TY - JOUR

T1 - Laypeople’s Affective Images of Energy Transition Pathways

AU - Böhm, Gisela

AU - Doran, Rouven

AU - Pfister, Hans-Rüdiger

N1 - Data collection for the Norwegian sample was conducted at the computer lab (Citizen Lab) of the Digital Social Science Core Facility (DIGSSCORE) at the University of Bergen. We thank Annika Rødeseike for her assistance in developing study materials, organizing and conducting the lab sessions for the Norwegian data collection, and collecting the German data. We are grateful to Daniel Hansen, Lene Sævig, Sofie Antonsen, and Mai Emilie Ramdahl for their help in coding the open responses of the Norwegian sample, and to Sarah Stritzke and Anita Wieczorek, who assisted in data typing and coding of the open responses in the German sample. Preliminary analyses were presented at the 'Beyond Oil' conference at the University of Bergen in October 2017. This research was supported by a research grant under the cooperation agreement between Statoil and the University of Bergen (Akademiaavtale; project number 803589), a one-semester student stipend from the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Bergen for hiring research assistant Annika Rødeseike, and an exchange scholarship from the E.ON Stipendienfonds awarded to Annika Rødeseike (project number T008/29877/17), which facilitated collection of the German data.

PY - 2018/10/10

Y1 - 2018/10/10

N2 - This paper explores the public perception of energy transition pathways, that is, individual behaviors, political strategies, and technologies that aim to foster a shift toward a low-carbon and sustainable society. We employed affective image analysis, a structured method based on free associations to explore positive and negative connotations and affective meanings. Affective image analysis allows to tap into affective meanings and to compare these meanings across individuals, groups, and cultures. Data were collected among university students in Norway (n = 106) and Germany (n = 125). A total of 25 energy transition pathway components were presented to the participants who generated one free association to each component by indicating the first that came to mind when thinking of the component. Participants evaluated their associations by indicating whether they considered each association to be positive, negative, or neutral. These associations were coded by two research assistants, which resulted in 2650 coded responses in the Norwegian sample and 2846 coded responses in the German sample. Results for the two samples are remarkably similar. The most frequent type of association is a general evaluation of the component, for example concerning its valence or its importance. The second most frequent types of association are requirements needed to implement the component (e.g., national policies) and consequences of the component (e.g., personal or environmental consequences). Individual behaviors (e.g., walking) elicited thoughts about consequences and requirements, but also about the prevalence of such behaviors. Associations in response to technologies (e.g., carbon capture and storage) mainly referred to some descriptive aspect of the technology. Evaluations of the free responses were predominantly positive, but some components also elicited negative associations, especially nuclear power. The free associations that people generate suggest that they have vague and unspecific knowledge about energy transition pathways, that they process them in an automatic and intuitive rather than deliberative manner, and that they have clear affective evaluations of the presented components.

AB - This paper explores the public perception of energy transition pathways, that is, individual behaviors, political strategies, and technologies that aim to foster a shift toward a low-carbon and sustainable society. We employed affective image analysis, a structured method based on free associations to explore positive and negative connotations and affective meanings. Affective image analysis allows to tap into affective meanings and to compare these meanings across individuals, groups, and cultures. Data were collected among university students in Norway (n = 106) and Germany (n = 125). A total of 25 energy transition pathway components were presented to the participants who generated one free association to each component by indicating the first that came to mind when thinking of the component. Participants evaluated their associations by indicating whether they considered each association to be positive, negative, or neutral. These associations were coded by two research assistants, which resulted in 2650 coded responses in the Norwegian sample and 2846 coded responses in the German sample. Results for the two samples are remarkably similar. The most frequent type of association is a general evaluation of the component, for example concerning its valence or its importance. The second most frequent types of association are requirements needed to implement the component (e.g., national policies) and consequences of the component (e.g., personal or environmental consequences). Individual behaviors (e.g., walking) elicited thoughts about consequences and requirements, but also about the prevalence of such behaviors. Associations in response to technologies (e.g., carbon capture and storage) mainly referred to some descriptive aspect of the technology. Evaluations of the free responses were predominantly positive, but some components also elicited negative associations, especially nuclear power. The free associations that people generate suggest that they have vague and unspecific knowledge about energy transition pathways, that they process them in an automatic and intuitive rather than deliberative manner, and that they have clear affective evaluations of the presented components.

KW - Business psychology

KW - energy transition

KW - climate change

KW - mental representation

KW - affective imaging

KW - free associations

KW - Norway

KW - Germany

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054732986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01904

DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01904

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 30364126

VL - 9

JO - Frontiers in Psychology

JF - Frontiers in Psychology

SN - 1664-1078

IS - OCT

M1 - 1904

ER -