Abstract
Scholarly research has found a weak and inconsistent role for self-interest in public opinion, and mixed evidence for a relationship between local pollution risks and support for environmental protection. In this study, I argue that focusing events can induce self-interested responses from people living in communities whose economies are implicated by the event. I leverage a unique 12-wave panel survey administered between 2008 and 2010 to analyze public opinion toward offshore oil drilling before and after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I find that residence in counties highly dependent upon the offshore drilling industry was predictive of pro-drilling attitudes following the spill, though not prior to the spill. In addition, there is no significant evidence that residence in a county afflicted by the spill influenced opinion. This study concludes that local support for drilling often arises only after focusing events make the issue salient.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Figure taken from a CBS/NYT poll that was in the field between April 20 and 24, 2007. Results are weighted based on a national sample of 1,052 adults. Obtained from Roper iPoll on 12/31/2011.
Figure taken from a Gallup poll in the field between March 3 and 6, 2011. Results are weighted based on a national sample of 1,021 adults. Obtained from Roper iPoll on 12/31/2011.
This generalization about environmental opinion nicely complements Wlezien (1995), who argues mass opinion responds to policy changes in a “thermostatic” fashion. Enactment of liberal policies is associated with more conservative mood, and conservative policies are associated with more liberal mood. See also Erikson et al. (2002).
Examples of people fitting this category might include residents of New England who suffer from air pollution caused by coal-fired power plants operating in Pennsylvania and Ohio. The present study is unable to assess this residential proximity effect, as the Gulf spill affected a small geographic area where the offshore oil drilling industry does not exist. Consequently, the survey I examine below sampled only a few individuals who lived in counties affected by pollution but not industry—not enough to make valid inferences about this type of residential proximity effect. The influence of pollution on the policy attitudes of people whose economies are not dependent on the source of the pollution is an understudied area of public opinion and warrants future attention.
The full report is available at http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/final-report. The preceding quotations are drawn from Part II of the report.
Cohen, Tom. “Obama administration lifts deep-water drilling moratorium.” CNN, October 12, 2010, http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-12/us/drilling.moratorium_1_deep-water-drilling-drilling-rig-oil-drilling?_s=PM:US. Downloaded 1–23–12.
This plot relies on data obtained using the Google Insight service, http://www.google.com/insights/search/. I downloaded weekly data and generated monthly estimates before creating the plot shown in Fig. 1. Values have been suppressed on the Y-axis to avoid reader confusion, as Google Insight provides an index to measure search activity rather than a raw count of searches.
Survey marginals were obtained using Roper’s iPoll database, downloaded 1–4–12.
No single survey item was asked at frequent intervals through the Deepwater Horizon crisis, but different pollsters measured support for offshore oil drilling using items with slightly different question wordings. I collected responses to these items using Roper’s iPoll database, and then employed the dyadic ratios algorithm (Stimson 1999) to aggregate these survey responses into a monthly time series running between April 2009 and December 2011. The resulting measure can be roughly interpreted as the percent of the public reporting opposition to offshore oil drilling.
Recall that the survey item which serves as the dependent variable offered four response options. I also analyzed the dependent variable using an ordered logit model, and obtained analogous results to those reported here. However, proportional-odds tests indicated a violation of the parallel regression assumption, which could lead to inferential errors when interpreting the coefficients. I explored more flexible generalized linear models (e.g., multinomial logit) and reached conclusions analogous to those reported here. To simplify the discussion, I chose to recode the dependent variable as a two-category response, which captures the underlying logic of the survey item while (probably) suppressing some useful variation across the ordered categories. I include means and standard deviations for all variables in Appendix.
Residence in affected counties was coded “1,” and “0” otherwise.
This variable is coded in the same fashion as the preceding place variable. I include a list of such counties in the Appendix. Briefly, the offshore oil drilling industry exists in the Gulf of Mexico from the Alabama–Florida border extending west to the southern tip of Texas. Additional offshore drilling currently takes place on a limited basis in southern California (centered off Santa Barbara County) and on a widespread basis in several locations in Alaska. For practical and legal reasons, no drilling is currently done along the Florida coast, the eastern seaboard, or the west coast north of Santa Barbara. Drilling is not permitted in the Great Lakes states, though some directional drilling is currently legal in Michigan. Data is drawn from the Minerals Management Service, http://www.boemre.gov/mmshome.htm.
This data was released by the OES in May 2010.
This measure includes the following categories, contained within the major category “Construction and Extraction Occupations”: “Derrick Operators, Oil and Gas” (47-5012), “Rotary Drill Operators, Oil and Gas” (47-5013), and “Roustabouts, Oil and Gas” (47-5071). Several other occupations are related to the oil industry, such as “Service Unit Operators, Oil, Gas, and Mining” and “Helpers-Extraction Workers,” but these categories capture other extraction operations such as mining.
Summary statistics for all variables used in the analysis are presented in the Appendix.
A “latent” factor score of news exposure based upon these items was also generated and included in the models discussed below. The results were identical to those reported below.
Democrats are coded “1,” Independents “2,” and Republicans “3.”
“Very liberal” is coded “1,” while “Very conservative” is coded “5.” The middle category is “moderate,” which is coded “3.”
Question wordings and coding decisions for all variables included in the analysis are listed in the Appendix.
All analyses are conducted using survey items posed in an identical format.
Standard errors are clustered by state of residence.
More specifically, the simulations assume the following values: Party ID “Independent,” Ideology “Moderate,” Environment Importance roughly halfway between “Moderately Important” and “Very Important,” Economy Importance halfway between “Very Important” and “Extremely Important,” Gas Price Importance slightly above “Very Important,” Age 47, Sex “male,” Race “non-black,” Income “$40,000–$50,000,” Education “Some College,” non-resident of a spill county.
Result obtained at Roper’s iPoll databank. The Gallup Poll which asked this particular question was in the field between March 19-21, 1999.
References
Adeola, F. O. (2000). Endangered community, enduring people. Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 209.
Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 53–74.
Bishop, B. H. (2013). Drought and environmental opinion: A study of attitudes toward water policy. Public Opinion Quarterly (in press).
Bolsen, T., & Cook, F. L. (2008). The polls—Trends public opinion on energy policy: 1974–2006. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 364–388.
Cho, W. K. T., & Gimpel, J. G. (2009). Presidential voting and the local variability of economic hardship. The Forum, 7(1), 1–21.
Coan, T. G., & Holman, M. R. (2008). Voting green. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1121–1135.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass politics. In M. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: The Free Press.
De Boer, C., & Catsburg, I. (1988). A report: The impact of nuclear accidents on attitudes toward nuclear energy. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 52(2), 254–261.
Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. Public interest, 28(1), 38–50.
Dunlap, R. E. (1992). Public opinion and environmental policy. In J. P. Lester (Ed.), Environmental politics and policy: Theories and evidence (2nd ed., pp. 63–114). Durham: Duke University Press.
Elliott, E., Regens, J. L., & Seldon, B. J. (1995). Exploring variation in public support for environmental protection. Social Science Quarterly, 76, 41–52.
Elliott, E., Seldon, B. J., & Regens, J. L. (1997). Political and economic determinants of individuals’ support for environmental spending. Journal of Environmental Management, 51(1), 15–27.
Erikson, R. S., Mackuen, M., & Stimson, J. A. (2002). The macro polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guber, D. L. (2003). The grassroots of a green revolution: polling America on the environment. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Hamilton, L. C., Colocousis, C. R., & Duncan, C. M. (2010). Place effects on environmental views. Rural Sociology, 75(2), 326–347.
Hill, S. J., Herron, M. C., & Lewis, J. B. (2010). Economic crisis, Iraq, and race: A study of the 2008 presidential election. Election Law Journal, 9(1), 41–62.
Johnson, M., Brace, P., & Arceneaux, K. (2005). Public opinion and dynamic representation in the American States: The case of environmental attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 87–108.
Kahn, M. E., & Matsuzaka, J. G. (1997). Demand for environmental goods: Evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives. Journal of Law and Economics, 40(2), 137–173.
Kenski, K., Hardy, B. W., & Jamieson, K. H. (2010). The Obama victory: How media, money, and message shaped the 2008 election. New York: Oxford University Press.
Key, Jr., V. O. (1961). Public opinion and American democracy. New York: Knopf.
Kingdon, J. W. (2002). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (longman classics edition). London: Longman Publishing Group.
Lane, R. E. (1962). Political Ideology: Why the American common man believes what he does. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Mutz, D. C. (1993). Direct and indirect routes to politicizing personal experience: Does knowledge make a difference? Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(4), 483–502.
Mutz, D. C. (1994). Contextualizing personal experience: The role of mass media. Journal of Politics, 56(3), 689–714.
Press, D. (2003). Who votes for natural resources in California? Society & Natural Resources, 16(9), 835–846.
Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1990). The limited effect of economic self-interest on the political attitudes of the mass public. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(3), 247–271.
Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, Jr., H. M. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. The American Political Science Review, 74(3):670–684.
Sears, D. O., & Lau, R. R. (1983). Inducing apparently self-interested political preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 27, 223–252.
Smith, E. R. A. N. (2002). Energy, the environment, and public opinion. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Stimson, J. A. (1999). Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Whitmarsh, L. (2008). Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. Journal of Risk, Research, 11(3), 351–374.
Wlezien, C. (1995). The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 981–1000.
Wolsink, M. (2000). Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy, 21(1), 49–64.
Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(6), 1188–1207.
Zaller, J. (2003) Coming to grips with V.O. Key’s concept of latent opinion. In M. B. MacKuen & G. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Electoral democracy (pp. 311–36) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 3.
Question wordings
-
Offshore Oil Drilling (2008/ 2010): “Do you favor or oppose allowing oil drilling off the coast of the United States?”
-
Strongly Support
-
Somewhat Support
-
Somewhat Oppose
-
Strongly Oppose
-
-
Party Identification (2008): “Do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, a supporter of some other party, or none of these?”
-
Democrat
-
Republican
-
Supporter of Some Other Party
-
Independent
-
Not Sure
-
-
Ideology (2008): “Generally speaking, do you consider yourself…”
-
Very Liberal
-
Somewhat Liberal
-
Moderate
-
Somewhat Conservative
-
Very Conservative
-
-
Importance, “Environment,” “Gas Prices,” “Economy” (2008): “How important is each of the following issues to you personally?”
-
Not at all Important
-
Somewhat Important
-
Moderately Important
-
Very Important
-
Extremely Important
-
Counties/parishes affected by the spill
Louisiana | Mississippi |
Cameron | Hancock |
Vermilion | Harrison |
Iberia | Jackson |
St. Mary | Alabama |
Terrebonne | Mobile |
Lafourche | Baldwin |
Jefferson | Florida |
Plaquemines | Escambia |
St. Bernard | Santa Rosa |
Orleans | Okaloosa |
St. Tammany | Walton |
Bay | |
Gulf |
Counties/parishes bordering offshore oil drilling activity
Texas | Jefferson |
Willacy | Plaquemines |
Kenedy | St. Bernard |
Kleberg | Orleans |
Nueces | St. Tammany |
San Patricio | Mississippi |
Arkansas | Hancock |
Refugio | Harrison |
Victoria | Jackson |
Calhoun | Alabama |
Jackson | Mobile |
Mata-Gorda | Baldwin |
Brazoria | California |
Galveston | Santa Barbara |
Harris | Ventura |
Chambers | Orange |
Jefferson | Alaska |
Orange | North Slope |
Louisiana | Aleutians East |
Cameron | Peninsula and Lake |
Vermilion | Kodiak Island |
Iberia | Kenai Peninsula |
St. Mary | Anchorage |
Terrebonne | Matanuska-Susitna |
Lafourche |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bishop, B.H. Focusing Events and Public Opinion: Evidence from the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. Polit Behav 36, 1–22 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9223-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9223-7