Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

As the United States strives to foster energy independence and economic growth, pressure to preserve existing natural resources and minimize potential contributions to global climate change confounds energy policymaking. This is particularly evident in the rapid expansion of hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) implemented to extract oil and natural gas from deep shale rock formations. Perceived as innovative yet highly controversial, proponents of fracking argue that such operations are essential to boost domestic production of so-called “bridge” fuels. However, the technical complexities surrounding fracking practices have created a sense of uncertainty regarding the potential negative externalities, such as undesirable environmental consequences. This research attempts to explain such attitudinal differences well-represented in the ongoing fracking policy debate. Grounded on dual process theory of judgment, we take a novel approach using original survey data (n = 657) to investigate the triadic relationship between personal (a) value predispositions, (b) affect-driven semantic expressions, and (c) benefit-risk perceptions on fracking practices among local policy elites in Arkansas, a state with a history of active fracking operations in the Fayetteville Shale, and in Oregon, a state with no history of fracking practices. We conclude this paper by providing theoretical, practical, and methodological ramifications of our findings for existing policy research and policymaking process.