Lectures and conversations

From Open Text to Tick Boxes: Question Format Effects on Public Support for Carbon Capture and Storage


Gisle Andersen, senior researcher at NORCE, presents a paper he has co-authored with Christine Merk and Åsta Dyrnes Nordø.

Gisle Andersen is a senior researcher at NORCE. In this presentation, Gisle presents a paper he has co-authored with Christine Merk and Åsta Dyrnes Nordø, about measuring public attitudes about emerging technologies with standard closed-ended survey items, with the example of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Light lunch will be served, as first come, first served.

The event is hybrid, if you can not join us in the Corner room at Sofie Lindstrøms hus, you can join us digitally. (external link)

Welcome!

Abstract

Public attitudes towards emerging, technically complex climate technologies are difficult to measure with standard closed-ended survey items. When issues are low in salience, closed formats may elicit satisficing and pseudo-opinions, thereby masking ambivalence. We examine these dynamics for carbon capture and storage (CCS) using a probability-based online survey(n = 3,068). Respondents first read a brief information text and provided open-ended written responses. They then answered a closed-ended forced-choice question on their stance toward CCS.

 

We show that the question format fundamentally influences measured public attitudes toward CCS. “No opinion” was selected by 23% in the closed-ended item but was coded in only 4% of the open-ended answers, while item nonresponse was higher for the open-ended question (14% vs. 0.4%). Within-person comparisons show that respondents who expressed conditional support or uncertainty in open text responses often chose “positive” when constrained by predefined categories. Open-ended elaboration is socially patterned, indicating that each format carries distinct biases.

 

These findings highlight a measurement trade-off: closed-ended items maximize efficiency and response rates but can overstate support and underestimate complexity, whereas open-ended items reveal ambivalence yet impose greater respondent burden.