Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-dc8c957cd-v8rb6 Total loading time: 0.225 Render date: 2022-01-27T21:06:16.603Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Public attitudes toward biofuels: Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Micheal A. Cacciatore
Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1545 Observatory Drive, Hiram Smith Hall 307, Madison, WI 53706,
Dietram A. Scheufele
Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1545 Observatory Drive, Hiram Smith Hall 309, Madison, WI 53706,
Andrew R. Binder
Department of Communication, North Carolina State University, 201 Winston Hall, Campus Box 8104, Raleigh, NC 27695,
Bret R. Shaw
Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1545 Observatory Drive, Hiram Smith Hall 316, Madison, WI 53706,
Get access


Despite large-scale investments and government mandates to expand biofuels development and infrastructure in the United States, little is known about how the public conceives of this alternative fuel technology. This study examines public opinion of biofuels by focusing on citizen knowledge and the motivated processing of media information. Specifically, we explore the direct effects of biofuels knowledge and the moderating effect of partisanship on the relationship between media use and benefit vs. risk perceptions in the following four domains: environmental impacts, economic consequences, ethical/social implications, and political ramifications. Our results suggest that more knowledgeable respondents see fewer benefits of biofuels relative to risks, and that Democrats and Republicans are affected differently by media use when forming opinions about biofuels. Among Democrats, greater attention to political media content leads to a more favorable outlook toward the technology across several domains of interest, while among Republicans, an increase in attention to political content has the opposite effect. Possible reasons for these results, as well as implications of the findings at the intersection of politics and the life sciences, are discussed.

Research Articles
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1. United States Department of Energy, Secretaries Chu and Vilsack Announce More than $600 Million Investment in Advanced Biorefinery Projects, United States Department of Energy, 2009, Google Scholar
2. Wegener, Duane T. and Kelly, Janice R., “Social psychological dimensions of bioenergy development and public acceptance,” BioEnergy Research 2008, 1(2): 107117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Ferber, Dan, “Risks and benefits: GM crops in the cross hairs,” Science 1999, 286(5445): 16621666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gaskell, George, Allum, Nick, Wagner, Wolfgang, Kronberger, Nicole, Torgersen, Helge, Hampel, Juergen, and Bardes, Julie, “GM foods and the misperception of risk perceptionx,” Risk Analysis 2004, 24(1): 185194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Gaskell, George, Bauer, Martin W., Durant, John and Allum, Nick, “Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US,” Science 1999, 285(5426): 384387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Sjoberg, Lennart, “Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology,” Embo Reports 2004, 5: S47S51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Wohlers, Anton E., “Regulating genetically modified food: Policy trajectories, political culture, and risk perceptions in the U.S., Canada, and EU,” Politics and the Life Sciences 2010, 29(2): 1739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Office of the Law Revision Counsel, Biomass Research and Development, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 2010, Google Scholar
9. US Energy Information Administration, Biofuels in the US Transportation Sector, US Energy Information Administration, 2009, Google Scholar
10. Krauss, Clifford, “Taking flight on jatropha fuel,” New York Times online, December 9, 2008, Scholar
11. Biello, David, “Navy green: Military investigates biofuels to power its ships and planes,” Scientific American September 2009, Google Scholar
12. Mathews, John A., “Opinion: is growing biofuel crops a crime against humanity?” Biofuels Bioproducts & Biorefining 2008, 2(2): 9799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Melander, Ingrid, “U.S., EU must cut back on biofuels: U.N. advisor,” Reuters, 2008,, accessed May 5, 2008.Google Scholar
14. Searchinger, Timothy, Heimlich, Ralph, Houghton, R. A., Dong, Fengxia, Elobeid, Amani, Fabiosa, Jacinto, Tokgoz, Simla, Hayes, Dermot, and Tun-Hsiang, , “Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change,” Science 2008, 319(5867): 12381240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Delshad, Ashlie B., Raymond, Leigh, Sawicki, Vanessa, and Wegener, Duane T., “Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels,” Energy Policy 2010, 38(7): 34143425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Savvanidou, Electra, Zervas, Efthimios and Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P. “Public acceptance of biofuels,” Energy Policy, 2010, 38(7): 34823488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Survey shows high interest in biofuels, University of Wisconsin-Madison, April 2009, Google Scholar
18. Adelle, Camilla and Withana, Sirini, “EU and US public perceptions of environmental, climate change and energy issues,” Institue for European Environmental Policy, 2008, Google Scholar
19. Segon, Velimir, Stoer, Deborah, Domac, Julije and Kerning Yang, K, “Raising the awareness of bioenergy benefits: Results of two public surveys on attitudes, perceptions and knowledge,” Energy Institute Hrvoje Pozar, 2004, Google Scholar
20. UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, “Renewable energy awareness and attitudes research,” UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2009, Google Scholar
21. Miller, Jon D., “Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: what we know and what we need to know,” Public Understanding of Science 2004, 13(3): 273294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Miller, Jon D., Scott, Eugenie C., and Okamoto, Shinji, “Public acceptance of evolution,” Science 2006, 313(5788): 765766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Miller, Jon D. and Kimmel, Linda G., Biomedical Communications: Purposes, Audiences, and Strategies (New York: Academic Press, 2001).Google Scholar
24. Miller, Jon D., Pardo, Rafael, and Niwa, Fujip, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada (Chicago: Chicago Academy of Science, 1997).Google Scholar
25. Cacciatore, Michael A., Scheufele, Dietram A., and Corley, Elizabeth A., “From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology,” Public Understanding of Science 2011, 20(3): 385404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Nisbet, Matthew C., Scheufele, Dietram A., Shanahan, James, Moy, Patricia, Brossard, Dominique, and Lewenstein, Bruce V., “Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology,” Communication Research 2002, 29(5): 584608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Remarks, Prepared, Thornley, Patricia, and Prins, Wolter, Public perceptions and bioenergy: Some remarks in preparation of the workshop scheduled for the Thermalnet meeting in Vicenza, October 1008, Google Scholar
28. Lee, Chul-Joo, Scheufele, Dietram A., and Lewenstein, Bruce V., “Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology,” Science Communication 2005, 27(2): 240267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Priest, Susanna Hornig, Bonfadelli, Heinz, and Rusanen, Maria, “The ‘trust gap’ hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors,” Risk Analysis 2003, 23(4): 751766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Roberts, Mary Roduta, Reid, Grace, Schroeder, Meadow, and Norris, Stephen P., “Causal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology,” Public Understanding of Science, forthcoming, doi:10.1177/0963662511420511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Brossard, Dominique, Scheufele, Dietram A., Kim, Eunkyung, and Lewenstein, Bruce V., “Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology,” Public Understanding of Science 2009, 18(5):546558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Ho, Shirley S., Brossard, Dominique, and Scheufele, Dietram A., “Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2008, 20(2): 171192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Fiske, Susan T. and Taylor, Shelley E., Social Cognition, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991).Google Scholar
34. Scheufele, Dietram A., Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies (London: The Wellcome Trust, 2006).Google Scholar
35. Scheufele, Dietram A. and Lewenstein, Bruce V., “The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2005, 7(6): 659667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Nisbet, Matthew C., “The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2005, 17(1): 90112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Besley, John C. and Shanahan, James, “Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology,” Science Communication 2005 26(4): 347367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Brossard, Dominique and Nisbet, Matthew C., “Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US Opinion on agricultural biotechnology,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2007, 19(1): 2452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., Silva, Carol L., Nowlin, Matthew C., and deLozier, Grant, “Reversing nuclear opposition: Evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility,” Risk Analysis 2011, 31(4): 629644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Zaller, John R., The nature and origin of mass opinion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Becker, Nathan, “Senator plans bill to increase flex-fuel fleet,” Marketwatch June 17, 2008, Google Scholar
42. Content, Thomas, “State announces aid for biofuels projects,” JSOnline August 25, 2010, Google Scholar
43. Nilles, Dave, “Doyle announces ethanol and biodiesel funding proposal”, Biodiesel Magazine, January 10, 2007, Scholar
44. Rudolf, John Collins, “Gingrich's Energy Policies Rile Conservative Critics,” New York Times online, February 14, 2011, Google Scholar
45. Tankersley, Jim, “Obama urges greater use of biofuels,” Los Angeles Times Online, February 3, 2010, Google Scholar
46. Kunda, Ziva, “The case for motivated reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin 1990, 108(3): 480498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47. Taber, Charles S., Cann, Damon M. and Kucsova, Simona, “The motivated processing of political arguments,” Political Behavior 2009, 31: 137155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Taber, Charles S. and Lodge, Milton, “Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs,” American Journal of Political Science 2006, 50(3): 755769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Festinger, Leon, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957).Google Scholar
50. Eagly, Alice H. and Chaiken, Shelly, The Psychology of Attitudes (Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 1993).Google Scholar
51. Whittaker, James O., “Cognitive dissonance and the effectieness of persuasive communications,” Public Opinion Quarterly 1964, 28(4): 547555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Rudolph, Thomas J., “Triangulating political responsibility: The motivated formation of responsibility judgments,” Political Psychology 2006, 27(1): 99122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53. Strickland, April A., Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton, “Motivated reasoning and public opinion,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2011, 36(6): 935944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54. Kahan, Dan M., Braman, Donald, Slovic, Paul, Gastil, John, and Cohen, Geoffrey, “Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology,” Nature Nanotechnology 2009, 4(2): 8790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Kahan, Dan M., Jenkins-Smith, Hank, and Braman, Donald, “Cultural cognition of scientific consensus,” Journal of Risk Research 2011, 14(2): 147174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. Crawford, Jarret T., “The ideologically objectionable premise model: Predicting biased political judgments on the left and right,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2012, 48: 138151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57. Kim, Sung-youn, Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton, “A computational model of the citizen as motivated reasoner: Modeling the dynamics of the 2000 presidential election,” Political Behavior 2010, 32:128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58. Kopko, Kyle C., Bryner, Sarah M., Budziak, Jeffrey, Devine, Christopher J. and Nawara, Steven P., “In the eye of the beholder? Motivated reasoning in disputed elections,” Political Behavior 2011, 33: 271290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59. Meffert, Michael F., Chung, Sungeon, Joiner, Amber J., Waks, Leah, and Garst, Jennifer, “The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign,” Journal of Communication 2006, 56(1): 2751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60. Friedman, Sharon M., Dunwoody, Sharon S., and Rogers, Carol L., Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News (New York: Free Press, 1986).Google Scholar
61. Gregory, Jane and Miller, Steve, Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility (New York: Plenum, 1998).Google Scholar
62. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators (Chapter 7), National Science Board, January 2010, Google Scholar
63. Nelkin, Dorothy, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1995).Google Scholar
64. Binder, Andrew R., Scheufele, Dietram A., Brossard, Dominique, and Gunther, Albert C., “Interpersonal amplification of risk? Citizen discussions and their impact on perceptions of risks and benefits of a biological research facility,” Risk Analysis 2011, 31(2): 324334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65. Frewer, Lynn J., Miles, Susan, and Marsh, Roy, “The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk,” Risk Analysis 2002, 22(4): 701711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66. Kasperson, Roger E., Renn, Ortwin, Slovic, Paul, Brown, Halina S., Emel, Jacque, Goble, Robert, Kasperson, Jeanne X., and Ratick, Samuel, “The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework,” Risk Analysis 1988, 8(2): 177187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
67. Lewis, Roxanne E. and Tyshenko, Michael G., “The impact of social amplification and attenuation of risk and the public reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada,” Risk Analysis 2009, 29(5): 714728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68. Nisbet, Matthew C. and Lewenstein, Bruce V., “Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999,” Science Communication 2002, 23(4): 359391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69. Iyengar, Shanto and Hahn Kyu, S., “Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use,” Journal of Communication 2009, 59(1): 1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70. Sheppard, Noel, “Glenn Beck exposes ethanol's connection to rising food prices,” Newsbusters, April 24, 2008, Google Scholar
71. Becker, Amy B. and Scheufele, Dietram A., “Moral politicking: Public attitudes toward gay marriage in an election context,” International Journal of Press-Politics 2009, 14(2): 186211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72. American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (Lenexa, KS: American Association for Public Opinion Research, 2008).Google Scholar
73. Graham, Johm D. and Weiner, Baert, Risk vs. Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
74. Pamela, R. Williams, D., Cushing, Colleen A., and Sheehan, Patrick J., “Data available for evaluating the risks and benefits of MTBE and ethanol as alternative fuel oxygenates,” Risk Analysis 2003, 23(5): 10851115.Google Scholar
75. Bringezu, Stefan, Schütz, Helmut, O'Brien, Meghan, Kauppi, Lea, Howarth, Robert W., and McNeely, Jeff, “Toward sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing biofuels,” United Nations Environment Programme 2009, Google Scholar
76. Binder, Andrew R., Cacciatore, Michael A., Scheufele, Dietram A., Shaw, Bret R., and Corley, Elizabeth A., “Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science,” Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 830847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77. Cohen, Jacob, Cohen, Patricia, West, Stephen G., and Aiken, Leona S., Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003).Google Scholar
78. Lane, Jim, “US Government to invest $510M in advanced, drop-in biofuels,” Biofuels Digest August 16, 2011, Scholar
79. McAuliff, Michael, “Algae biofuel proposal, now mocked by Republicans, used to have their support,” Huffington Post February 28, 2012, Google Scholar
80. Brody, Charles J., “Differences by sex in support for nuclear power,” Social Forces 1984, 63: 209228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
81. Flynn, James, Slovic, Paul, and Mertz, C. K., “Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks,” Risk Analysis 1994, 14(6): 11011109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82. Gustafson, Per E., “Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives,” Risk Analysis 1998, 18(6): 805811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83. Harris, Christine R., Jenkins, Michael and Glaser, Dale, “Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men?” Judgment and Decision Making Journal 2006, 1(1): 4863.Google Scholar
84. O'Connor, Robert E., Bord, Richard J., and Fisher, Ann, “Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change,” Risk Analysis 1999, 19(3): 461471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85. Stedman, Richard C., “Risk and climate change: Perceptions of key policy actors in Canada,” Risk Analysis 2004, 24(5): 13951406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
86. Anderson, Ashley A, Brossard, Dominique, and Scheufele, Dietram A., “The changing information environment for nanotechnology: Online audiences and content,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2010, 12(4): 10831094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
87. Nisbet, Matthew C., Maibach, Edward and Leiserowitz, Anthony, “Framing peak petroleum as a public health problem: Audience research and participatory engagement,” American Journal of Public Health 2011, 101(9): 16201626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Public attitudes toward biofuels: Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Public attitudes toward biofuels: Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Public attitudes toward biofuels: Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *