• About
    • About the Center for Public Interest Communications
    • What is Public Interest Communications?
    • Our Team
    • Theories We Use
    • Center Updates
    • Programs & Affiliates
      • frank gathering
      • The Research Prize in Public Interest Communications
      • Journal of Public Interest Communications
      • UF Programs
    • Our Approach to Generative Artificial Intelligence
    • Contact Us
    • Job: Center Research Assistant
  • SOLUTIONS
    • Beyond Raising Awareness
    • Become a Great Science Communicator
    • Fixing Data’s Demand Problem
    • Why your narrative change strategy isn’t working
    • How to reach people who don’t already agree with you
    • Why Your Science Communication Isn’t Landing
    • Services
      • Strategy Consulting
      • Issue Research
      • Training – Frameworks and Custom
  • Frameworks
  • Training
    • Programs
    • Professional Development
      • Learn on your schedule
      • Beyond raising awareness: How to create lasting change
      • Science Communications Course 
      • Strategic Communications Academy for UF Leaders & Scholars
  • RESOURCES
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletter
    • Scholarship & Publications
Center for Public Interest Communications
Support
  • About
    • About the Center for Public Interest Communications
    • What is Public Interest Communications?
    • Our Team
    • Theories We Use
    • Center Updates
    • Programs & Affiliates
      • frank gathering
      • The Research Prize in Public Interest Communications
      • Journal of Public Interest Communications
      • UF Programs
    • Our Approach to Generative Artificial Intelligence
    • Contact Us
    • Job: Center Research Assistant
  • SOLUTIONS
    • Beyond Raising Awareness
    • Become a Great Science Communicator
    • Fixing Data’s Demand Problem
    • Why your narrative change strategy isn’t working
    • How to reach people who don’t already agree with you
    • Why Your Science Communication Isn’t Landing
    • Services
      • Strategy Consulting
      • Issue Research
      • Training – Frameworks and Custom
  • Frameworks
  • Training
    • Programs
    • Professional Development
      • Learn on your schedule
      • Beyond raising awareness: How to create lasting change
      • Science Communications Course 
      • Strategic Communications Academy for UF Leaders & Scholars
  • RESOURCES
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletter
    • Scholarship & Publications
  • Research & Insights

Language Changes How We Think About Natural Gas Extraction

  • September 30, 2015
  • 2 minute read
Total
0
Shares
0
0
0
0

Do people support fracking for oil and natural gas? New research suggests that the answer may depend what it’s called.

According to study findings published in the June 2015 issue of the journal Energy Policy, people are more likely to favor shale oil development but be less supportive of fracking.

For their study, researcher Christopher E. Clarke from George Mason University and colleagues used a telephone survey of 1000 American adults to explore the differences in public support for “unconventional oil and gas extraction using hydraulic fracturing,” or fracking.

Fracking is a process by which fossil fuels are tapped by “pumping water, sand, and chemicals underground to fracture the rock and release oil and gas.” Supporters of the process tend to refer it as “shale oil or gas development,” while opponents use the term “fracking.”

The survey collected information about peoples’ demographic characteristics and political leanings and also their levels of support for shale gas development via hydraulic fracturing.

Half of the participants were asked about “fracking,” while the other half was asked about “shale oil or gas development.” For instance, some participants responded to the question, “Overall, to what extent do you support or oppose shale oil or gas development?”, while others were asked “Overall, to what extent do you support or oppose fracking?” Participants were also asked what term or terms came to mind when they heard the phrase “shale oil or gas development” or “fracking.”

The researchers found that “fracking elicited more negative associations and comments related to environmental impacts (i.e. water contamination). By contrast, shale oil or gas development engendered more positive associations and comments about economic impacts (i.e., creating energy-related jobs in communities.” “Shale oil or gas development” was seen as providing more benefits to communities than risks, while “fracking” was perceived as being more risky than beneficial.

“Our findings,” the researchers note, “suggest that shale oil or gas development and especially fracking are ‘loaded’ terms. They are linked to different connotations and diverse social, economic, environmental, and health impacts.”

Communicators working on the issue of natural gas development need to be careful, then, what terms they use in their work, and are “clear about the process and impacts of unconventional energy extraction.”

“To the extent that one desires to convey both positive and negative impacts, phrases like ‘shale gas development via hydraulic fracturing’ may be useful additions to issue discourse.”

Energy Policy

Researchers:
Christopher E. Clarke, George Mason University
Philip S. Hart, University of Michigan
Jonathon P. Schuldt and Richard C. Stedman, Cornell University
Darrick T.N. Evensen, Oberlin College
Hilary S. Boudet, Oregon State University
Jeffrey B. Jacquet, South Dakota State University

Total
0
Shares
Share 0
Tweet 0
Share 0
Related Topics
  • frankology
Previous Article
  • Research & Insights

For Action on the Climate, Keep Your Messages Local

  • September 28, 2015
View Post
Next Article
  • Research & Insights

Repetition Makes Us Believe Misinformation

  • October 5, 2015
View Post
Professional Development
  • Strategic Communications Academy for UF Leaders & Scholars
  • Science Communications Course 
  • Beyond raising awareness: How to create lasting change
More of our work
  • Persuasion in a “Post-Truth” World
  • Philanthropy's New Voice: Building Trust with Deeper Stories and Clear Language
    Philanthropy’s Messaging Creates Confusion. Telling Better Stories Can Build Trust
  • The Back-of-the-Envelope Guide to Communications Strategy
  • Illustration by Ailadi.
    Designing Diverse and Gender Inclusive Humanitarian Organizations
Latest from the Center
  • Most Americans Support Freedom of Information. Almost None Have Ever Used It.
  • October 2025 nationwide survey sheds light on Americans’ increasing worry about housing affordability
  • 2025 ‘Real Good Census’ Reveals a Strategically Vital Field with Strong Rewards, Marking Significant Growth
  • composite image of Audrey Goldfarb and text stating "Science isn't personal: why communicating emotion isn't 'soft,' it's strategic"
    Changemakers in Action: Dr. Audrey Goldfarb
How We Help – Case Studies
  • illustration
    Innovation Service of UNHCR: the UN Refugee Agency
  • gloved hand holding vial
    Science-based communication strategy on COVID for the UN Verified Initiative
  • Council on Foundations - Largest study on narratives about philanthropy
    Largest Study on Narratives About Philanthropy with the Council on Foundations
UF Logo

Center for Public Interest Communications
PO Box 118400
Gainesville, FL 32611-8400

An auxiliary unit of the College of Journalism and Communications

Copyright © 2026

Contact Us

We are eager to chat with you about your project or training need.

Send us a note

The Center for Public Interest Communications, the first of its kind in the nation, is designed to study, test and apply the science of strategic communication for change. We are based at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications.

  • Change Communication
  • Science Communication
  • Strategic Communication
  • Broader Impacts
  • Public Interest Communication
  • Narrative Change
  • Leadership Development
  • Strategy Development
  • Effective Presentations
  • Research Translation & Insights

Input your search keywords and press Enter.