds at stake, research on public opinion aboutbiofuels is rare. Polling results showed general public support forbiofuels (Bolsen and Cook, 2008; Rabe and Borick, 2008; PewResearch Center, 2008; Wegener and Kelly, 2008). A focus groupstudy in a bioenergy producing state revealed that respondentshad a fair amount of knowledge about biofuels, but were lessinformed about its policies (Delshad et al., 2010). Supportersperceived biofuels as economically affordable and environmentallyfriendly (Delshad et al., 2010; Kubik, 2006). Opponents, by con-trast, deemed ethanol as harmful to the environment, unsafe, andexpensive (Kubik, 2006); and opponents did not support fixedsubsidies or cap-and-trade policies (Delshad et al., 2010). Thesestudies suggest that perceptions about the advantages and dis-advantages of biofuels are important determinants of attitudes.

Prior studies have also found that prior experience with usingbiofuels influences attitudes. For instance, according to a NationalBiodiesel Board commissioned study (ASG Renaissance, 2004), halfof the interviewed truck fleet operators have used biodiesel intheir vehicles, and all of them indicated that their biodieselexperience has been favorable. New vehicles with the biodiesel-ready fuel tank, taking a leadership role in protecting the environment

within the transportation industry, and regulatory restrictions ontrucks using cleaner fuels for facility access (e.g., airports) werenoted as reasons for using biodiesels. However, about 10% had anegative impression toward biodiesels and also expressed thatthey did not want further information about biodiesels. Vehiclemanufacturers' unclear engine warranty coverage for the use ofbiodiesels and the lack of refueling facilities that offer biodieselswere mentioned, by those who did not use biodiesels, as the maindisadvantage. Another recent study (Johnson et al., 2013) found anassociation between biodiesel use and perception of biodieselquality and performance. Specifically, non-biodiesel users weremore likely to agree that diesel engines would not run properly onbiodiesels. However, biodiesel users were more likely to agree thatbiodiesels were high quality fuels.

Another study (Cacciatore et al., 2012) found that, in general,the public reacted more positively to the term “biofuels” than to“ethanol.” An interesting observation was that such preference forthe term “biofuels” over “ethanol” was particularly large forDemocrats. Although an increasing number of studies have exam-ined public opinion toward biofuels and its policies, little is knownabout how party identification and risk/benefit perception shapeattitudes simultaneously.

2.2. Party identification and opinions about biofuels

Party identification is broadly defined as an individual attach-ment to a political party based on a sense of closeness (Greenet al., 2002). As such, individual identification with a political partyvaries in the degree of intensity ranging from simply a psycholo-gical tie to an active engagement in party-sponsored activities.Once the party tie is developed, this partisan orientation isrelatively stable and often persists over an individual's lifetime(Green et al., 2002).

Partisanship may influence individual's opinions about scienceand technology issues because opinion formation is grounded insocial identities (Smith and Hogg, 2008). According to socialidentity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), part of individuals' self-concept comes from knowledge about their perceived member-ship in groups (i.e., social identities). A social identity is cognitivelyrepresented, in one's mind, in the form of a category prototype(Smith and Hogg, 2008). The category prototype is a cluster oforganized attributes that specify and govern a group member'sfeelings, behaviors, and attitudes (Hogg and Reid, 2006). Whenindividuals categorize themselves as members of a group, theyinternalize the prototypical attributes of the group, includingattitude endorsement, and behave consistently with the groupprototype (Hogg and Turner, 1987). Such group categorization andidentification processes influence individuals to conform to thegroup prototype, because the prototype functions as a referentguide to formulate their attitudes and behaviors as group mem-bers (Lewis-Beck et al., 2008). That is, driven by their socialidentity and the motivation of being part of the group, individualstend to align their attitudes with their allegiant group.

In an American political context, voters tend to form a psycho-logical connection either to the Democratic or Republican partiesas social groups. The Republican Party's platform is, by and large,grounded on conservative principles that involve free marketpolicies, tradition and order, the rule of law, and a belief in God(Regnery, 2012). In contrast, the Democratic Party's platform isgenerally based on modern liberalism, which involves the convic-tions of separation of church and state, social equality, and civilrights (McGowan, 2007). As driven by different political philoso-phies, the Republican Party is marked by, for instance, its advo-cates of small government, low taxes, limited regulation, schoolprayer, capital punishment, and its opposition to abortion and thelegalization of same-sex marriage. The Democratic Party is

T.K.F. Fung et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355 345

manifested by, for example, its issue stances of pro-choice onabortion, supporting government intervention and regulation, andfavoring higher taxation to promote social equality (McGowan,2007). According to the social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner,1986), individuals' affiliation to the Republican or DemocraticParty is based on the stereotypical prototypes of these twopolitical groups' issues advocates and their political beliefs. Peopletend to be self-categorized into one of these two political groups(Greene, 2004; Green et al., 2002).

Empirical evidence in the United States (e.g., Jacoby, 1988; Millerand Shanks, 1996) and in other countries, such as Britain(e.g., Evans and Andersen, 2004), corroborates that party identificationhas an influential impact on individual's issue-related attitudes. Asposited by social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), self-perceived membership in a political group will prompt individualsto conform to their affiliated party's issue stances because the self-perceived membership of a political party has become part of theirself-concept and their desire to align attitudes with the affiliatedpolitical party. In the case of public opinion about biofuels in theUnited States, research (Petrocik et al., 2003; Law, 2012; Benoit andGlantz, 2012) shows that Democrats have a reputation of attentiontoward environmental issues, and the public perceives Democrats aredoing a better job on energy issues in recent years, whereas Repub-licans are known for fiscal prudence. Further, polls reveal thatDemocrats are more supportive of biofuels than Republicans are(Pew Research Center, 2011; Winters, 2012). The Democratic Party(Democratic Party, 2012) believes in the government playing an activerole developing renewable energy sources that include biofuels in itspolicy platform. Alternatively, the Republican Party (Republican Party,2012) advocates that the development of renewable energies shouldbe primarily driven by market forces. Based on social identity theory(Tajfel and Turner, 1986), issue positions of the affiliated political partyfunction as referent guides to form individuals' opinions; therefore, weexpect that party identification will influence individuals' attitudestoward biofuels. Because party identification varies in terms ofintensity, we further argue that attitude toward biofuels is a functionof the strength of party identification. Specifically, individuals whoreport greater affiliation with the Democratic Party are likely tosupport biofuels.

H1: Party identification will positively influence attitudes towardbiofuels. Specifically, the more individuals identify as Democrats, themore likely they are to show (a) support for funding biofuels researchand (b) support for biofuels production and use.

2.3. Risk/benefit perception and opinions about biofuels

A growing number of studies have provided empirical evidenceabout the positive and negative impacts of biofuels on society.These risks and benefits can be categorized into environmental,economic, social, and political domains.

2.3.1. Environmental domainPerhaps one possible benefit of biofuels is the potential to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow down global warming(Forge, 2007). However, the production and combustion of corn-based ethanol may cause water pollution (Hoekman, 2009) and airpollution (Pimentel et al., 2009), which may have harmful effectson the environment and human health. Growing feedstocks forproducing biofuels also converts natural forests and grasslandsinto new cropland (Searchinger et al., 2008), which threatensbiodiversity and wildlife (Groom et al., 2008).

2.3.2. Economic domainThe production, construction, and research in the ethanol

industry directly and indirectly created 401,000 new jobs across

different public and private sectors and added $42.4 billion to theU.S. economy in 2011 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2013). However,increasing food prices is a concern because the need for corn toproduce ethanol in the U.S. causes a sharp increase in the demandfor agricultural commodities (Tangermann, 2008). In addition,switching to biofuels would largely increase aviation fuel costs(Newcomb, 2012). Therefore, without government subsidies, thecost of biofuels is unaffordable (FAO, 2008).

2.3.3. Social/ethical domainLow-cost and abundant agricultural waste, such as cereal crop

residues, can potentially be used as feedstock without using additionalland or increasing greenhouse gas emissions during the bioenergyproduction process (Hay, 2010). Another advantage of developingbiofuels is to maintain American global leadership in science andtechnology. President Obama argued that investment in new energystrategies, including biofuels, will help position the United States astheworld leader in science and technology (Scientific American, 2012).

The increasing use of croplands for biofuels may reduce thefood supply, drive up food prices to an unaffordable level, and,ultimately, contribute to aggregate world hunger (Ho, 2011).Moreover, citizen groups have expressed concerns about thedegradation of the quality of life in their local communities andthe reduction of the value of residential properties that surroundbiofuels plants and croplands (Hoyer and Saewitz, 2007).

2.3.4. Political domainThe issue of energy independence has taken on a new urgency

because of the recent war in Iraq, anti-Americanism in the MiddleEast, and instability in Gulf threatening oil tank vessels. Develop-ing biofuels can potentially enhance the United States' energyindependence, because biofuels are domestically produced, whichmakes the supply more reliable (Hoekman, 2009).

Just as in other domains, biofuels have political downsides.Lawrence (2010) argued that biofuels mandates not only failed tofollow the basic principles of good policy making but also put upbarriers to prevent the industry to develop an efficient biofuelsmanufacturing process. Moreover, because a large proportion ofgovernment funding for domestic energy has been allocated todevelop biofuels, some have made the criticism that there hasbeen insufficient attention paid to other renewable energies suchas wind and solar.

Informed assessment of risks and benefits of a technologyrequires elaborate knowledge about science. Because of their lackof knowledge, people tend to believe the sources they trust aboutthe assessment of the technology (Siegrist et al., 2000). That is,rather than building on their scientific knowledge, the basis oftheir perceptions of risks and benefits comes from their trust inauthorities' or experts' risk assessment of the technology (Siegristand Cvetkovich, 2000). For example, people who trusted experts(e.g., government agencies or industrial leaders or scientists)perceived more benefits but fewer risks associated with biotech-nology than those who did not trust these experts (Siegrist, 2000).People utilize risk and benefit perceptions as a cognitive shortcutto determine the safety and favorableness of a technology. In thecase of biofuels, a focus group study (Delshad et al., 2010)indicated that people used their risk/benefit perception to formopinions. Thus, we expect that risk/benefit perception will be apredictor of opinions about biofuels and its policies. However, littleresearch has yet examined the relative influence of specific riskand benefit perceptions, in different topical domains, on opinionformation. Therefore, we posed the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the relative influences of environmental, eco-nomic, social, and political risk perceptions of biofuels on opinions

T.K.F. Fung et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355346

about (a) biofuels research funding and (b) biofuels productionand use?

RQ2: What are the relative influences of environmental, economic,social, and political benefit perceptions of biofuels on opinions about(a) biofuels research funding and (b) biofuels production and use?

2.4. Simultaneous effects of party identification and risk/benefitperception of biofuels

Rather than optimizing the use of information to becomeknowledgeable about issues of concern, most people rely ondecision cues as a means to form attitudes (Popkin, 1991). This isparticularly true when they have a lack of knowledge, motivation,and ability to understand an issue. Similarly, most people applyheuristics to reduce issue complexity and to make up their mindsabout science-related debates (Scheufele, 2006). Partisanship andrisk/benefit perception are two cues readily available for formingopinions about science-related issues.

Party identification is an important, enduring, and stable predis-position (Goren, 2005). As part of individuals' self-concept, accordingto social identity theory, individuals tend to consistently think in termsof their partisan memberships in their social and political lives, andconsequently, party identification functions as a generalized andprincipal reference guide for forming issue-related opinions and policyjudgments (Miller et al., 1991). As Campbell et al. (1960: p. 133) put it,party identification “raises a perceptual screen through which theindividual tends to see what is favorable to his partisan orientation.The stronger the party bond, the more exaggerated the process ofselection and perceptual distortion will be” In other words, partyidentification leads individuals to process issue-related informationconsistent with their affiliated party's positions (Huckfeldt et al., 1999;Lau and Redlawsk, 2001).

In a democratic society, policymakers usually take the public'sviews into account when formulating public policies regardingbiofuels. When individuals are asked for their attitudes regardingbiofuels related policies, the issue of biofuels becomes moresalient in their minds. As noted above, biofuels are perceived tobe associated with drawbacks and benefits in environmental,economic, social/ethical, and political domains. When the biofuelsissue becomes more salient, the more issue-specific pro and conconsiderations regarding biofuels embedded in individuals' long-term memory are likely to be triggered and may become moretemporarily accessible, in their short-term memory, for informa-tion processing and issue judgment. As outlined in the memory-based model of opinion formation (Iyengar, 1990), people are morelikely to make use of this readily accessible risk and benefitinformation about biofuels in their minds to formulate preferencesabout public policies regarding biofuels.

Previous studies have examined how partisanship and risk/benefit perception separately shape public opinion. Research hasnot considered the possibility of the interaction between the two.This is surprising, given that these two cues are relevant to scienceand technology issues, and both exist readily in our surroundings.Indeed, a more general partisan cue and technology-specific risk/benefit cues seem likely to jointly influence individual opinions.

To understand the potential interaction between partisanship andrisk/benefit perception, the theory of opinion formation in a message-competitive environment may provide useful insights. As stated in theexpectancy-value model (Fishbein, 1980), individual opinions aredetermined by subjective evaluations of the attributes associatedwith the object and the accessibility of those associations.Building on this model, the theory of opinion formation in amessage-competitive environment (Chong and Druckman,2007a) posits that opinion change occurs by heightening theprimacy of certain attributes of the object over others. In thisstudy, partisanship may function as a referential predisposition of

individual preference for science and technology issues. When thebiofuels issue becomes more salient, the technology-specific risk/benefit considerations of biofuels are heightened. As such, risk/benefit perception may moderate the effect of partisanship onopinions about biofuels. Research (Chong and Druckman, 2007b)shows that exposure to a mix of competing message framesprompt individuals to direct their attention to issue-specificinformation in the frame, rather than to focus on the predisposi-tion for attitude alignment. Therefore, we argue that biofuelstechnology-specific risk and benefit perceptions may interact withthe dispositional effect of party identification in shaping attitudestoward biofuels and the related policies. The following researchquestion was posited:

RQ3: How do risk/benefit perception and party identificationinteract to influence attitudes toward (a) biofuels research fundingand (b) biofuels production and use?

3. Methods

3.1. Data and risk/benefit priming procedures

A random-digit-dial telephone survey was conducted by auniversity's survey center between April and June of 2009, whichfell within the fast growing period for the production andconsumption of biofuels. Biofuels was a salient issue at that time,which provided an ideal platform for this study (Fig. 1). A total of593 respondents from a Midwestern state were interviewed with aresponse rate of 38.8%, which was calculated using the AmericanAssociation for Public Opinion Research formula for RR3. TheMidwestern state under study is the home of one of the largestbioenergy industries in the United States (Barrett, 2009). Thestate's heavy reliance on bioenergy offers an optimal researchenvironment for understanding public opinion about biofuels.

The major focus of this study was to examine the interacting effectof risk/benefit perception of biofuels and party identification. Totrigger the risks and benefits considerations of biofuels temporarilyaccessible in the minds of the respondents, we employed a primingtechnique. The goal of priming is to activate a particular domain(e.g., environmental, economic, social/ethical, and political) of risks andbenefits considerations about biofuels among the respondents. Assuch, the activated domain of risks and benefits considerationsbecomes more salient and may serve as an interpretive guide inprocessing subsequent information (Higgins, 1996). Each primingdomain consisted of two risk-related and two benefit-related ques-tions about biofuels. For example, a respondent in the environmentalpriming domain answered two environment-related risks and twoenvironment-related benefits questions on biofuels use and produc-tion. The order of the risks and benefits questions, within eachdomain, was randomized to avoid an ordering effect.

To activate a particular domain of risks and benefits considera-tions of biofuels, each respondent was randomly assigned to firstanswer one of the four domains of biofuels priming questions.Next, the respondents were asked about their attitudinal supportof biofuels. After that, the respondent answered the remainingdomains of biofuels risks and benefits questions. For instance, arespondent was randomly assigned to answer the environmentalrisks and benefits priming questions. The environmental primingquestions were likely to activate the respondents' considerationsof the risks and benefits about biofuels on the environment. As aconsequence, the environmental risks and benefits considerationsmay have functioned as the interpretative guides when therespondents answered attitudinal questions about biofuels. Afterthat, the rest of the risks and benefits questions, in the threeremaining domains, were collapsed together in a random order

T.K.F. Fung et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355 347

and the respondent answered all the remaining risks and benefitsquestions.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Party identification strengthRespondents were asked to indicate the strength of their

party identification on a 7-point scale (1¼strong Republican, 4¼Independent, and 7¼strong Democrat; M¼4.15, SD¼2.08).

3.2.2. Biofuels risk and benefit primingRespondents were asked to indicate their levels of agreement,

on a 10-point scale (1¼strongly disagree, 10¼strongly agree), onfour questions of each domain regarding biofuels. Below are theitems in each domain:

3.2.2.1. Environmental priming. The two benefit questions were“biofuels are less damaging to the environment than petroleum-based fuels” and “biofuels burn cleaner than regular gasoline.”They were combined to create the environmental benefit primingindex (M¼6.26, SD¼2.35). The reliability of the two-item measurewas reliable (interitem correlation¼0.57; Cronbach's α¼0.73).

The two environmental risks of biofuels items were “biofuelswill have negative environmental impacts” and “biofuels produc-tion will threaten plants and wildlife.” The items were averaged tocreate the environmental risk priming index (M¼4.39, SD¼2.05),however, the reliability of this two-item measure was low (Cron-bach's alpha¼0.52; interitem correlation¼0.36).

3.2.2.2. Economic priming. The four items were “biofuels willincrease fuel costs,” “biofuels production will lead to an increasein the price of food,” “biofuels production will create more jobs,”and “developing domestic biofuels will help strengthen the U.S.economy.” The first two items were combined to create theeconomic risk priming index (M¼5.59, SD¼2.32), the reliabilityof the two-item measure was marginal with a Cronbach's alpha of0.66 and an interitem correlation of 0.49. The other two wereaveraged to create the economic benefit priming index (M¼6.25,

SD¼2.37). The two-item measure of the economic benefit primingwas reliable (interitem correlation¼0.68; α¼0.81).

3.2.2.3. Social/ethical priming. The two risk items were “biofuelsplants reduce the quality of life in surrounding communities” and“recent increases in biofuels production have contributed to worldhunger.” The two items were used to create the social/ethical riskpriming index (M¼4.10, SD¼2.18), and the reliability of themeasure was marginal with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.62 and aninteritem correlation of 0.45.

Social/ethical benefit priming index (M¼6.40, SD¼2.25) wascreated by “biofuels will help the United States maintain globalleadership in science and technology” and “biofuels enable us to turnagricultural waste into energy.” The reliability of the two-item scalewas marginally acceptable (interitem correlation¼0.53; α¼0.69).

3.2.2.4. Political priming. The political risk priming items (M¼5.10,SD¼2.17) were “government mandates to use more biofuels putunfair restrictions on the U.S. industries,” and “developing biofuelstakes resources away from other renewable energy solutions suchas wind and solar.” However, the reliability of this two-itemmeasure was low (interitem correlation¼0.35; α¼0.52).

The political benefit priming index (M¼6.09, SD¼2.53), wasformed by “increasing production of biofuels will reduce our depen-dence on foreign oil,” and “by investing in biofuels, the U.S. govern-ment can join the international fight against global warming.” Thetwo-item scale was reliable (interitem correlation¼0.57; α¼0.73).

3.2.3. Support for biofuels research fundingThis dependent variable was an additive index of three items

that asked respondents to rate their agreement to support federaland state funding for biofuels and government subsidies forbiofuels research on a 10-point scale (1¼strongly disagree,10¼strongly agree; M¼5.33, SD¼2.80) The Cronbach's alphacoefficient was 0.93, indicating high reliability.

Fig. 1. U.S. press coverage of biofuels. Note: The New York Times and the Washington Post were included in the news articles search.

T.K.F. Fung et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355348

3.2.4. Support for the production and use of biofuelsThis variable was constructed by three items: “I support the

production of biofuels,” “I support the use of biofuels,” “Biofuelsare good for society.” Respondents indicated their level of agree-ment on each item on a 10-point scale (1¼strongly disagree,10¼strongly agree; M¼6.25, SD¼2.54). The measure was reliablewith a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.92.

3.2.5. Control variablesAlthough the design of this study was a randomized experiment

embedded in a representative survey, we included control variablesto separate the effects of risk (benefit) perception from benefit (risk)perception of biofuels. Specifically, each domain consisted of bothrisk and benefit items of biofuels, therefore, we needed to partitionthe influence of benefit (risk) items when examining the effect of risk(benefit) items on the dependent variables. The explained variancesthrough the benefit (risk) items, in the dependent variables, wereremoved after controlling for the benefit (risk) items. This partition ofthe variance process provided a statistical control to isolate the effectof risk (benefit) items on the dependent variables. The benefitpriming variable was created by averaging all eight benefit-relateditems in the four different domains (M¼6.06, SD¼2.37), and thescale was reliable (α¼0.90). Likewise, the risk priming variable wasconstructed by averaging all eight risk-related items in the environ-mental, economic, social/ethical, and political domains (M¼4.74,SD¼2.33), and the measure was reliable (α¼0.79).

In addition, because the response magnitudes of the risk(benefit) items in one domain might not be directly comparableto another domain, we controlled for the strength of response tothe risk and benefit items in different domains. For instance, theparticipants' responses to the risk (benefit) items in the environ-mental domain may be varied in terms of magnitude from otherrisk (benefit) items in the economic domain. Therefore, we alsocontrolled for the strength of response to the benefit (risk) primingitems when analyzing the effect of the risk (benefit) priming items.The strength of response to the risk (benefit) priming items wascreated by first folding over the two risk priming items in eachdomain, and then averaging the scores of the four domains.

4. Results

4.1. Analytical approach

The primary analyses in this study were composed of multipleregressions with the risk/benefit priming conditions, party identi-fication strength, and their interactions as independent variables.According to Cohen et al. (2003), this multiple regression approachoffers optimal use of party identification strength. The regressionapproach treated the party identification strength as a continuousvariable, rather than forcing it into a dichotomized strong versusweak party identification groups as traditionally done in theANOVA approach. The artificial dichotomization of a continuousvariable in the ANOVA approach would lead to loss of associatedinformation (Cohen et al., 2003). Furthermore, these regressionanalyses facilitated the examination of the moderating effects ofthe risk/benefit priming and the partitioning risk (benefit) effect.

Four sets of regression analyses were conducted. The first twosets examined the effects of risk priming on support for fundingbiofuels research and biofuels production and use, respectively. Inthese two sets of regression analyses, the risk priming items weredummy-coded, and the political risk priming was treated as areference group for comparison. The second set examined theeffects of benefit priming on the two dependent variables. Simi-larly, the benefit priming items were dummy-coded and the socialbenefit priming was treated as a reference group. In these four Ta

ble

1Effect

ofparty

iden

tification

,riskprimingan

dtheinteractions.

Supportforfundingbiofuelsresearch

Biofuelsproductionan

duse

Eq.1

Eq.2

Eq.3

Eq.4

Eq.1

Eq.2

Eq.3

Eq.4

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Controlva

riab

les

Ben

efitpriming

0.73

nnn

0.61

nnn

0.71

nnn

0.59

nnn

0.71

nnn

0.60

nnn

0.72

nnn

0.60

nnn

0.75

nnn

0.70

nnn

0.75

nnn

0.70

nnn

0.75

nnn

0.71

nnn

0.76

nnn

0.71

nnn

Strengthof

benefi

tprimingprimes

�0.04

�0.01

�0.03

�0.01

�0.04

�0.01

�0.04

�0.01

0.06

0.02

0.06

0.02

0.05

0.02

0.05

0.02

Increm

entalR2

0.38

nnn

0.48

nnn

Partyiden

tification

0.21

nnn

0.16

nnn

0.20

nnn

0.15

nnn

0.03

0.02

0.00

0.00

�0.01

�0.00

�0.18

n�0.15

n

Increm

entalR2

0.03

nnn

0.00

Riskprim

ing

Environmen

tvs.p

olitical

�0.46

�0.07

�0.49

�0.08

�0.47

n�0.08

n�0.50

n�0.09

n

Econ

omic

vs.p

olitical

�0.52

n�0.08

n�0.51

�0.08

�0.34

�0.06

�0.35

�0.06

Social

vs.p

olitical

�0.23

�0.04

�0.26

�0.04

�0.14

�0.02

�0.17

�0.03

Increm

entalR2

0.01

0.01

Interactions

Environmen

trisk

priming�party

Iden

tification

0.18

0.07

0.26

n0.11

n

Econ

omic

risk

priming�party

iden

tification

0.28

n0.10

n0.23

n0.10

n

Social

risk

priming�

party

iden

tification

0.23

0.08

0.20

0.08

Increm

entalR2

0.01

0.01

Note.

N¼59

3.Bstan

dsforunstan

dardized

Beta,

βstan

dsforstan

dardize

dBeta.

npo

0.05

,nnpo

0.01

,nnnpo

0.001

.

T.K.F. Fung et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355 349

analyses, the control variables were entered in the first block,followed by the party identification strength, the dummy variablesof risk/benefit priming, and the party identification by risk/benefitpriming interaction terms. The party identification strength wasmean-centered.

4.2. Party identification strength, risk priming, support for fundingbiofuels research

The overall regression model was significant, R2¼0.42, F(9,566)¼44.76, po0.001. As shown in Table 1, the main effect ofparty identification strength on support for funding biofuelsresearch was significant, B¼0.21, t(566)¼4.86, po0.001. Itaccounted for 2.56% of the unique variance (sr¼0.16) in supportfor funding biofuels research. That is, the stronger individualsidentified themselves as Democrats, the more likely they sup-ported funding biofuels research.

The omnibus test of the risk priming was significant, F¼65.85,po0.001. For the risk priming, a significant main effect of theeconomic risk priming, B¼�0.52, t(566)¼�2.00, po0.05, wasobserved. It accounted for.36% of the unique variance (sr¼�0.06)in the dependent variable. This finding suggested that the mean ofrespondents primed with economic risks was 0.52 units lower, ona 10-point scale, in support of funding biofuels research than thatof those primed with political risks (the reference group).

The omnibus test of the risk priming by party identificationstrength interactions was significant, F¼44.76, po0.001. A sig-nificant economic risk priming by party identification strengthinteraction was observed, B¼0.28, t(566)¼2.27, sr¼0.07, p¼0.05.It accounted for 0.49% of the unique variance (sr¼0.07) in thedependent variable. The effect of party identification strength was0.28 units more positive, on a 10-point scale, for individuals whowere exposed to the economic risk priming than for those whowere exposed to the political risk priming (reference group). The ttest statistics also revealed that the regression slopes betweenthose who were exposed to the economic risk priming and thepolitical risk priming differed significantly. As shown in Fig. 2, the

two separate regression slopes differed between those who wereexposed to the economic risk priming and the political riskpriming, respectively.

The simple effects were examined to further understand thenature of the interaction. The simple effect of party identificationstrength for individuals who were exposed to the economic riskpriming was significant, B¼0.31, t(566)¼3.55, po0.001. Thissuggests that, for those primed with economic risks, the ratingof support for funding biofuels research increased.31 units forevery additional unit increase in identification with Democrats(see Fig. 2). However, the effect of party identification strength wasnot significant for individuals who were primed with the politicalrisks, B¼0.03, t(566)¼0.34, p¼ns. That is, the party identificationinfluence on support for funding biofuels research was notsignificant for those who considered the political risks.

4.3. Party identification strength, risk priming, support for biofuelsproduction and use

The overall regression model was significant, R2¼0.49, F(9,566)¼61.49, po0.001. Table 1 indicates that the effect of partyidentification strength on support for biofuels production and usewas not significant, t(566)¼0.02, p¼ns. However, the omnibustest of the risk priming was significant, F¼90.25, po0.001. Asignificant main effect of the environmental risk priming wasobserved, B¼�0.47, t(566)¼�2.20, sr¼�0.07, po0.05. Itaccounted for 0.49% of the unique variance (sr¼�0.07) in thesupport for biofuels production and use. This indicated that,compared to those who considered the political risks (the refer-ence group), the mean of individuals who considered the environ-mental risks of biofuels was 0.47 units lower, on a 10-point scale,for the support of biofuels production and use.

The omnibus test of the risk priming by party identificationstrength interactions was significant, F¼61.49, po0.001. Theanalyses revealed significant environmental risk priming by partyidentification strength interaction, B¼0.26, t(566)¼2.50, sr¼0.08,po0.05, and economic risk priming by party identification

Fig. 2. Regression slopes of individuals with party identification between those primed with political risks and those primed with economic risks of biofuels.

T.K.F. Fung et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355350

strength interaction, B¼0.23, t(566)¼2.22, sr¼0.07, po0.05. Theyaccounted for 0.64% and 0.49% of the unique variance in thedependent variable, respectively. The effect of party identificationstrength was.26 units more positive, on a 10-point scale, for thosewho were exposed to the environmental risk priming than forthose who were exposed to the political risk priming (referencegroup). Similarly, the effect of party identification strength was0.23 units more positive, on a 10-point scale, for those who wereexposed to the economic risk priming than for those who wereexposed to the political risk priming (reference group).

To further understand the nature of the interactions, weexamined the simple effects. The results revealed that the effectof party identification for individuals primed with political riskswas significant, B¼�0.18, t(566)¼�2.41, sr¼�0.07, po0.05.That is, for those primed with political risks, the rating of supportfor the production and use of biofuels decreased 0.18 units, on a10-point scale, for every additional unit increase in party identi-fication strength. In other words, there was a negative relationshipbetween party identification and support for biofuels productionand use when the political risks were highlighted. However, theeffect of party identification for individuals primed with theenvironmental risks, B¼0.07, t(566)¼1.08, p¼ns, and the eco-nomic risks, B¼0.05, t(566)¼0.71, p¼ns, were not significant.These findings suggest that there was no party difference onattitudes toward biofuels production and use when primed withthe environmental risks or the economic risks.

4.4. Party identification strength, benefit priming, support forfunding biofuels research

The overall regression model was significant, R2¼0.09, F(9,564)¼5.87, po0.001 (see Table 2). After controlling for riskpriming, a significant party identification strength was observed,B¼0.30, t(564)¼5.61, sr¼0.23, po0.001. It accounted for 5.29% ofunique variance in support for funding biofuels research. Asidentification with Democrats increased, support for biofuelsresearch funding increased 0.30 units on a 10-point scale. How-ever, none of the benefit priming main effects was significant.

The omnibus test of the interaction terms was significant,F¼5.87, po0.001. An interaction of political benefit priming byparty identification strength was significant, B¼�0.32, t(564)¼�2.05, sr¼�0.08, po0.001. This showed that the effect of partyidentification strength was �0.32 units more negative, on a 10-point scale, for individuals primed with political benefits than forthose primed with social benefits (reference group). The simpleeffect of party identification strength for individuals who wereprimed with social benefits was significant, B¼0.47, t(564)¼4.34,sr¼0.18, po0.001. It accounted for 3.24% of unique variance in thedependent variable. For individuals primed with social/ethicalbenefits, every additional unit increase in identification withDemocrats was associated with 0.47 units increase, on a 10-pointscale, in the rating of biofuels research funding support. However,the simple effect of party identification strength for individualsprimed with political benefits was not significant, B¼0.15, t(564)¼1.36, p¼ns. Identification with Republicans or Democrats made nosignificant difference on support for funding biofuels researchwhen political benefits were emphasized.

4.5. Party identification strength, benefit priming, support forbiofuels production and use

The overall model was significant, R2¼0.05, F(9, 564)¼3.36,po0.001 (see Table 2). A significant main effect of party identi-fication on support for biofuels production and use was observed,B¼0.10, t(564)¼1.96, sr¼0.08, p¼0.05. It accounted for 0.64%of unique variance in support for biofuels production and use.Ta

ble

2Effect

ofparty

iden

tification

,ben

efits

primingan

dtheinteractions.

Supportforfundingbiofuelsresearch

Biofuelsproductionan

duse

Eq.1

Eq.2

Eq.3

Eq.4

Eq.1

Eq.2

Eq.3

Eq.4

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Controlva

riab

les

Riskpriming

�0.18

***

�0.15

***

�0.17

**�0.14

**�0.16

**�0.13

**�0.17

**�0.14

**�0.20

***

�0.19

***

�0.20

***

�0.18

***

�0.20

***

�0.18

***

�0.20

***

�0.19

***

Strengthof

risk

primingprimes

�0.09

�0.03

�0.09

�0.03

�0.10

�0.03

�0.10

�0.03

0.05

0.02

0.05

0.02

�0.04

�0.02

0.04

0.01

Increm

entalR2

0.03

**0.04

***

Partyiden

tification

0.30

***

0.23

***

0.30

***

0.23

***

0.47

***

0.35

***

0.10

*0.08

*0.10

*0.08

*0.24

*0.20

*

Increm

entalR2

0.05

***

0.01

*

Bene

fitprim

ing

Environmen

tvs.s

ocial

�0.15

�0.02

�0.12

�0.02

�0.21

�0.04

�0.15

�0.06

Econ

omic

vs.s

ocial

�0.13

�0.02

�0.07

�0.01

0.04

0.01

0.07

0.01

Political

vs.s

ocial

�0.16

�0.03

�0.11

�0.02

�0.21

�0.04

�0.16

�0.03

Increm

entalR2

.00

.00

Interactions

Environmen

tbe

nefi

tpriming�party

iden

tification

�0.24

�0.09

�0.15

�0.06

Econ

omic

benefi

tpriming�party

iden

tification

�0.11

�0.04

�0.14

�0.06

Political

benefi

tpriming�party

iden

tification

�0.32

*�0.12

*�0.30

*�0.12

*

Increm

entalR2

0.01

0.01

Note.

N¼59

3.Bstan

dsforunstan

dardized

Beta,

βstan

dsforstan

dardize

dBeta.

npo

0.05

.nnpo

0.01

.nnnpo

0.001

.

T.K.F. Fung et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355 351

As identification with Democrats increased, support for biofuelsproduction and use increased 0.10 units on a 10-point scale.However, none of the benefit priming was significant (see Table 2).

The omnibus test of the interaction terms was significant,F¼3.36, po0.001. A significant political benefit priming by partyidentification strength interaction was observed, B¼�0.30, t(564)¼�2.11, sr¼�0.09, po0.05, accounting for 0.81% uniquevariance in the dependent variable. This showed that the effect ofparty identification strength was 0.30 more negative, on a 10-point scale, for individuals primed with political benefits than forthose primed with social benefits. The simple effect of partyidentification strength for individuals who were primed withsocial benefits was significant, B¼0.24, t(564)¼2.47, sr¼0.10,po0.05. It accounted for 1.00% of unique variance in support forbiofuels production and use. This finding indicated that for thosewho were primed with social benefits, the rating of support forbiofuels production and use increased 0.24 units for every addi-tional unit increase in identification with Democrats (see Fig. 3).However, the simple effect of party identification strength forindividuals primed with political benefits was not significant,B¼�0.06, t(564)¼�0.54, p¼ns. The party identification influenceon support for biofuels production and use was not significant forthose who considered political benefits.

5. Discussion

To explain attitudes toward biofuels and related policies, thisstudy set out to examine the interactive effect of party identifica-tion and temporarily accessible risk/benefit perception of biofuels.The results suggest that party identification and risk/benefitperception are sources of influence on attitudes about biofuelsand related policies. Further, the effect of party identification onindividual attitudes varies by risk/benefit considerations of bio-fuels. Although this study produced some intriguing findings,there are limitations worth careful consideration.

First, our survey sample was from one Midwestern state wherethe issue of biofuels has relatively high economic and politicalrelevancy. Therefore, the findings may not be applicable to the U.S.public, as a whole, or states that are not significant producers ofbiofuels. However, our findings on factors influencing attitudestoward biofuels can be generalized to the state under study, andour study can provide useful insights to other states where biofuel isa significant issue as well, and, perhaps, to the U.S. society in general.Second, the strength of the responses toward the risks/benefits inone domain may not be comparable to that of another domain. Forinstance, the content of the risk items in the economic domain(increase in the prices of food and fuels) is different from that of therisk items in the environmental domain (negative environmentalimpact and threat to plants and wildlife). In terms of magnitude,people may respond differently to the content of risk in these twodomains. However, we controlled for this factor, statistically, tominimize its confounding effect. Third, we measured support forbiofuels broadly without distinguishing first and second generationsin which the first and second generations of biofuels are associatedwith different social, environmental, and economic implications.Although many people may not make such distinctions, some might.Future research may distinguish between different generations ofbiofuels when measuring attitudes toward them. Fourth, the reli-abilities of some two-item risk/benefit priming measures, such as theenvironmental risk priming and the political risk priming, were low.Therefore, the interpretations of the findings of these measuresshould be cautious. Future research may improve these measuresby adding more items and refining explication of the concepts. Fifth,personal experience with biofuels may have a potential influence onpublic attitudes toward biofuels policies. Because this factor was notthe variable of interest in this study, it has yet to be taken intoaccount when examining public attitudes toward biofuels policies.Future research may examine other relevant variables. However, ourrespondents reside in a Midwestern state that has one of the largestbioenergy industries in the United States (Ethanol ProducerMagazine, 2007); therefore, our respondents are likely to have had

Fig. 3. Regression slopes of individuals with party identification between those primed with social benefit and those primed with political benefit of biofuels.

T.K.F. Fung et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355352

more personal experience with biofuels production and use as wellas information about biofuels from local media. In addition, ourstudy, focused on party identification and risk/benefit perception, hasshed new light on how these decision cues jointly influence publicopinion. Finally, our study has taken a cognitive approach to examineindividual perception of risks and benefits of biofuels. However, thecultural theory of risk (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982; Douglas, 1992)posits that such an approach overlooks institutional and societalforces in the process of shaping individual perception of risk.Past studies have shown the importance of cultural theory forscientific communication (Dale et al., 2013), environmental and socialimplications (Bailis and Yu, 2012), and measurements of risks (Binderet al., 2012). Future research may incorporate the cultural analysis ofrisk (Douglas, 1992) to examine the perceived risks and benefits ofbiofuels. Nevertheless, the current study provides useful insights intohow individuals' cost-benefit analysis of biofuels may influence theirattitudes toward biofuels-related policies.

With these considerations in mind, our study provides insight-ful information on attitudes regarding a mainstream renewableenergy technology. First, our analyses suggest that, after control-ling for the risk and benefit priming, respectively, party identifica-tion is likely to influence individual attitudes toward biofuels.Individuals who are more ideologically liberal tend to hold apositive attitude toward biofuels. That is, the more individualsidentify as Democrats, the more likely they are to support fundingbiofuels research. In addition, after controlling for risk priming, themore individuals identify as Democrats, the more likely they are tosupport the production and use of biofuels. In short, Democrats aremore supportive of biofuels than Republicans. Our hypotheseswere supported. These findings are consistent with the literaturein which individuals' party identity exerts a referent influence ontheir attitudes toward biofuels related policies.

The findings also indicate that, after controlling for the benefitperception of biofuels, the risk considerations of biofuels havesignificant influence on attitudes. Specifically, compared to thepolitical risks, individuals who think of the economic risks are lesssupportive of funding biofuels research than those who think of thepolitical risks of biofuels. In addition, compared to the political risks,individuals are less likely to support the production and use ofbiofuels when they think of the environmental risks of biofuels.Biofuels are seen as alternative energies to fossil fuels and a stimulusto the domestic economy with the promise of being environmen-tally friendly. Scientific evidence shows that corn-based ethanol maycause more harm than good to the environment and an increase infuel and food costs—the very opposite of what is desired. As such,biofuels may fail to gain public support for the production and use ofbiofuels and the research funding if biofuels do not live up to theirpotential for environmental protection and economic gains.

On the issue of biofuels, people tend to put more emphasis onenvironmental and economic risks over political risks. However,benefit considerations of biofuels do not significantly influenceindividual attitudes. One plausible reason is that negative infor-mation may be more influential (Fiske and Taylor, 1991).

Perhaps the most interesting and important findings are theinteractive effects of party identification and temporarily accessi-ble risk/benefit perception of biofuels. Our results indicate thatattitudes toward biofuels and related policies vary along thestrength of party identification when different risks/benefits ofbiofuels are considered. For those who consider the economic risksof biofuels, the more they self-identify as Democrats, the morelikely they support funding biofuels research. In addition, for thosewho consider the social/ethical benefits of biofuels, the more theseindividuals identify themselves as Democrats, the more likely theysupport funding biofuels research.

In terms of support for the production and use of biofuels, themore people self-identify as Democrats, the less supportive they

are when considering the political risks of biofuels. However, forthose who think of social/ethical benefits of biofuels, the morethey self-identify as Democrats, the more support they showsupport for the production and use of biofuels.

Taken together, though Democrats generally hold more positiveattitudes toward biofuels and the related policies, their attitudesmay be qualified when different risks or benefits of biofuels areconsidered. That is, when considering the economic risks, Demo-crats may be more supportive for funding biofuels research thanRepublicans. Emphasis on the social/ethical benefits of biofuelsmay be more effective in garnering support from Democrats thanRepublicans for funding biofuels research and the production anduse of biofuels. Conversely, individuals who report greater affilia-tion with the Democratic Party are less likely to support theproduction and use of biofuels when they consider the politicalrisks of biofuels. A plausible reason is that Democrats may notprefer to increase the production and use of biofuels at theexpense of reducing the resources of other renewable energysources and the fair competition in the U.S. energy industry.

6. Conclusions and policy implications

Our study has provided important theoretical contributions inunderstanding attitudes toward biofuels. Our findings suggest thatboth party identification and risk/benefit perception jointly pro-duce an effect on attitudes toward renewable energy technology.Party identification functions as an important referent guide inindividual attitudes toward biofuels because it is part of our self-concept; however, the influence of party identification on attitudesis modified by temporarily accessible and technology-specific risk/benefit considerations.

In addition, science communicators and policymakers may findour study useful when seeking support for biofuels development.As noted above, considerations of environmental risks and eco-nomic risks, as compared to political risks, have a significantinfluence on the attitudes toward biofuels related policies,whereas none of the benefit considerations has an impact on theattitudes. These findings point to the importance of messageframing (Fung et al., 2011) when policymakers enact biofuelspolicies to garner public support. Policymakers may heightenhow the proposed biofuels policies may address the environmen-tal and economic risks of biofuels.

To gain support from Democrats for the policies related tofunding biofuels research, science communicators and policy-makers should put more emphasis on the economic risks or thesocial/ethical benefits of biofuels when communicating withDemocrats. Similarly, to garner support from Democrats for thepolicies related biofuels production and use, science communica-tors and policymakers should emphasize the social/ethical bene-fits of biofuels when communicating with Democrats. However,they should downplay or address the political risks of biofuelswhen communicating with strong Democrats.

Further, to generate larger and more enduring effects of thesespecific risk/benefit considerations on strong Democrats' attitudestoward biofuels-related policies, science communicators and pol-icymakers could make use of the media to intensify the frequencyof exposure to these specific biofuels risk/benefit attributes. Aspostulated by the attribute agenda-setting function of the media(McCombs & Bell, 1996), by emphasizing or frequently mentioningcertain issue attributes, the media increase the salience of theseattributes of the issue in the mind of the audience. Research (e.g.,McCombs et al., 1997; King, 1997) has provided empirical supportfor a high correlation between prominent attributes of an issue inthe media and the audiences' agenda of attributes about the issue.As a consequence, these issue attributes are likely to be primed as

T.K.F. Fung et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355 353

significant dimensions of issue evaluation among the public (Kimet al., 2002). With consistent and frequent exposure to andactivation of these particular issue attributes in the audiences'mind, over time, priming of these attributes may potentiallyproduce long-term and perhaps cumulative effects on publicopinion (Price & Tewksbury, 1997). In the case of biofuels, sciencecommunicators and policymakers should increase the frequencyof discussions surrounding the economic risks and the social/ethical benefits of biofuels in the media; as such, these frequentlymentioned biofuels-related attributes may become more salient inthe mind of strong Democrats, and, eventually, become significantevaluative dimensions of biofuels-related policies.

Acknowledgment

This research is supported by the United States Department ofAgriculture Grant (No. MSN-120801). Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this manuscript arethose of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of theUnited States Department of Agriculture.

References

ASG Renaissance, 2004. Biodiesel End-User Survey: Implications For IndustryGrowth Final Report Out. The National Biodiesel Board, Jefferson City,MP., Retrieved from: (http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/20040202_fle029_0994F38B6A5CC.pdf).

Bailis, R., Yu, E., 2012. Sustainability assessment of integrated seawater agriculturesystems. Biofuels 3 (5), 555–574.

Barrett, R.. Wisconsin's ethanol boom sputters, stalls. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.jsonline.com/business/40008467.html⟩ (accessed21.02.09.).

Belden Russonello and Stewart, 2011. Public Opinion on Federal Farm and BiofuelsPolicy: Highlights from the 2010 Survey on Agriculture and the Environment.Washington, DC. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.farmsfoodandfuel.org/system/files/BRS%202010%20Poll%20Highlights_2.pdf⟩.

Benoit, W., Glantz, M., 2012. A functional analysis of 2008 general election.presidential TV spots. Speak. Gavel 49 (1), 1–19.

Binder, A.R., Cacciatore, M.A., Scheufele, D.A., Shaw, B.R., Corley, E.A., 2012.Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their poten-tial impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Underst.Sci. 21 (7), 830–847.

Bolsen, T., Cook, F., 2008. The polls-trends: public opinion on energy policy: 1974–2006. Public Opin. Q. 72 (2), 364–388.

Cacciatore, M., Scheufele, D., Shaw, B., 2012. Labeling renewable energies: how thelanguage surrounding biofuels can influence its public acceptance. EnergyPolicy 51, 673–682.

Campbell, A., Converse, P., Warren, M., Stokes, D., 1960. The American Voter.University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Chong, D., Druckman, J., 2007a. A theory of framing and opinion formation incompetitive elite environments. J. Commun. 57 (1), 99–118.

Chong, D., Druckman, J., 2007b. Framing public opinion in competitive democracies.Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 101, 637–655.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., Aiken, L., 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, LEA.

Dale, V.H., Kline, K.L., Perla, D., Lucier, A., 2013. Communicating about bioenergysustainability. Environ. Manag. 51 (2), 279–290.

Delshad, A., Raymond, L., Sawicki, V., Wegener, S., 2010. Public attitudes towardpolitical and technological options for biofuels. Energy Policy 38, 3414–3425.

Democratic Party, 2012. Moving America Forward. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform⟩.

Douglas, M., 1992. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. Routledge, London,New York.

Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A.B., 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection ofTechnical and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Energytribune, . Energy and Transportation. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.energytribune.com/11523/energy-and-transportation#sthash.dj2jLlLc.d.pbs⟩ (accessed23.07.12.).

Ethanol Producer Magazine. Top 10 Ethanol States Vary Little in Six Months.Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/2818/top-10-ethanol-states-vary-little-in-six-months/⟩ (accessed 23.03.07.).

Evans, G., Andersen, R., 2004. Do issues decide? Partisan conditioning andperceptions of party issue positions across the electoral cycle. Br. Elect. PartiesRev. 14 (1), 18–39.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), The United Nations, 2008. Biofuels:Prospects, Risks and Opportunities. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0100e/i0100e00.htm⟩.

Fiske, S., Taylor, S., 1991. Social Cognition. McGraw-Hill, NY.Fishbein, M., 1980. A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implica-

tions. In: Howe Jr., H.E., Page, M.M. (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,27. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 65–116.

Forge, F., 2007. Biofuels—an energy, environmental or agricultural policy? Ottawa:Library of Parliament, Science and Technology Division, Government ofCanada. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0637-e.htm#why⟩.

Fung, Timothy, K.F., Brossard, D., Ng, I., 2011. There is water everywhere: How newsframing amplifies the effect of ecological worldviews on preference for floodingprotection policy. Mass Communication and Society 14 (5), 553–577.

Goren, P., 2005. Party identification and core political values. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 49 (4),882–897.

Greene, S., 2004. Social identity theory and party identification. Soc. Sci. Q. 85 (1),136–153.

Green, D., Palmquist, B., Schickler, E., 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: PoliticalParties and the Social Identities of Voters. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Groom, M., Gray, E., Townsend, P., 2008. Biofuels and biodiversity: principlesfor creating better policies for biofuel production. Conserv. Biol. 22 (3),602–609.

Gupta, N., Fischer, A., Frewer, L., 2012. Socio-psychological determinants of publicacceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst. Sci. 21 (7), 782–795.

Hay, J., 2010. Value of Crops Residues as Biofuels. Retrieved from: ⟨http://cropwatch.unl.edu/web/bioenergy/crop-residues⟩.

Higgins, E., 1996. Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. In:Higgins, E., Kruglanski, A. (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Princi-ples. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 133–168.

Ho, M., 2011. Biofuels and world hunger. Third World Resurgence 247, 26–28.Hoekman, S., 2009. Biofuels in the U.S. – challenges and opportunities. Renew.

Energy 34, 14–22.Hogg, M., Turner, J., 1987. Social identity and conformity: a theory of referent

informational influence. In: Doise, W., Moscovici, S. (Eds.), Current Issues inEuropean Social Psychology, vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 139–182.

Hogg, M., Reid, S., 2006. Social identity, self-categorization, and the communicationof group norms. Commun. Theory 16, 7–30.

Hoyer, M., Saewitz M., 20 November 2007. Study Denounces Project's Impact.Virginia-Pilot.

Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., Sprague, J., 1999. Accessibility and the politicalutility of partisan and ideological orientations. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 43 (3), 888–911.

Index Mundi, 2014. United States Corn Imports by Year. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=us&commodity=corn&graph=imports-growth-rate⟩.

Iyengar, S., 1990. The accessibility bias in politics: television news and publicopinion. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 2, 1–15.

Jacoby, W., 1988. The impact of party identification on issue attitudes. Am. J. Polit.Sci. 32 (3), 643–661.

Johnson, D.M., Edgar, L.D., Edgar, D.W., 2013. Consumer awareness, use andperceptions of biodiesel in Northwest Arkansas. J. Agric. Syst. Technol. Manag.24, 23–35.

Kim, K., 2011. Public understanding of the politics of global warming in the newsmedia: the hostile media approach. Public Underst. Sci. 20 (5), 690–705.

Kim, S.H., Scheufele, D.A., Shanahan, J., 2002. Think about it this way: attributeagenda-setting function of the press and the public evaluation of local issue.Journal. Commun. Q. 79 (1), 7–25.

King, P.T., 1997. The press, candidate images, and voter perceptions. In: McCombs,M., Shaw, D.L., Weaver, D. (Eds.), Communication and Democracy. LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 29–40.

Kubik, M., 2006. Consumer views on transportation and energy.Golden, Colorado:National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.osti/gov/bridge⟩.

Lau, R., Redlawsk, D., 2001. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics inpolitical decision making. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 45 (4), 951–971.

Law, R., 2012. Are Parties' Reputations Associated with Policymaking: PerceivedVersus Legislative Issue Ownership. Retrieved from: ⟨http://rblaw.bol.ucla.edu/InstIssueOwnv12.pdf⟩.

Lawrence, R., 2010. How Good Politics Results in Bad Policy: The Case of BiofuelMandates. Retrieved from: ⟨http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20354/how_good_politics_results_in_bad_policy.html⟩.

Lewis-Beck, M., Norpoth, H., Jacoby, W., Weisberg, H., 2008. The American Voter.Revisited. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

McCombs, M., Liamas, J.P., Lopez-Escobar, E., Rey, F., 1997. Candidate images inSpanish elections: second-level agenda-setting effects. Journal. Mass Commun.Q. 74, 703–717.

McGowan, J., 2007. American Liberalism: An Interpretation for Our Time. TheChapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Miller, A., Wlezien, C., Hildreth, A., 1991. A reference group theory of partisancoalitions. J. Polit. 53 (4), 1134–1149.

Miller, W., Shanks, M., 1996. The New American Voter. Harvard University Press,Cambridge.

Newcomb, T., 2012. Jet Green Times. Retrieved from: ⟨http://business.time.com/2012/09/13/biofuel-industry-scales-up-for-airlines/⟩.

Petrocik, J., William, B., Glenn, H., 2003. Issue ownership and presidentialcampaigning, 1952–2000. Polit. Sci. Q. 118 (4), 599–626.

Petrous, E., Pappis, C., 2009. Biofuels: a survey on pros. Energy Fuels 23 (2),1055–1066.

T.K.F. Fung et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355354

Pew Research Center, 2008. Ethanol Research Loses Ground, Continued Division onANWR: Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.people-press.org⟩.

Pew Research Center, 2011. Partisan Divide Over Alternative Energy Widens:Republicans View Government Energy Investment as Unnecessary. Retrievedfrom: ⟨http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/10/partisan-divide-over-alternative-energy-widens/⟩.

PIER, 2014. U.S. Imports of Brazilian Corn Continue into Late 2013. Data in Motion.Retrieved from: ⟨http://pierstransportation.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/u-s-imports-of-brazilian-corn-continue-into-late-2013/⟩.

Pimentel, D., Marklein, A., Toth, M., Karpoff, M., Paul, G., McCormack, R., Kyriazis, J.,Krueger, T., 2009. Food versus biofuels: environmental and economic costs.Human Ecology 37, 1–12.

Popkin, S., 1991. The Reasoning Voter. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Rabe, B., Borick, C., 2008. Global warming and climate policy options: Key findings

report. Policy Report, 11. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for local, State, urban policy,University of Michigan.

Regnery, A., 2012. The pillars of modern American conservatism. Intercoll. Rev. 47(1), 3–12.

Republican Party, 2012. Republican Platform. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_America/⟩.

Reuters. Cheap Brazilian Corn Stirs Talk of Rare U.S. Imports. Retrieved from:⟨http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/09/us-usa-corn-imports-idUSBRE8681C220120709⟩ (accessed 9.07.12.).

Scheufele, D. A., 2006. Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudesabout emerging technologies. In J. Turney (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts,deeds, analysis and action (pp. 20–25). London: The Wellcome Trust.

Scientific American, 2012. Obama and Romney Tackle 14 Top Science Questions.Scientific American. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-science-debate⟩.

Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S.,Hayes, D., Yu, T., 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gasesthrough emissions from land use change. Sci. Express, Retrieved from: (http://www.bionica.info/biblioteca/Searchinger2008CroplandsIncreaseGreenhouse.pdf).

Siegrist, M., 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits onthe acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20 (2), 195–204.

Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., Roth, C., 2000. Salient value similarity, social trust, andrisk/benefit perception. Risk Anal. 20 (3), 353–362.

Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., 2000. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust andknowledge. Risk Anal. 20 (5), 713–719.

Smith, J., Hogg, M., 2008. Social identity and attitudes. In: Crano, W., Prislin, R.(Eds.), Attitudes and Attitude Change, (Eds.) Psychology Press, NY, pp. 337–360.

Tangermann, S., 2008. What's causing global food price inflation? Retrieved from:⟨http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1437⟩.

Tajfel, H., Turner, J., 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In:Worchel, S., Austin, W. (Eds.). Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Nelson-HallBelden Russonello & Stewartpp, Chicago, 7–24 (2010). Public opinion on federalfarm and biofuels policy. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.farmsfoodandfuel.org/system/files/BRS%202010%20Poll%20Highlights_2.pdf⟩.

The White House, 2011. The Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future: Progress Report.Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/email-files/the_blueprint_for_a_secure_energy_future_oneyear_progress_report.pdf⟩.

U.S. Department of Energy. Biofuels Create Green Jobs. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/green_jobs_factsheet2.pdf⟩ (accessedFebruary 2013.).

Winter, P., 2012. Biofuels digest/BIO business outlook survey shows steady con-fidence. Biofuels & Climate Change. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.biotech-now.org/environmental-industrial/2012/04/biofuels-digestbio-business-outlook-survey-shows-steady-confidence⟩.

Wegener, D., Kelly, J., 2008. Social psychological dimensions of bioenergy devel-opment and public acceptance. Bioenergy Res. 1, 107–117.

T.K.F. Fung et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 344–355 355