Search results

AbstractDo presidential climate change narratives increase related congressional attention in the United States? Narrative theory says since narratives leverage cognitive heuristics, they should focus policy‐making attention in institutions more efficiently than non‐narrative statements. This study identifies and tests climate change statements and narratives, including those focused on solutions, or "stories of hope," and those focused on problems and victims, "stories of fear," for relationships with congressional attention using time series analysis. Findings suggest a relationship between narrative and hearings, but not for non‐narrative statements and hearings. Furthermore, while narratives are related to hearings generally, stories of fear have larger effects, but only in conditions of single party control of the US Presidency and Congress. This analysis supports theory about narratives and institutional influence and offers the additional concept of stories of fear and hope as impactful on political institutions.

Oregon Ballot Measure 97 was a contentious measure on the Oregon 2016 ballot that sought to raise taxes on corporations with sales over 25 million dollars within the state of Oregon. Predictably, there was a considerable amount of lobbying targeting elites and expansive campaigns targeting the public intending to promote or block the measure. Theoretically, this research applies the Narrative Policy Framework to describe these communications in terms of the active narratives within the discourse, assess their effect on the general public and their effect on the Measure 97 election outcome. Methodologically, we leverage qualitative interviews to describe the active narratives; next we assess the potential effects of those same narratives operationalized within a survey experiment administered to an online pool of census‐balanced respondents. We explore our findings through narrative congruence, character affect, and vote switching, as well as in light of the recent election results, where Measure 97 failed to pass. Our models are able to connect narrative effects, public opinion, and policy outcomes via the ballot measure process. We argue that while narrative has discernable effects, it is imperative that future scholarship also consider other factors when examining the role of policy narratives and policy outcomes.

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 no direct effect of narrative treatments on the formation of individuals' fracking policy preferences, culturally nuanced narratives do influence attitudes on fracking policies indirectly through their effects on individuals' reactions towards villain characters 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.

ObjectivesCultural theory (CT) is often leveraged to explain policy preferences and risk perceptions. While scholars often make claims regarding CT's relationship with political process preferences, these remain largely untested. This study explores the relationship between CT and individual preferences toward the process in which political decisions are made.MethodsUsing national survey data (n = 900), we identify two political process preference dimensions in exploratory factor analysis: compromise and expediency. To operationalize CT, survey items from cultural cognition theory are formed into cultural measures. We use bivariate and multivariate analysis to explore key relationships.ResultsThose with more egalitarian/communitarian worldviews value compromise in political decision making, while those with individualist/hierarchical worldviews are less likely to value compromise. We find no relationship between expediency and cultural worldviews.ConclusionThis research suggests that CT is useful for understanding some, but not all, dimensions of political process preferences. While those with egalitarians/communitarian worldviews may be more accepting of policy decisions produced under compromise, other common tropes regarding the relationship between CT and process preferences should be carefully applied.

AbstractCentral to the growing policy debate surrounding climate change is the role of fossil fuels in the energy sector. Chief among these issues is the role of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," which has drawn controversy for its negative externalities while also allowing the extraction of a new range of oil and gas reserves. This research applies the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), combined with grid‐group cultural theory (CT), to examine the similarities and differences in the ways in which the general public and policy elites' policy preferences are shaped by culturally nuanced fracking narratives. In doing so, we employ a unique online survey experiment using a sample of the general public (n = 1149) and local policy elites (n = 1110), where our experimental subjects are assigned to one of four groups: a control group which receives a standard list of facts regarding fracking, and three treatment groups, each of which receives an egalitarian, individualist, and hierarch fracking policy narrative, respectively. We utilize causal mediation analysis to comparatively examine effects of these narrative treatments on fracking policy preferences. We find that policy elites and the general public are influenced by narrative elements in different ways, suggesting how a potential gap in policy preferences could form even if the general public and policy elites are exposed to the same policy narratives. This has implications for fracking regulation policy processes as well as other environmental and energy policy domains.

AbstractAs emergency managers and other government and nongovernmental organizations in the United States cope with a variety of catastrophic events, including unprecedented natural disasters and a global pandemic, the role of government trust in responding to and addressing the threat from such events has gained attention among policy and public administration scholars. How changes in government trust following extreme events may influence public support for government‐led climate policy is an unknown, yet potentially important, dimension of climate mitigation policy preference formation. To address this gap, we analyze cross‐sectional survey responses (n = 1756) collected from 10 communities that experienced extreme weather events. We find that perceptions of event‐related harm are positively associated with an increase in self‐reported local government trust following an extreme weather event, and that increases in local and federal government trust are associated with higher levels of support for climate change mitigation policy. Our findings have implications for emergency managers, policymakers, and policy scholars as they consider how interactions with various levels of government during and after extreme events shapes public support for climate policy.

AbstractThe climate crisis and associated push for distributed, renewable electricity generation necessitate policy changes to decarbonize and modernize the electricity grid. Some of these changes—e.g., smart meter rollouts and tax credits for solar panel adoption—have received attention in the media and from social scientists to understand public perceptions and responses. Others—e.g., allowing peer‐to‐peer electricity sales, promoting residential electrification, requiring solar panels on new development, funding microgrids, and paying customers to allow for utility control of electricity use—have received less attention. Here, we explore public perceptions of these understudied policies among California residents (n = 804), a state recognized for innovative energy policy. A majority of respondents supported only one of the policies—requiring solar panels on new development. Others elicited more indecision; few were strongly opposed. In general, male respondents and those with college degrees were more supportive of such policies, as were those more concerned about climate change and with a more open orientation to smart home technologies.