Seeing through risk-colored glasses: Risk and benefit perceptions, knowledge, and the politics of fracking in the United States

Abstract

Political conservatives are consistently more supportive of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the U.S., while political liberals are consistently more opposed, yet the processes shaping this division are largely unexplored. Here, we illustrate how political polarization in support for fracking can be understood by how risk and benefit perceptions mediate the relationship between political ideology and support for fracking, with liberals seeing greater risk and less benefit. Importantly, however, especially for understanding opinion formation around the issue of fracking, perceived knowledge exacerbates this division. Liberals who report being more informed about fracking are likely to see greater risk from fracking. Conservatives who report being more informed, however, do not see a significantly different level of risk than do conservatives who are less informed but are much more likely than any other group to see greater benefit from fracking. The result is that those who perceive themselves as highly knowledgeable about fracking are the most likely to be polarized by political ideology in their perceptions of the level of risk and benefit associated with fracking and, in turn, their level of support for the technology. We discuss the implications of these findings for communication and decision-making in the politically polarized environment around fracking.