Abstract
Recent growth in unconventional oil and gas development is controversial, fueling an ongoing U.S. policy debate. Central to these discussions is hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a well‐stimulation technique that has become synonymous with unconventional oil and gas extraction methods. This research applies the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to explore how culturally nuanced narratives shape individuals' policy preferences toward fracking regulations. A census‐balanced internet panel from Oregon and Arkansas (n = 1,145) is used to conduct a survey experiment where participants are randomly assigned to four groups and exposed to information regarding fracking practices. The control group receives a baseline fact list while three treatment groups are exposed to one of three culturally distinct narratives: an egalitarian narrative, a hierarch narrative, or an individualist narrative. Applying ANOVA and causal mediation analysis to this experimental data, we show that while there is nodirecteffect of narrative treatments on the formation of individuals' fracking policy preferences, culturally nuanced narrativesdoinfluence attitudes on fracking policiesindirectlythrough their effects on individuals' reactions towardsvillaincharacters presented in the narratives. These findings describe a more complex cognitive interplay between narrative communication and policy preference formation than depicted in extant NPF scholarship, thereby challenging commonly held NPF assertions.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call