This study tested a theoretical model including key psychosocial factors that could be involved in the acceptance of different energy sources (gas, wind, and solar); Methods: Participants were 550 adult residents of the Canary Islands. Variables assessed were information and utility (normative motives), perceived risk and perceived benefits (gain motives), and negative and positive emotions (hedonic motives), with acceptance of each of the three energy sources as outcome variables; Results: It was found that renewable energies (wind and solar) had a higher degree of acceptance than non-renewable energy (gas). The proposed model satisfactorily explained the social acceptance of the three energy sources, although the psychosocial factors involved differed by energy source. The gain motives, mainly perceived benefits, were associated to a greater extent with gas energy, whereas normative motives, such as utility, and hedonic motives, such as positive emotions, had greater weight for renewables. Gender differences in gas energy were found. Information about renewable energy increased positive emotions and acceptance, whereas information about fossil fuel-based energy generated more negative emotions and perceived risk, decreasing acceptance; Conclusions: Utility, perceived benefits and positive emotions were involved on the acceptance of both renewables and non-renewables. The theoretical model tested seems to be useful for understanding the psychosocial functioning of the acceptance of the various energy sources as an essential aspect for the transition of non-renewable to renewable energies.
Keywords: acceptance; fossil energy; information; renewable energy; risk perception.