IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v210y2025ics1364032124009353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of information format and framing on acceptance of energy storage technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Zumofen, Guillaume
  • Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle
  • Sträter, Rebeka

Abstract

New technologies are necessary for energy system transition and meeting climate targets. However, obstacles to social acceptance, often linked to limited understanding and awareness, impede their integration. This article focuses on the acceptance of seasonal thermal energy storage technologies. This energy technology enables the storage of surplus heat in summer for heating in winter and the transfer of cold from winter to summer for cooling purposes. Combining theoretical insights from research on public opinion formation and social acceptance, this article constructs a model to explore how different information framings and formats influence individual opinion formation and the social acceptance of these technologies. It presents data from an experiment conducted in Switzerland through two online cross-sectional surveys (N = 1749; N = 614). The participants were given varied information framing conditions and formats. Based on independent sample t-tests, Kruskal–Wallis tests, and generalized structural equation models, the findings reveal that providing identical information in a video rather than as text increases general technology acceptance directly, as well as indirectly through reduced information complexity. Emphasizing technological readiness also positively affects general technology acceptance. However, these effects do not extend to more concrete market and community acceptance. The research highlights the significance of tailored and accessible information in facilitating information processing for unknown (energy) technologies in enhancing their social acceptance.

Suggested Citation

  • Zumofen, Guillaume & Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle & Sträter, Rebeka, 2025. "The influence of information format and framing on acceptance of energy storage technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:210:y:2025:i:c:s1364032124009353
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.115209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032124009353
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2024.115209?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Bernauer & Liam F. McGrath, 2016. "Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 680-683, July.
    2. Hilary S. Boudet, 2019. "Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 446-455, June.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    5. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    6. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2692-2704, May.
    7. Aklin, Michaël & Cheng, Chao-Yo & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2018. "Social acceptance of new energy technology in developing countries: A framing experiment in rural India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 466-477.
    8. Agnew, Scott & Dargusch, Paul, 2017. "Consumer preferences for household-level battery energy storage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 609-617.
    9. Bel, Germà & Joseph, Stephan, 2018. "Climate change mitigation and the role of technological change: Impact on selected headline targets of Europe's 2020 climate and energy package," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3798-3807.
    10. Oskar Juszczyk & Juliusz Juszczyk & Sławomir Juszczyk & Josu Takala, 2022. "Barriers for Renewable Energy Technologies Diffusion: Empirical Evidence from Finland and Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-14, January.
    11. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    12. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Batel, Susana & Aas, Oystein & Sovacool, Benjamin & Labelle, Michael Carnegie & Ruud, Audun, 2017. "A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: Insights from energy storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 27-31.
    13. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1834-1841, April.
    14. B. Dan Wood & Arnold Vedlitz, 2007. "Issue Definition, Information Processing, and the Politics of Global Warming," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 552-568, July.
    15. Dermont, Clau & Ingold, Karin & Kammermann, Lorenz & Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2017. "Bringing the policy making perspective in: A political science approach to social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 359-368.
    16. Thomas, Gareth & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick, 2019. "Deliberating the social acceptability of energy storage in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    17. Bögel, Paula Maria & Upham, Paul & Shahrokni, Hossein & Kordas, Olga, 2021. "What is needed for citizen-centered urban energy transitions: Insights on attitudes towards decentralized energy storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    18. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2019. "Bad news is bad news: Information effects and citizens’ socio-political acceptance of new technologies of electricity transmission," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 531-545.
    19. Ambrosio-Albala, P. & Upham, P. & Bale, C.S.E. & Taylor, P.G., 2020. "Exploring acceptance of decentralised energy storage at household and neighbourhood scales: A UK survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Shah, Sheikh Khaleduzzaman & Aye, Lu & Rismanchi, Behzad, 2018. "Seasonal thermal energy storage system for cold climate zones: A review of recent developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 38-49.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2019. "Bad news is bad news: Information effects and citizens’ socio-political acceptance of new technologies of electricity transmission," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 531-545.
    2. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    3. Maurizio Sibilla & Esra Kurul, 2023. "Towards Social Understanding of Energy Storage Systems—A Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-11, September.
    4. Schneider, Nina & Rinscheid, Adrian, 2024. "The (de-)construction of technology legitimacy: Contending storylines surrounding wind energy in Austria and Switzerland," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    5. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Wiersma, Bouke, 2020. "Understanding community acceptance of a potential offshore wind energy project in different locations: An island-based analysis of ‘place-technology fit’," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    6. Rohe, Sebastian & Chlebna, Camilla, 2021. "A spatial perspective on the legitimacy of a technological innovation system: Regional differences in onshore wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    7. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    8. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    9. Alam, Syed Shah & Nik Hashim, Nik Hazrul & Rashid, Mamunur & Omar, Nor Asiah & Ahsan, Nilufar & Ismail, Md Daud, 2014. "Small-scale households renewable energy usage intention: Theoretical development and empirical settings," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 255-263.
    10. Samiha Mjahed Hammami & Sahar Chtourou & Heyam Al Moosa, 2018. "A holistic approach to understanding the acceptance of a community‐based renewable energy project: A pathway to sustainability for Tunisia's rural region," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(8), pages 1535-1545, December.
    11. Choi, Jihye & Kim, Justine Jihyun & Lee, Jongsu, 2024. "Public willingness to pay for mitigating local conflicts over the construction of renewable energy facilities: A contingent valuation study in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    12. von Wirth, Timo & Gislason, Linda & Seidl, Roman, 2018. "Distributed energy systems on a neighborhood scale: Reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2618-2628.
    13. Bertsch, Valentin & Hyland, Marie & Mahony, Michael, 2017. "What drives people's opinions of electricity infrastructure? Empirical evidence from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 472-497.
    14. Busse, Maria & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2018. "Acceptance studies in the field of land use—A critical and systematic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 235-245.
    15. Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Kerndrup, Søren & Lyhne, Ivar, 2016. "Beyond public acceptance of energy infrastructure: How citizens make sense and form reactions by enacting networks of entities in infrastructure development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 576-586.
    16. Alipour, Mohammad & Taghikhah, Firouzeh & Irannezhad, Elnaz & Stewart, Rodney A. & Sahin, Oz, 2022. "How the decision to accept or reject PV affects the behaviour of residential battery system adopters," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 318(C).
    17. Scovell, Mitchell & McCrea, Rod & Walton, Andrea & Poruschi, Lavinia, 2024. "Local acceptance of solar farms: The impact of energy narratives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).
    18. Bidwell, David, 2013. "The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 189-199.
    19. Elke Kellner, 2019. "Social Acceptance of a Multi-Purpose Reservoir in a Recently Deglaciated Landscape in the Swiss Alps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-22, July.
    20. Hyland, Marie & Bertsch, Valentin, 2018. "The Role of Community Involvement Mechanisms in Reducing Resistance to Energy Infrastructure Development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 447-474.

    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:eee:rensus:v:210:y:2025:i:c:s1364032124009353. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.