Partisanship does not tell the full story: The complexities of public opinion and fracking in the United States

Abstract

Although party affiliation is a strong predictor of differences in citizen opinion about a wide range of public policy issues, the picture is more complex for unconventional gas development (UGD) through hydraulic fracturing. Using data collected in Colorado (n = 390) around the time of the highly polarizing 2016 Presidential Election, we conduct a latent class analysis based on individual perceptions of the possible risks and benefits of UGD. Instead of finding attitudes polarized along party lines, citizens in Colorado parsimoniously cluster into three substantially sized groups that cannot be explained by party identification and sociodemographic variables. We also test the value of group membership by assessing association with individual voting behavior at the hypothetical ballot box using language from actual measures filed for placement onto the 2016 Statewide Ballot in Colorado. Results suggest that attitudes toward UGD may be better explained by perceptions of potential costs/disadvantages and benefits/advantages rather than traditional sociodemographic and political party variables. This suggests that understanding public opinion on fracking means moving beyond our traditional conceptualization of opinion formation, even in today’s politically polarized environment.