Risk perceptions of and emotional reactions to CCS: Forming closed attitudes

Transcription

1 Risk perceptions of and emotional reactions to CCS: Forming closed attitudes Charlotte Koot, Emma ter Mors, and Naomi Ellemers Leiden University, the Netherlands January 16, 2014 IEAGHG 4 th Social Research Network Meeting Calgary

2 Novel technologies and public attitudes Complex technological innovations Public acceptance impacts implementation success (e.g., Markusson, Ishii, & Stephens, 2011; Terwel, Ter Mors, & Daamen, 2012) Attitudes on (complex) topics Open: unstable, pseudo attitudes(de Best-Waldhober, Daamen, & Faaij, 2009) Closed: stable, predictive of behavior (cf. Krosnick & Petty, 1995; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) Cognitive closure

3 Ability to achieve closure Ability to achieve closure (AAC): The ability to form judgments and decisions confidently and with certainty (cf. Roets & Van Hiel, 2007)

4 Ability to achieve closure Factors relevant to AAC? In previous research: External induction of AAC Impact of perceived source expertise on AAC In the current research: risk perceptions of CCS emotional reactions to CCS

5 Risk perception Risks: major concern of the public (e.g., Sharp, Jaccard, & Keith, 2009) Risks and probably badly understood (Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001) Lay risk perceptions expert views (Savadori et al., 2004) People s risk perceptions of CCS may complicate the achievement of closure.

6 Risk perception General vs. specific risk perception Various characteristics of lay risk perception E.g., unknown to self, catastrophic potential Characteristics form underlying risk perception subdimensions Different subdimensions in different studies (e.g., Fischhoff et al., 1978; Savadori et al., 2004)

7 Risk perception General vs. specific risk perception Various characteristics of lay risk perception E.g., unknown to self, catastrophic potential Characteristics form underlying risk perception subdimensions Different subdimensions in different studies (e.g., Fischhoff et al., 1978; Savadori et al., 2004) 1) Measure multiple risk perception characteristics 2) Determine the subdimensions of CCS risk perception

8 Emotional reactions Emotional reactions to complex technologies (e.g., Cass & Walker, 2009; De Coninck & Huijts, 2004; Jasper, 1998)

9 Emotional reactions Emotional reactions to complex technologies (e.g., Cass & Walker, 2009; De Coninck & Huijts, 2004; Jasper, 1998) Emotion/affect judgment and decision making (e.g., Lerner & Keltner 2000, 2001; Loewenstein et al., 2001) Which emotions affect AAC? And how?

10 Goal of present study To examine the relations between lay risk perception and cognitive closure and emotions and cognitive closure

11 Method Participants: 97 students from Leiden University Attitude topic: CO 2 transport via pipelines or CO 2 storage in empty natural gas fields Procedure CCS in the Netherlands Brief introductory text on CCS and CO 2 transport/ CO 2 storage Dependent measures

12 Method Measures General Risk Perception 2 items (α =.82): To what extent do you think CO 2 storage in empty natural gas fields is safe/risky? Cognitive Closure Achieved 13 item questionnaire (α =.90) Item examples: I am certain of my opinion on CO 2 storage I find it difficult to form my opinion on the implementation of CO 2 storage (r) 1 = completely disagree, to 7 = completely agree

13 Method Emotions in Reaction to CO 2 Transport/CO 2 Storage To what extent do you experience of each of the following emotions when thinking about the implementation of CO 2 transport/co 2 storage in the Netherlands? Hope, enthusiasm, concern, disappointment, sadness, discomfort, tension, fear, anger, rage, hopelessness, and disgust. Lay Risk Perception Characteristics 16 item questionnaire (7-point scales) Risk perception characteristics from previous research (e.g., Savadori et al., 2004; Tokushige et al., 2007)

14 Results Analyses: CO 2 transport and CO 2 storage samples combined (97 participants total) Factor Analyses Structure of risk perception: 5 factors/subdimensions of risk perception of CCS (63.1% variance explained): 1. catastrophic potential 2. lack of control 3. unknown 4. unobservable 5. unfairness. Catastrophic potential and unknown also found in other studies

15 Results Structure of emotions: 3 factors (76.9% total variance explained): 1. outcome certainty-related emotions (rage, anger, sadness, disappointment, and disgust) 2. outcome uncertainty-related emotions (hopelessness, fear, concern, tension, and discomfort) 3. positive emotions (hope, enthusiasm)

16 Results Correlations with Cognitive Closure General risk perception of CCS: M = 3.86 (SD = 1.18) Correlation with cognitive closure achieved: Pearson s r = -.55, p <.01 Specific subdimensions of CCS risk perception Subdimension Catastrophic potential Mean score 3.99 Lack of control 3.86 Unknown 5.17 Unobservable 4.84 Unfairness 5.25

17 Results Correlations with Cognitive Closure General risk perception of CCS: M = 3.86 (SD = 1.18) Correlation with cognitive closure achieved: Pearson s r = -.55, p <.01 Specific subdimensions of CCS risk perception Subdimension Mean score r with Closure Catastrophic potential ** Lack of control * Unknown ** Unobservable ** Unfairness 5.25 n.s.

18 Results Correlations with Cognitive Closure Emotion factors in response to thinking about the implementation of CCS Factor Outcome uncertainty-related emotions Outcome certaintyrelated emotions Mean score Positive emotions 3.68

19 Results Correlations with Cognitive Closure Emotion factors in response to thinking about the implementation of CCS Factor Mean score r with Closure Outcome uncertainty-related emotions Outcome certaintyrelated emotions ** * Positive emotions 3.68 n.s.

20 Results Risk perception and emotional reactions relate to AAC But: risk perception subdimensions and emotion factors correlate Multiple Regression Analysis Unique relationships with cognitive closure Predictors: 4 risk perception subdimensions 2 emotion factors Significant predictors: Catastrophic potential Uncertainty-related emotions

21 Discussion Lay risk perception of CCS and emotional reactions to CCS related to ability to achieve cognitive closure Main concerns: Catastrophic potential Outcome uncertainty-related emotions

22 Discussion Affect important to formation of closed attitudes Focus on both cognitive and affective influences on AAC Risk perception subdimensions Present research vs. past research: Only partial overlap Complexity of lay risk perception

23 Discussion Insights applied to communication about CCS: Focus on important aspects (e.g., catastrophic potential) Help achieve cognitive closure Importance of people s (safety) concerns and fears Taking uncertainty emotions seriously

24 Thank you for your attention!

25

26 Risk perception subsimensions: 1. Catastrophic potential (catastrophic potential, deadly, collective exposure to risk, personal exposure to risk, dread) 2. Lack of control (risk easily reduced, risk known to science [r], controlable [r] 3. Unknown (risk known to self [r], awareness of exposure to risk [r], new risk 4. Unobservable (observable damage, effects delayed, hazard to future generations 5. Unfairness (voluntary exposure [r], equitability [r])