The Effects of Information on Public Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy

The information-deficit model is a common framework for explaining public attitudes towards new technologies, including renewable energy technology. This model assumes that public opposition to technology is based on a lack of quality information. The siting of facilities such as commercial wind farms frequently face opposition from residents of local communities, despite broad public support for renewable energy. Although social science has been critical of the information-deficit model, providing information to the public can influence both the substance and quality of attitudes. In this study, residents of coastal communities in Michigan, supportive of wind energy on average, were provided indepth information about wind energy. Compared to a control group, participants who attended information sessions exhibited greater change in both their general support for wind energy and the strength of those attitudes. Possible implications for the siting of wind farms and other renewable projects are discussed. Introduction Renewable energy advocates frequently characterize public opposition to renewables projects in terms consistent with the “information-deficit model” (deficit model, for short). The deficit model is a conventional perspective on public attitudes and behavior, which explains public viewpoints as resulting from a lack of knowledge. The corollary to this perspective is that providing information to the public will change attitudes and behavior. Social science, however, has criticized the deficit model in recent decades, and research has demonstrated that the correlation of knowledge and attitudes is less than perfect. This does not, however, mean that information does not play an important role in attitude formation and change. In particular, the provision of information and the resulting knowledge (real or perceived) can change the quality of attitudes, namely the strength with which attitudes are held. In this article, I discuss the deficit model and the influence of information on attitudes towards a particular form of renewable energy generation, large-scale wind farms. By comparing attendees of an information session on wind farms with a control group, the research reported in this article provides evidence that receiving information can contribute to a change in attitude. In a small sample of residents of coastal Michigan, participants in an information session exhibited a rise in enthusiasm for wind farms in a follow-up survey. More importantly, perhaps, participants in those events also demonstrated a rise in confidence with which they held those attitudes. Implications for the role of information in the siting of wind farms and other renewable energy developments are discussed. The Deficit Model At its core, the deficit model holds that public attitudes or behaviors can be explained by a deficiency in knowledge (Gross, 1994). The study of environmental attitudes and behavior has examined the role of general and issue-specific knowledge in shaping views and actions (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Schahn & Holzer, 1990; Schultz, 2002). Research shows that information can make a difference in some circumstances, but it is often insufficient to elicit desired behaviors (Schultz, 2002). Two recent articles (Howell, 2014; Nolan, 2010), for example, examine the knowledge-deficit framework by studying the effects of attending movies intended to heighten concern about climate change. Howell found that while receiving information through the film media increased concern about the issues, those effects on attitudes were not long-lasting. Nolan also demonstrated that viewing a movie could boost concern, as well as intention to act, but it did not result in actual behavior change. The knowledge-deficit model is a central concept to the study of public understanding of science (PUS), a field concerned with the relationship between general scientific knowledge and public views of science and technology. The PUS field has shown that deficit-model thinking underlies many experts’ views on public opposition to new technologies (Bauer, Allum, & Miller, 2007; Sturgis & Allum, 2004), leading them to believe that support for a technology can be garnered through information and education about the technology and its potential impacts (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009; Ziman, 1991). While most PUS work focuses on the role of general scientific literacy in forming attitudes, some research has also examined the role of issue-specific knowledge (Sturgis, Cooper, & Fife-Schaw, 2005). The deficit model has been roundly criticized in this field (Bauer et al., 2007; Owens, 2000; Sturgis & Allum, 2004; Sturgis et al., 2005) for providing too narrow a view on public viewpoints and failing to consider the psychological, social, and institutional contexts of attitude formation (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009; Owens & Driffill, 2008). However, Sturgis and Allum (2004) and others have encouraged a second look at the role of knowledge and information in shaping attitudes. They note that empirical studies generally find that knowledge does, in fact, have an important influence on attitudes. Rather than ignoring the role of scientific knowledge, it is better to view information as insufficient for changing minds or behavior (Owens, 2000). Some recognize that while greater scientific knowledge is not necessarily “a lever of positive attitudes,” knowledge affects the quality of those attitudes (Bauer et al., 2007; Evans & Durant, 1995). In other words, while greater knowledge about an issue might not lead to desired behaviors or attitudes, it does change how people think about that topic and associated issues. The idea that providing information to a person can change the quality of his or her attitudes is consistent with the study of public attitudes by social psychology. Social psychologists acknowledge that all attitudes are not created equal (Krosnick & Abelson, 1992; Visser, Bizer, & Krosnick, 2006). Some attitudes expressed by people are little more than top-of-the-head responses (Lindeman, 2002; Zaller & Feldman, 1992), supported by little knowledge or cognition. These weak points of view are generally fleeting and easily changed (Bassili, 2008). On the other hand, some attitudes are held quite firmly. They exhibit a well-developed structure, with well-established cognitive pathways. Social psychologists refer to these attitudes as strong. Strong attitudes are described as sharing four features (Crano & Prislin, 2006; Krosnick & Petty, 1995; Lavine, Huff, Wagner, & Sweeney, 1998; Petty, Haugtvedt, & Smith, 1995): 1) greater persistence of the attitude over time; 2) resistance of the attitude to change; 3) greater impact of the attitude on other judgments; and 4) greater consistency between attitudes and behavior. Krosnick and Abelson (1992) use the term “crystallization” to describe strong attitudes: “numerous studies have shown that strong attitudes are in fact more firmly crystallized and have more impact on cognition and behavior than weak attitudes” (178). Knowledge is one path to a stronger attitude (Krosnick & Petty, 1995; Prislin, 1996; Visser et al., 2006). Research has shown that perceived knowledge or actual thoughtful consideration of an issue leads to stronger attitudes (Barden & Petty, 2008; Petty et al., 1995). Note that it is not necessary to have actual deep knowledge about a subject to have a strong attitude towards it; believing you are knowledgeable is enough to strengthen attitudes. Likewise, just the perception of greater elaboration (i.e., belief you have given thought to an issue) is enough to strengthen attitudes about that issue (Petty, Haugtvedt, and Smith 1995a). This explains the qualitative difference in attitudes that are supported by knowledge or by information received. When a person receives information about a topic, or has an opportunity to consider and discuss that topic, his or her attitude towards that topic can become more crystallized. Attitudes towards Wind Energy and other Renewables Public opinion on renewable energy and subsequent support or opposition of specific technologies is a subject of growing interest among environmental social scientists. Opinion surveys indicate that public attitudes towards renewable energy technologies (renewables) are largely positive (Ansolabehere & Konisky, 2009; Ek, 2005), with renewables commonly viewed as a partial solution to three societal challenges: meeting the growing demand for energy, ensuring energy security, and reducing harmful air emissions (Szarka, 2006). However, advocates have been frustrated by a presumed “social gap” between broad public support for renewables and the slow deployment of specific technologies (Bell, Gray, & Haggett, 2005; Parks & Theobald, 2011). Local opposition to specific projects is widely viewed as a significant obstacle to the broader adoption of renewable technologies (DevineWright, 2008, 2011; Kasperson & Ram, 2013; Pasqualetti, 2011; Walker, Cass, Burningham, & Barnett, 2010; Wüstenhagen, Wolsink, & Bürer, 2007), even if public attitudes explain only part of the success or failure of the siting of renewable projects (Tuler, Ram, & Kasperson, 2014). Perhaps because the technology is more common than other renewables and has been the center of public disputes across Europe and the U.S. (Devine-Wright, 2008), the literature on public acceptability of renewables focuses heavily on large-scale wind energy developments. This literature primarily has sought to explain the gap in general public attitudes towards wind energy and community attitudes towards specific projects. Here, I review six perspectives. The first four are offered by Bell and colleagues (Bell et al., 2005; Bell, Gray, Haggett, & Swaffield, 2013): the power of vocal minorities, selfinterested NIMBY responses, protection of valued places, and conditional support for wind energy. All four assume that general support for renewables and wind energy is genuine and that the social gap exists due to a lack of support for specific projects. None of these explanations is mutually exclusive, and it is likely that the totality of community opposition is comprised of a mix of perspectives (Bell et al., 2013). One potential reason for the gap in attitudes and project deployment is that a vocal minority, opposed to wind energy technology, dominates the decision process in communities. Bell et al (2005) refer to this as the “democratic deficit” explanation. The assumption underlying this explanation is that a small number of opponents in a community are able to dominate the public conversation about an issue and influence siting decisions. There are, in fact, individuals who will reject wind energy and other renewables as a matter of principle, and their reasons for opposing these technologies may be very central to their personal identities. Research indicates that opposition to wind farm development is fueled, in part, by general conservatism undergirded by “traditional” values (Bidwell, 2013). Another explanation holds that self-interest leads individuals who are generally supportive of renewables to oppose the construction of projects in or near their community. This explanation is generally known as NIMBY (not in my backyard). The NIMBY label is commonly used as a pejorative, implying that people put their personal interests ahead of societal benefits (Wolsink, 2007). Many social scientists have dismissed the NIMBY explanation as shortsighted, noting that public support for wind farms and other renewables is complex and multifaceted (Devine‐Wright, 2011; Devine-Wright, 2004, 2009; Kempton, Firestone, Lilley, Rouleau, & Whitaker, 2005; Swofford & Slattery, 2010; Van der Horst, 2007; Wolsink, 2000). Wolsink (2007) provides the clearest evidence, showing that measures of NIMBY dimensions are not strong predictors of support or opposition in European studies. This is not to say that there are not some people who oppose wind energy developments based on narrow self-interest (Bell et al., 2013), but it does not account for all opposition. Bell et al (2013) offer a third explanation focused on public attitudes towards the particular site for which a project is proposed. They refer to this as the “place protector” explanation: “...the place protector opposes a local development because of the value that she sees in that particular place while not seeing the same value or remaining agnostic on the value of other places where developments might take place.” Evidence suggests that renewable projects are considered a threat to community members’ place-based identities (Cass & Walker, 2009; Devine-Wright, 2009). This perspective differs from NIMBY, in that people are seeking to protect the perceived inherent value of a location, rather than a self-interest. A fourth possible contributor to the social gap is conditional support for wind energy. According to Bell et al (2005), “Most of the people who support wind energy do not support it without qualification” (463). In other words, people support the general ideas of renewables and wind energy but only if specific projects meet particular criteria. This explanation differs from NIMBYism and place protection in that those exhibiting conditional support would oppose wind energy developments that don’t meet their criteria for approval wherever they are proposed (i.e., not just in their own community). Much of the recent literature focuses on this explanation, seeking to understand the factors that influence the conditional support of wind farm project (Bell et al., 2013). Researchers have identified several reasons for local opposition to proposed projects, including the perceived effects of wind farms on the landscape, the fairness of development processes and outcomes, and conflicts of underlying values among stakeholders (Bell et al., 2005; Devine-Wright, 2004; Ellis, Barry, & Robinson, 2007; Firestone & Kempton, 2007; Toke, Breukers, & Wolsink, 2008; Wolsink, 1989). Overall, frustration over perceived inconsistency between general and specific attitudes towards wind farm development is fueled by the assumption that specific attitudes are—or should be—shaped by positive general attitudes. The standard view of support for wind power can be characterized as a statement of conditional logic (if A, then B). Positive attitudes towards wind energy form the antecedent (A), and support for specific wind energy developments (i.e., wind farms) are the consequent (B). From this perspective, the social gap contradicts a rule of logic. The four explanations above follow this conditional logic, focusing on why a pro-renewables public opposes specific projects. In framing the gap in this manner, authors support the notion that specific attitudes should flow from general beliefs, and that an incongruity between general and specific attitudes is problematic, or even deviant (Aitken, 2010). A fifth and sixth explanations for the social gap reject this conditional logic. Johansson and Laike (2007) and Wolsink (2012) state that attitudes towards wind energy in general and attitudes towards specific projects will understandably differ, as they are different attitude objects. Each carries a different set of associations in the minds of community members. Where people may consider issues such as energy security and environmental quality when thinking about wind energy in general, they think about specific impacts—e.g., noise, construction traffic, and a changed landscape—when a wind farm is proposed in or near their community. Wolsink (2012) provides a very insightful table that delineates the essential characteristics and attributes associated with wind energy systems in general versus those associate to a specific project. It is unrealistic, these authors argue, to expect consistency across these attitudes. Wolsink expresses a strong position on this, stating: “A clear correlation between general national public opinion and local decision making is theoretically not supported” (2012, p. 12229). While it is true that the general concept of wind energy would stir very different thoughts than a specific project, it is imprudent to assume that general attitudes towards wind energy would have no influence on responses to specific proposals. In fact, in a study of public attitudes in potential wind energy development sites in the United Kingdom, Jones and Eiser (2009) found that general attitudes towards renewables were a strong predictor of attitudes towards specific projects. This brings us to a sixth, alternative perspective on the social gap. Van der Horst (2007) proposes that general public support “would merit some closer explanation” (Van der Horst, 2007, p. 2711). Perhaps, suggests Van der Horst, general attitudes are often too weak to have substantial influence on local attitudes when a wind farm project is proposed. This is a different perspective on the logic of the social gap, because it places some responsibility for the gap on the antecedent (general attitudes) rather than looking entirely to the consequent (responses to a wind farm proposal). This means that scholars should revisit general attitudes in an effort to develop a deeper understanding of fundamental views towards wind energy development. This shift in perspective also has important ramifications for how to close the social gap. Instead of focusing all attention on the wind farm development process, it suggests that the gap in public support for renewables could be reduced by strengthening general support for wind energy and other renewables. Information and Renewable Energy Attitudes The notion that information campaigns or opportunities for public deliberation could reduce the social gap is relatively common. According to Bell et al. (2005), wind energy advocates have two possible responses to conditional support: change the projects or change people’s minds. The latter option, changing minds, is a common approach in wind farm development, and information campaigns are a prevalent tool for pursuing this goal. There is a reasonable logic to information campaigns, since much of the public has limited awareness of renewable technologies (Walker, 1995). Wind energy advocates envision attitudes towards wind energy projects becoming more positive as the public learns more about the benefits of wind energy and misconceptions about impacts are corrected. In interviewing a variety of actors in the development of renewable energy projects, Cass and Walker (2009) found ample evidence of information deficit perspectives. In their study, proponents of development felt that some opposition was caused by incorrect information spread by opposition groups and that providing correct information would lead to greater public support. Parks and Theobald (2011) found a similar stream of thought among wind energy advocates. The idea that information can create greater support for wind energy projects has been advocated by multiple authors as well (Jones & Eiser, 2009; Kaldellis, 2005; Krohn & Damborg, 1999; Strachan & Lal, 2004). Owens and Driffill (2008), however, warn that there is a chance that informational interventions intended to increase support for a proposed energy project can actually backfire, due to public mistrust of the communicators providing the information. Still, some scholars writing about public acceptance of wind farms have criticized explanations for the social gap that ascribe public opposition to a lack of knowledge (Ellis, Cowell, Warren, Strachan, & Szarka, 2009; Haggett, 2011; Wolsink, 2011) and informational interventions intended to raise support for projects (Aitken, 2010; Bell et al., 2005; Jones & Eiser, 2009). They point to evidence from social science research that multiple factors underlie support and opposition to wind energy developments, concluding that a knowledge-deficit model of opposition is too narrow. Moreover, the portrayal of opponents as ignorant or poorly informed delegitimizes their beliefs and values. If a project supporter believes that opposition is based in ignorance or misinformation, these authors claim, he or she will show less respect for the needs and values of those who oppose the project. Despite these objections, I believe it is imprudent to ignore the potential effects of information campaigns and increased knowledge on public attitudes. Rather, it is important to understand how providing information to stakeholders affects attitudes towards renewable energy projects, in order to inform choices about the role for informational interventions in siting processes. The research presented here seeks to better understand the role of information in changing attitudes towards wind energy, in general, and the quality of those attitudes. This article examines how participation in an informational session on wind farms affects the attitudes of residents in communities where the development of commercial wind farms is possible but where specific projects have not yet been proposed. Based on the theoretical foundations of attitude strength and the role of perceived knowledge, two main hypotheses are tested: 1) Providing information to members of the public can affect their general attitudes towards wind energy, and 2) Participation in an information session may strengthen general attitudes towards wind energy. Study Methods This article reports findings from a study of attitudes towards the potential development of commercial wind farms in coastal Michigan. Interest in wind energy development in the State of Michigan has risen sharply in recent years, particularly in areas along the Great Lakes’ coasts. A primary driver of this development pressure is a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), passed in to law in 2008, which required that 10 percent of electricity sold in the state come from renewable sources by 2015. In 2009, Michigan Sea Grant provided funding to the Land Policy Institute (LPI) at Michigan State University to conduct an integrated assessment of issues related to siting wind farms in coastal areas of the state. To narrow the geographic scope of this assessment, three study areas were selected: Bay County, Presque Isle County, and a four-county area of the Upper Peninsula. Bay County is a relatively dense and urbanized area located at the base of Michigan’s “thumb” which forms the Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron. The population of Bay County is 107,000, a third of which lives in Bay City. Presque Isle County sits in the northeast corner of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. A rural county of 13,400 people, its largest population center is the small town of Rogers City. The study area in the Upper Peninsula comprises four counties--Marquette, Baraga, Houghton, and Keweenaw—that frame the Keweenaw Bay of Lake Superior. This area of Michigan is largely rural and forested, with two population centers around the cities of Houghton and Marquette. The total population of the four counties is roughly 112,000. These areas were selected to represent a diversity of geographic and demographic conditions. At the time of this study, no projects had been officially proposed within any of the three areas. Bay County, however, is just across Saginaw Bay from Huron County, which hosts the largest extant wind farm in the state. Data reported in this study comes from three activities: a mail survey of a random sample of residents in the study areas, an identical survey administered to a convenience sample that participated in one of four information sessions, and a follow-up mail survey of all participants. The surveys consisted of closed-end questions centered on attitudes towards commercial wind farm development. Most of the questions asked respondents to consider how they would feel about a commercial wind farm development in or near their community, defined as the township, village, or city in Coastal Michigan where they live during all or part of the year. Questions were also asked to gauge the strength with which the respondents held their attitudes towards wind farms. Preliminary Mail Survey As part of a broader study on public attitudes towards wind energy Bidwell (2013), an eightpage mail survey was sent to 300 households in each of the three study areas (900 total surveys mailed) in early 2010. The cover letter indicated that this was a research project being conducted by LPI at Michigan State University and asked that the survey be completed by the adult with a birthday closest to a specific date. Following components of the tailored design method (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009) households in the sample were sent reminder post cards and replacement surveys to increase the response rate. After removing nonviable addresses, the total sample for this study was 827 households. With 375 completed surveys, the response rate was 45.3 percent. These responses serve as a control group for this study. Four to six weeks following receipt of the initial survey, an abbreviated form of the original survey was sent to respondents from the control group. This survey consisted of all the original attitudinal and attitude strength measures, minus questions about personal characteristics. The surveys included unique identifying codes to allow easy comparison of preliminary and follow-up responses. Of 375 initial control group respondents, 171 viable follow-up surveys (46 percent) were received. Therefore, the final rate of response for the two-wave, control survey was 20.7 percent. Informational Events Informational events were held in four locations: Hancock (Houghton County), Marquette (Marquette County), Rogers City (Presque Isle County), and Bay City (Bay County). Two events were held in the Upper Peninsula, due to large distances covered by that study area. Invitations to the events were mailed to a separate random sample of 300 residents in each study area (900 total invitations); however, due to very low participation rates, the participants are not a representative sample of the study areas. A few residents also attended after learning of the events through word of mouth. Therefore, the participants in these events are considered a convenience sample. A total of 60 individuals participated in the events. Upon arrival, each participant was provided a packet containing an illustrated issues booklet, a county-specific map of wind resources and data, an explanation of informed consent, and the same eight-page survey of attitudes towards commercial wind farm development that had been mailed to the control group. Each event began with an introduction to the project and the review of a statement regarding informed consent to participate in a research project. Participants were then provided approximately 15 minutes to complete the survey. The majority of the event was dedicated to reviewing the issues booklet. A Land Policy Institute specialist in renewable energy led this review. Opportunities to ask questions or provide comments were provided throughout the presentation. The issues booklet was developed by the Land Policy Institute and refined through initial meetings with municipal officials and other stakeholders from the study areas. The booklet and presentation consisted of four sections: (1) wind farm basics, (2) wind energy development pressures, (3) the wind farm siting process, and (4) the effects of wind farms. The first section introduced participants to wind energy, the transmission and distribution electrical grids, and the basic components of a generic wind turbine and commercial wind farm. The second section provided a context to the pressures for wind energy development in Michigan, including an overview of the electricity market, wind resources, current and proposed wind energy systems in the state, and the renewable portfolio standard. The next section presented a 10-step wind farm siting and development process (adapted from a fact sheet by the American Wind Energy Association), and a summary of federal and state regulations that affect the location of wind farms. The final section of the booklet and presentation discussed potential effects of commercial wind farm developments. These include visual effects, noise, shadow flicker, impacts to birds and other wildlife, effects of construction, effects to home values, and other projected tax base and other economic effects. This section also included a brief introduction to local zoning authority in Michigan and examples of wind-farm related ordinances. The presentation concluded with a review of a map showing the location of commercially viable wind resources in the county (as determined by a GIS-based computer model developed by LPI). Four to six weeks following the event, participants were mailed the abbreviated follow-up survey by mail. As with the control group, surveys included an identification code to facilitate the comparison of preliminary and follow-up responses. The 60 events participants returned 28 viable follow-up surveys (47 percent of the original participants and 3 percent of the 900 originally invited). Measures The following section explains the measures that were constructed to capture the study participant’s general attitudes towards wind farms and the strength with which they held those attitudes. General Attitudes towards Wind Farms Based on questions in the 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Survey, respondents were asked to use a five-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) to rate their level of support or opposition to the construction of three types of electricity-generating facilities (coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plant, and commercial wind farm) in or near their community. Following Firestone and Kempton (2007), respondents were also asked to indicate the degree to which they would encourage or discourage construction of a commercial wind farm in or near their community. Respondents also indicated the degree to which they would support certain actions to be priorities of Michigan policy makers. These priorities included support for other forms of wind energy (off-shore and community-scale). Exploratory factor analysis of these measures revealed, and confirmatory factor analysis verified, a latent variable that I call wind enthusiasm. Four items, including support for commercial wind farms as a source of electricity and support for development of wind farms in or near one’s community, as well as support for offshore wind farms and community-owned wind farms, formed a reliable (Cronbach’s =0.865) single factor (Table 1). Attitude Strength The measurement of attitude strength is not simple, and a variety of measurements are available in the literature. A growing consensus views attitude strength not as a single factor, but a suite of potential constructs including personal importance, certainty, perceived knowledge, and cognitive elaboration. Best practices in social psychology suggest the construction of measurement scales using relevant items on a per-study basis (Bassili, 2008; Krosnick & Petty, 1995; Visser et al., 2006). The surveys included five Likert-style items (five-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree) on attributes of attitude strength. These measures were based on questions used in previous social psychological studies (Barden & Petty, 2008; Boninger, Krosnick, & Berent, 1995; Pomerantz, Chaiken, & Tordesillas, 1995). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed a four-item latent factor including two measures of perceived knowledge about wind farms, one measure of certainty, and one measure of thoughtfulness (Table 1). This latent factor, which I label confidence, also exhibits high reliability (Cronbach’s =0.809). Results Because this study asked participants to complete both a preliminary and follow-up survey, selfselection of participants is a concern. Similar to other studies of public attitudes towards energy sources, control group respondents exhibited a high degree of general support for wind energy. To better understand potential biases of control group respondents who completed the follow-up survey, their mean ratings of wind enthusiasm and confidence were compared statistically. Mean ratings of wind enthusiasm among those completing only the initial survey (M=3.84, SD=1.09) were not significantly different (t[326]=1.306, p=.192) from initial wind enthusiasm ratings of respondents who returned the follow-up survey (M=3.99, SD=.938). Also, mean confidence scores of those completing only the initial survey (M=2.87, SD=.862) were not significantly different (t[329]=1.245, p=.214) from the initial confidence ratings of those who completed the follow-up survey (M=2.99, SD=.796). The remainder of these analyses are confined to participants who completed both the preliminary and follow-up surveys. Comparison of Control Group and Events Participants Statistical tests were used to compare characteristics of the respondents of the mail survey (control group) and participants in the events. There were no statistically significant differences in gender (t[192]=1.435, p=.153), educational attainment (t[195]=-1.250, p=.213), or income (t[177]=-.547, p=.585) between the control group and event participants. Individual items were summed and averaged for each latent variable, and t-tests were used to compare the mean ratings of events participants to those of the control group (table 2). Average support for wind energy was quite high among both the control group and event participants in this study. Event participants had somewhat higher preliminary ratings of wind enthusiasm (M=4.21, SD=.78) than members of the control group (M=3.98, SD=.94); however, this difference is not statistically significant (t[197]=-1.23, p=0.220). Initial ratings of confidence were significantly higher (t[197]=-1.95, p=.052) among event participants (M=3.30, SD=.87) than control group members (M=2.98, SD=.80). These differences are not surprising, given the self-selection of information session participants. Differences between the control group and events participants were significant on responses to the follow-up survey. Follow-up wind enthusiasm ratings of events participants (M=4.29, SD=.49) were significantly (t[197]=-2.17, p=.032) higher than those of the control group (M=3.85, SD=1.07). Likewise, events participants had significantly higher (t[197]=-2.81, p=.005) levels of confidence (M=3.42, SD=.72) than the control group (M=2.99, SD=.75) in the follow-up survey.