Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology Christopher E. Clarke a,n , Philip S. Hart b , Jonathon P. Schuldt c , Darrick T.N. Evensen d , Hilary S. Boudet e , Jeffrey B. Jacquet f , Richard C. Stedman g a Department of Communication, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MS 3D6, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA b Department of Communication Studies and the Program in the Environment, University of Michigan, 5417 North Quad, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA c Department of Communication, Cornell University, 329 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA d Environmental Studies Program, Oberlin College, AJ Lewis Center 205, Oberlin, OH 44074, USA e Department of Sociology, Oregon State University, 307 Fairbanks Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA f Department of Sociology & Rural Studies, South Dakota State University, Box 0504, Brookings, SD 57007, USA g Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, 207 Bruckner Hall, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA HIGHLIGHTS How an issue is presented (“framed”) influences how people perceive it. We applied this premise to oil/gas extraction via hydraulic fracturing (fracking). We examined two commonly used frames: fracking and shale oil or gas development. People viewed the former less favorably irrespective of political ideology. We discuss implications for communicating about energy development impacts. article info Article history: Received 17 October 2014 Received in revised form 20 January 2015 Accepted 21 February 2015 Keywords: Energy development Hydraulic fracturing Framing Risk communication abstract In this article, we examine framing effects regarding unconventional oil and gas extraction using hy- draulic fracturing (or fracking): an issue involving considerable controversy over potential impacts as well as terminology used to describe it. Specifically, we explore how two commonly used terms to de- scribe this issue – fracking or shale oil or gas development – serve as issue frames and influence public opinion. Extending existing research, we suggest that these frames elicit different top-of-mind associa- tions that reflect positive or negative connotations and resonate with people's political ideology. These associations, in turn, help explain direct and indirect framing effects on support/opposition as well as whether these effects differ by political ideology. Results of a split-ballot, national U.S. survey (n ¼1000) reveal that people are more supportive of the energy extraction process when it is referred to as shale oil or gas development versus fracking, and this relationship is mediated by greater perceptions of benefit versus risk. Political ideology did not moderate these effects. Further analysis suggests that these findings are partly explained by the tendency to associate fracking more with negative thoughts and impacts and shale oil or gas development more with positive thoughts and impacts. However, these associations also did not vary by political ideology. We discuss implications for communicating risk regarding energy development. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Are people more supportive of biofuels or ethanol? Are people more concerned about climate change or global warming? Ad- vocates of contentious issues, as well as scholars studying those issues, have long recognized that (1) how an issue is framed in broader discourse potentially influences how people perceive it; (2) frames may resonate with people's political ideology; and Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol Energy Policy http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.019 0301-4215/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. n Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: Cclark27@gmu.edu (C.E. Clarke), solhart@umich.edu (P.S. Hart), jps56@cornell.edu (J.P. Schuldt), Darrick.evensen@oberlin.edu (D.T.N. Evensen), Hilary.boudet@oregonstate.edu (H.S. Boudet), Jeffrey.jacquet@sdstate.edu (J.B. Jacquet), Rcs56@cornell.edu (R.C. Stedman). Energy Policy 81 (2015) 131–140