Public engagement with emerging technologies: Does reflective thinking affect survey responses?

Abstract

Researchers disagree on the extent that brief survey methods accurately reflect citizens’ opinions of unfamiliar scientific concepts. We examine whether encouraging participants to engage in more reflective thinking affects their perceptions of emerging climate technologies. Drawing on dual-process theories of reasoning, we apply experimental manipulations to encourage fast, intuitive thinking or slow, reflective thinking when responding to an online survey. Similarities in concept evaluation time between the Control and the Intuitive treatment groups indicates that citizens default to fast intuitive judgements to form opinions. However, despite a successful manipulation check, the reflective treatment group did not show any substantively different results. Therefore, encouraging additional thinking is unlikely to shift public perceptions. Post hoc analysis suggests participants with stronger views may nonetheless take more time to consider their response, without prompting. These findings support the validity of surveys as a method for eliciting stable and meaningful public perceptions of emerging technologies.

Keywords

climate engineering dual-process theory emerging technologies public engagement survey research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

Bower

(1973) Human Associative Memory. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Braun

Merk

Poenitzsch

Rehdanz

Schmidt

. (2018a) Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: Survey evidence. Climate Policy 18: 471–484.

Braun

Rehdanz

Schmidt

(2018b) Exploring public perception of environmental technology over time. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61: 143–160.

Caldeira

Keith

(2010) The need for climate engineering research. Issues in Science and Technology 27: 57–62.

Carlisle

Feetham

Wright

Teagle

DAH

(2020) The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering. Climatic Change 160: 303–322.

Cummings

Lin

Trump

(2017) Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: A systematic review of the literature. Climate Research 73: 247–264.

Evans

JSBT

(2003) In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 454–459.

Evans

JSBT

(2007) On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 13: 321–339.

Evans

JSBT

(2011) Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review 31: 86–102.

10.

Evans

JSBT

Curtis-Holmes

(2005) Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 11: 382–389.

11.

Evans

JSBT

Stanovich

(2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8: 223–241.

12.

Feetham

(2016) Using Marketing Concepts to Facilitate Upstream Public Engagement with Science. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University.

13.

Frederick

(2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19: 25–42.

14.

Kahneman

(2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

15.

Kahneman

Frederick

(2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Gilovich

Giffin

Kahneman

(eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–81.

16.

Konopka

Wright

Avis

Feetham

(2019) If you think about it more, do you want it more? The case of fairtrade. European Journal of Marketing 53: 2556–2581.

17.

MacMartin

Ricke

Keith

(2018) Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5 C Paris target. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376: 20160454.

18.

Macnaghten

Szerszynski

(2013) Living the global social experiment: An analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Global Environmental Change 23: 465–474.

19.

Merk

Klaus

Pohlers

Ernst

Ott

Rehdanz

(2019) Public perceptions of climate engineering: Laypersons’ acceptance at different levels of knowledge and intensities of deliberation. Gaia-ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 28: 348–355.

20.

Popkin

(1994) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

21.

Romaniuk

(2013) Modeling mental market share. Journal of Business Research 66: 188–195.

22.

Scheufele

(2006) Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In: Turney

(ed.) Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action. London: The Wellcome Trust, pp. 20–25.

23.

Wright

Teagle

Feetham

(2014) A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nature Climate Change 4: 106–110.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.53 MB