IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v41y2024i1p12-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How anger and fear influence policy narratives: Advocacy and regulation of oil and gas drilling in Colorado

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan J. Pierce
  • Katrina Miller‐Stevens
  • Isabel Hicks
  • Dova Castaneda Zilly
  • Saigopal Rangaraj
  • Evan Rao

Abstract

When advocating for policy change, coalitions rely on various elements and strategies of policy narratives, including emotions. However, past research on the Narrative Policy Framework, and more broadly on the policy process, has largely ignored the role of emotions. This paper argues that emotions, such as anger and fear, are central to how coalitions advocate for policy change. It explores the role of anger and fear in policy narratives by examining the oral testimony (n = 474) given over four legislative committee hearings in March 2019 concerning Colorado Senate Bill 19‐181. This bill changed the mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to prioritize protecting the environment and public health over oil and gas development. This research finds the coalition that successfully supported the bill used anger towards the oil and gas industry, while those that opposed the bill relied more on fear of the uncertain consequences of the bill. It also finds the coalition that opposed the bill relied on self‐characterization as heroes and victims, which was a failed strategy. The implications for this research on the Narrative Policy Framework and, more broadly, for the policy process and advocacy are discussed. 在倡导政策变革时,联盟依赖于政策叙事的不同要素和策略,包括情绪。不过,关于叙事政策框架以及更广泛的政策过程的以往研究在很大程度上忽略了情绪的作用。本文论证认为,愤怒和恐惧等情绪是联盟如何倡导政策变革一事的核心。通过分析2019年3月关于科罗拉多州参议院第181号法案的四次立法委员会听证会的口头证词(n = 474),本文探究了愤怒和恐惧在政策叙事中的作用。该法案改变了科罗拉多石油和天然气保护委员会的使命,将保护环境和公共卫生一事置于石油和天然气开发之上。本研究发现,成功支持该法案的联盟对石油和天然气行业持愤怒情绪,而反对该法案的联盟则更多地依赖于由该法案的不确定后果产生的恐惧情绪。本研究还发现,反对该法案的联盟使用了关于正面人物和受害者的自我描述,这是一个失败的策略。探讨了本研究对叙事政策框架的影响,以及在更广程度上对政策过程和倡导的影响。 Al abogar por el cambio de políticas, las coaliciones se basan en varios elementos y estrategias de narrativas de políticas, incluidas las emociones. Sin embargo, la investigación anterior sobre el marco de políticas narrativas y, en términos más generales, sobre el proceso de políticas, ha ignorado en gran medida el papel de las emociones. Este documento argumenta que las emociones, como la ira y el miedo, son fundamentales para que las coaliciones aboguen por el cambio de políticas. Explora el papel de la ira y el miedo en las narrativas de políticas al examinar el testimonio oral (n = 474) brindado en cuatro audiencias del comité legislativo en marzo de 2019 con respecto al Proyecto de Ley del Senado de Colorado 19‐181. Este proyecto de ley cambió la misión de la Comisión de Conservación de Petróleo y Gas de Colorado para priorizar la protección del medio ambiente y la salud pública sobre el desarrollo de petróleo y gas. Esta investigación encuentra que la coalición que apoyó con éxito el proyecto de ley utilizó la ira hacia la industria del petróleo y el gas, mientras que los que se opusieron al proyecto de ley se basaron más en el miedo a las consecuencias inciertas del proyecto de ley. También encuentra que la coalición que se opuso al proyecto de ley se basó en la autocaracterización como héroes y víctimas, lo cual fue una estrategia fallida. Se discuten las implicaciones para esta investigación sobre el Marco Narrativo de Políticas y, más ampliamente, para el proceso de políticas y la promoción.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan J. Pierce & Katrina Miller‐Stevens & Isabel Hicks & Dova Castaneda Zilly & Saigopal Rangaraj & Evan Rao, 2024. "How anger and fear influence policy narratives: Advocacy and regulation of oil and gas drilling in Colorado," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(1), pages 12-34, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:1:p:12-34
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12519
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12519?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer E. Mosley & Katherine Gibson, 2017. "Strategic use of evidence in state-level policymaking: matching evidence type to legislative stage," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 697-719, December.
    2. Gwen Arnold & Robert Holahan, 2014. "The Federalism of Fracking: How the Locus of Policy-Making Authority Affects Civic Engagement," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 44(2), pages 344-368.
    3. Jennifer Baka & Kate J. Neville & Erika Weinthal & Karen Bakker, 2018. "Agenda†Setting at the Energy†Water Nexus: Constructing and Maintaining a Policy Monopoly in U.S. Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(3), pages 439-465, May.
    4. Marcus, George E. & MacKuen, Michael B., 1993. "Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During Presidential Campaigns," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 672-685, September.
    5. Longxiang Li & Francesca Dominici & Annelise J. Blomberg & Falco J. Bargagli-Stoffi & Joel D. Schwartz & Brent A. Coull & John D. Spengler & Yaguang Wei & Joy Lawrence & Petros Koutrakis, 2022. "Exposure to unconventional oil and gas development and all-cause mortality in Medicare beneficiaries," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 7(2), pages 177-185, February.
    6. Heather Millar, 2020. "Problem Uncertainty, Institutional Insularity, and Modes of Learning in Canadian Provincial Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 765-796, November.
    7. Michael MacKuen & Jennifer Wolak & Luke Keele & George E. Marcus, 2010. "Civic Engagements: Resolute Partisanship or Reflective Deliberation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 440-458, April.
    8. Kristin L. Olofsson, 2022. "Winners and losers: Conflict management through strategic policy engagement," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(1), pages 73-89, January.
    9. Birkland, Thomas A., 1998. "Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 53-74, January.
    10. Stéphane Moyson & Bastien Fievet & Maximilien Plancq & Sébastien Chailleux & David Aubin, 2022. "Make it loud and simple: Coalition politics and problem framing in the French policy process of hydraulic fracturing," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 411-440, July.
    11. Gwen Arnold & Kaubin Wosti Neupane, 2017. "Determinants of Pro-Fracking Measure Adoption by New York Southern Tier Municipalities," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(2), pages 208-232, March.
    12. Gwen Arnold & Benjamin Farrer & Robert Holahan, 2018. "Measuring Environmental and Economic Opinions about Hydraulic Fracturing: A Survey of Landowners in Active or Planned Drilling Units," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(2), pages 258-279, March.
    13. Hannes R. Stephan, 2020. "Shaping the Scope of Conflict in Scotland’s Fracking Debate: Conflict Management and the Narrative Policy Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 64-91, January.
    14. Christopher M. Weible & Tanya Heikkila, 2016. "Comparing the Politics of Hydraulic Fracturing in New York, Colorado, and Texas," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(3), pages 232-250, May.
    15. Rachael M. Moyer, 2022. "Images of controversy: Examining cognition of hydraulic fracturing among policy elites and the general public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 441-467, July.
    16. Michael D. Jones, 2014. "Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 1-39, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder, 2024. "Perception and performance in environmental policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(1), pages 6-11, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder & Colette S. Vogeler, 2022. "Hydraulic fracturing, polarization, and environmental policy implementation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 384-386, July.
    2. Andrew Pattison & William Cipolli & Jose Marichal, 2022. "The devil we know and the angel that did not fly: An examination of devil/angel shift in twitter fracking “debates” in NY 2008–2018," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(1), pages 51-72, January.
    3. Ilia Murtazashvili & Ennio E. Piano, 2019. "Governance of shale gas development: Insights from the Bloomington school of institutional analysis," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(2), pages 159-179, June.
    4. Heather Millar, 2020. "Problem Uncertainty, Institutional Insularity, and Modes of Learning in Canadian Provincial Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 765-796, November.
    5. John Garry, 2014. "Emotions and voting in EU referendums," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 235-254, June.
    6. Sofia Vasilopoulou & Markus Wagner, 2017. "Fear, anger and enthusiasm about the European Union: Effects of emotional reactions on public preferences towards European integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 382-405, September.
    7. Asaad H. Almohammad, 2016. "Toward a Theory of Political Emotion Causation," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, August.
    8. Dean Neu & Gregory D. Saxton & Abu S. Rahaman, 2022. "Social Accountability, Ethics, and the Occupy Wall Street Protests," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 17-31, September.
    9. Tobin Im & Kris Hartley, 2019. "Aligning Needs and Capacities to Boost Government Competitiveness," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 119-137, March.
    10. Abigail Sullivan & Dave D. White & Kelli L. Larson & Amber Wutich, 2017. "Towards Water Sensitive Cities in the Colorado River Basin: A Comparative Historical Analysis to Inform Future Urban Water Sustainability Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-27, May.
    11. Simon Fink & Eva Ruffing & Tobias Burst & Sara Katharina Chinnow, 2023. "Emotional citizens, detached interest groups? The use of emotional language in public policy consultations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 469-497, September.
    12. Henrik Haller & Anna-Sara Fagerholm & Peter Carlsson & Wilhelm Skoglund & Paul van den Brink & Itai Danielski & Kristina Brink & Murat Mirata & Oskar Englund, 2022. "Towards a Resilient and Resource-Efficient Local Food System Based on Industrial Symbiosis in Härnösand: A Swedish Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    13. Ploy Achakulwisut & Peter Erickson & Céline Guivarch & Roberto Schaeffer & Elina Brutschin & Steve Pye, 2023. "Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Caroline Schlaufer & Marina Pilkina & Tatiana Chalaya & Tatiana Khaynatskaya & Tatiana Voronova & Aleksandra Pozhivotko, 2022. "How do civil society organizations communicate in an authoritarian setting? A narrative analysis of the Russian waste management debate," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 730-751, November.
    15. Neomi Frisch-Aviram & Nissim Cohen & Itai Beeri, 2018. "Low-level bureaucrats, local government regimes and policy entrepreneurship," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(1), pages 39-57, March.
    16. Ann Hillier & Ryan P Kelly & Terrie Klinger, 2016. "Narrative Style Influences Citation Frequency in Climate Change Science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-12, December.
    17. Andrew F Smith, 2014. "Political deliberation and the challenge of bounded rationality," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 13(3), pages 269-291, August.
    18. Brázová Věra - Karin, 2015. "Response of Central European Civil Security Systems to the Economic Crisis," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 142-152, December.
    19. Franca Maino & Celestina Valeria De Tommaso, 2022. "Fostering Policy Change in Anti-Poverty Schemes in Italy: Still a Long Way to Go," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-22, July.
    20. Jae‐Hee Jung, 2020. "The Mobilizing Effect of Parties' Moral Rhetoric," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 341-355, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:1:p:12-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.