Participation builds trust, not framing

Abstract

Institutional trust is a critical determinant of public cooperation in the energy transition, yet little is known about how different framings of government communication influence trust in practice. This study reports results from a large-scale national experiment (N ≈ 3000) embedded in a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) on heat-transition policy. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six value-based framing conditions, or a control group: environmental, financial, or stability messaging, each presented by either local or national government. Trust in government was measured before and after the intervention, enabling a Difference-in-Differences analysis complemented by Latent Profile Analysis and Honest Causal Forests.Across all specifications, value-based framing failed to increase trust and, in some cases, reduced it, with the local-stability frame showing the most consistent negative effect. Trust responses varied strongly across latent trust profiles but not across demographic groups, indicating that predispositions toward government, rather than socio-demographic characteristics, drive communication sensitivity. In contrast, participation in the PVE itself produced a modest and robust increase in trust independent of the framing treatment. These findings suggest that participatory decision tools may strengthen trust, whereas value-laden communication risks unintended negative effects.