Scrutinizing the impact of CCS communication on opinion quality: Focus group discussions versus information-choice questionnaires: Results from experimental research in six countries

Energy Procedia

Volumn 4, Issue , 2011, Pages 6182-6187

  Daamen, Dancker D L ^a   Terwel, Bart W ^a   Ter Mors, Emma ^a   Reiner, David M ^b   Schumann, Diana ^c   Anghel, Sorin ^d   Boulouta, Ioanna ^b   Cismaru, Diana M ^e   Constantin, Carmencita ^f   De Jager, Chris C H ^a   Dudu, Alexandra ^d   Firth, Rebecca M ^b   Gemeni, Vassiliki ^g   Hendriks, Chris ^h   Koukouzas, Nikolaos ^g   Markos, Angelos ^k   Næss, Robert ^j   Nihfidov, Oana C ^f   Pietzner, Katja ^k   Samoila, Irene R ^f   Sava, Constantin S ^d   Stephenson, Mike H ^l   Tomescu, Claudia E ^f   Torvatn, Hans Y ⁱ   Tvedt, Sturle D ⁱ   Vallentin, Daniel ^k   West, Julia M ^l   Ziogou, Fotini ^g   more..

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JÜLICH   (Germany)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MARINE GEOLOGY AND GEO ECOLOGY GEOECOMAR   (Romania)

^e National School of Political Studies and Public Administration   (Romania)

^f Institute for Studies and Power Engineering (ISPE)   (Romania)

^g INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE   (Greece)

^h ECORYS Netherlands   (Netherlands)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF MACEDONIA   (Greece)

^j SINTEF   (Norway)

^k and Energy   (Germany)

^l BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Co2 capture and storage (ccs) technologies; Focus group discussions; Information choice questionnaire (icq); Opinion quality; Public perception

Indexed keywords

CARBON; CARBON DIOXIDE; GREENHOUSE GASES; SURVEYS;

CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE; CO2 CAPTURE; EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH; FACTUAL INFORMATION; FOCUS GROUPS; INFORMATION-CHOICE QUESTIONNAIRE (ICQ); PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE; PUBLIC PERCEPTION;

CARBON CAPTURE;

EID: 79955458088     PISSN: 18766102     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.629     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Malone, E. L., Dooley, J. J., & Bradbury, J. A. (2010). Moving from misinformation derived from public attitude surveys on carbon dioxide capture and storage towards realistic stakeholder involvement. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4, 419-425.
2. Curry, T.E., Ansolabehere, S., & Herzog., H., 2007. A Survey of Public Attitudes towards Climate Change and Climate Change Mitigation Technologies in the United States: Analyses of 2006 Results. Publication No. LFEE 2007-01 WP. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Cambridge.
3. 2 capture and storage technologies: Well-informed and well considered opinions versus uninformed pseudo-opinions of the Dutch public. Research report.
4. 2-capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3, 322-333.
5. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
6. Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude Strength: An Overview. In: Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, editors. Attitude strength: Antecedents and Consequences (1-24). Hillsdale, NJ; Erlbaum.
7. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In: Leonard Berkowitz, editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (123-205). New York: Academic Press.
8. Shackley, S., McLachlan, C., & Gough, C. (2005). The public perception of carbon capture and storage in the UK: Results from focus groups and a survey. Climate Policy, 4, 377-398. (Pubitemid 40837088) (Pubitemid 40837088)
9. 2 Storage. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3, 641-651.
10. 2 mitigation options: Results of a nationwide Information Choice Questionnaire survey. Research report.
11. Terwel, B. W., Ter Mors, E., Daamen, D. D. L., Reiner, D. M., Schumann, D., et al. (2009). Scrutinizing the impact of CCS communication on opinion quality: An experimental comparison between Focus Group Discussions versus Information-Choice Questionnaires (ICQs): Results from cross-national analyses. Research report.
12. Price, V., & Neijens, P. (1997). Opinion quality in public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9, 336-360. (Pubitemid 128023105) (Pubitemid 128023105)
13. Gross, S. R., Holtz, R., & Miller, N. (1995). Attitude Certainty. In: Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, editors. Attitude strength: Antecedents and Consequences (215-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Festinger, L. A. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.
15. Festinger, L. A. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
16. Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152. (Pubitemid 126416251) (Pubitemid 126416251)
17. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.
20. Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
21. Saris, W. E., Neijens, P., & De Ridder, J. A. (1983a). Keuze-enquete [Choice-questionnaire]. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
22. Saris, W. E., Neijens, P., & De Ridder, J. A. (1983b). Kern energie: Ja of nee? Een weloverwogen mening van de Nederlandse bevolking [Nucleair energy: Yes or no? A well-considered opinion of the Dutch general public]. SSO, Amsterdam.
23. Neijens, P. (1987). The choice questionnaire: Design and evaluation of an instrument for collecting informed opinions of a population. Amsterdam, Free University Press.
24. Neijens, P., De Ridder, J. A., & Saris, W. E. (1992). An instrument for collecting informed opinions. Quality and Quantity, 26, 245-258.
25. Ter Mors, E., Terwel, B. W., Daamen, D. D. L., Reiner, D. M., Schumann, D., et al. (2010). A comparison of techniques aimed at collecting informed public opinions: Opinion quality in focus group discussions versus information-choice questionnaires (manuscript submitted for publication).