Abstract
The combination of clear and relatable narratives with comprehensible and actionable policy measures has been demonstrated to be an effective strategy in addressing public concerns and enhancing support for energy-related policies. However, the effectiveness of such policies depends on factors such as the salience and urgency of the policy issue, the understanding of the mechanism and public perceptions of costs and benefits of the policies. Further research is required to assess whether heightened uncertainty, e.g. due to geopolitical instability, can elevate public endorsement of controversial measures. Notably, public support for controversial measures may be granted in circumstances where there are limited alternative options available and where they could serve as a solution of last resort. Following the reasoning that the end justifies the means, we hypothesize that perceived threats to energy supply will increase the likelihood of public support of policy measures that foresee the use of controversial technologies (such as hydraulic fracturing or geothermal extraction methods) for energy generation employed in the home country. We test this idea through an experimental study using a priming technique to alter the perceived uncertainty of energy supply across two treatment groups. In a mixed design on a panel of 2000 participants from Germany and France, we compare support for controversial energy technologies pre- and post-treatment (within) across three experimental treatment conditions (between): (i) control group, (ii) high uncertainty group, (iii) low uncertainty group. The mediating role of risk perception and moderation effects from environmental and national self-identity are analysed.