Recommendations from Yokohama

Recommendations from Yokohama

1. Production of a list of key terms/terminology

2 Further collaboration of interdisciplinary social science2. Further collaboration of interdisciplinary social science

3. Expansion of SRN community

4. Greater inclusion of non OECD countries and international4. Greater inclusion of non OECD countries and international comparative studies

5. Mapping communication sciences and CCS politics

6. Collation of greater evidence base – e.g. to evaluate social media

7. Production of special issue of journal

8. Further dedicated discussion of ethics

Comparison of Large Group ProcessComparison of Large Group ProcessPeta Ashworth Group Leader, Science into Society12th April 2012

CSIRO EARTH SCIENCE AND RESOURCE ENGINEERING

Community Acceptance of CCS. Peta Ashworth

Overview of my talkD i ti f thDescription of the processSome of the measures

li i lPreliminary resultsNext steps for analysis ‐ your ideas?Applications…..


AcknowledgementC t ib ti f h t thContribution of researchers at the following institutions:•CSIRO colleagues•CSIRO colleagues•University of CalgaryECN•ECN

•University of Edinburgh

The research was funded by the GCCSI

Comparison of Large Group

The large group process


Aims of the process:

1. Exploring the views of individuals on climate change and the range of energy technologies;

2. Providing background information on climate change and energy technologies, and enabling the opportunity for discussion with peers;peers;

3. Assessing the impact of the information and the process on individual knowledge, attitudes and behaviours; and

4. Assessing individual views on the potential solutions for mitigation, including CCS and how they change as a result of the workshopworkshop.


My research interest in the process

1. How effective was the process at building small group identity & identity within large group?

2. How much trust was there in the presenter and the information? Did this influence overall outcome?

3. How did knowledge and attitudes change across countries?

4. If there were changes, what influenced these changes? i.e. demographics environmental orientation etcdemographics, environmental orientation etc.


Time Activity Focus

8:45 – 9:00 Workshop registration Individual

9:00 – 10:15 Welcome Large Group9:00 – 10:15 WelcomeRound table introductionsPre QuestionnaireDigivote Round 1

Large GroupSmall GroupIndividualLarge Group

State of play Small Group

MORNING TEA

10:25 – 12:40 Expert presentation–Climate Change Large Group0: 5 : 0 pe t p ese tat o C ate C a geExpert presentation – Energy Tech.Expert presentation – CCSReactions & points of clarificationP Q ti i

a ge G oupLarge GroupLarge GroupLarge & SmallI di id lProcess Questionnaire Individual

LUNCH

13:10 – 14:20 Group Discussions/Deliberation Small Group

AFTERNOON TEA

15:00 – 16:30 Q & A with ExpertVoicing concerns & Key messages

Large GroupLarge Group


Voicing concerns & Key messagesPost process questionnaireDigivoteClose

Large GroupIndividualLarge Group

Quantitative Data Collection

1. Pre‐questionnaire: participants’ awareness of, and knowledge and attitudes on, climate change, energy technologies, and policy options, personal behavioural choices, environmental role identity, environmental group membership and subjective norms regarding support for energy sources

2. Lunchtime‐questionnaire: perceptions of group dynamics, trust in presenters and information, and views on energy technologies and CCSand CCS.

3. Post‐questionnaire: covered most of the areas in the pre‐test to determine if any changes in perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes had occurred.


Qualitative Data Collection

1. Each table discussion was audio‐taped and key themes in the discussions were noted.

2. Questions posed by participants were recorded on questions on notice board and categorized into major themes.

3. Facilitators met at afternoon tea to summarise key themes arising from the tables.

4 Each of the facilitators submitted their notes that had taken place4. Each of the facilitators submitted their notes that had taken place and submitted any other observations and impressions in writing.


Measures


Identification with Immediate Group

1. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596‐612.

Please select the pair of circles that represents how much you identify with the group of people at your table:identify with the group of people at your table:


In‐group Identification Satisfaction subscale

1. Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Spears, R. (2008). Group‐level self‐definition and self‐investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in‐group identification.

1=Strongly Disagree to 7=Strongly Agree1=Strongly Disagree to 7=Strongly Agree

1. I am glad to be part of the group at this table

2 It is pleasant to be in this group at this table2. It is pleasant to be in this group at this table

3. Being in this group gives me a good feeling


Group Cohesion

1. Schwarz, A., & Schwarz, C. (2011). The role of latent beliefs and group cohesion in predicting group decision support systems success. Small Group Research, 38(1), 195‐229.

1=Strongly Disagree to 7=Strongly Agree

1. I feel that I belong to this group

2. I am happy to be part of this group

3 I lf f hi3. I see myself as part of this group


Results


The groups!

Date Total

Edinburgh, Scotland September, 2011 99

Calgary, Canada May, 2011 80

Utrecht, Netherlands May, 2011 111

Sydney, Australia October, 2011 84


Changet1‐t3 in Self‐Rated Knowledge of GHG EmissionsEmissions

Mean Pre‐Test Mean Post‐Test MeanScore(s.e.) Score(s.e.) diff.(s.e.)

Australia 4.29(.13) 5.02(.10) .73(.10)***Netherlands 3.13(.11) 4.35(.08) 1.22(.10)***( ) ( ) ( )

Canada 3.83(.13) 4.54(.11) .72(.11)***Scotland 3.17(.10) 4.62(.10) 1.45(.12)***

ALL 3 55( 06) 4 62( 05) 1 07( 06)***ALL 3.55(.06) 4.62(.05) 1.07(.06)Note: Paired t‐tests of mean difference; knowledge ranges from 1‐7; ***p < .01, ** p < .05, * p < .10 (two‐tailed tests).


Changet1‐t3 in Self‐Rated Knowledge of CCS

Mean Pre‐Test Mean Post‐Test MeanScore(s.e.) Score(s.e.) diff.(s.e.)

Australia 3.64(.17) 5.04(.14) 1.40(.16)***Netherlands 2 92( 13) 4 80( 11) 1 88( 13)***Netherlands 2.92(.13) 4.80(.11) 1.88(.13)

Canada 2.92(.18) 4.89(.14) 1.97(.21)***Scotland 2.13(.13) 5.09(.14) 2.96(.19)***

ALL 2 88( 08) 4 95( 07) 2 07( 09)***ALL 2.88(.08) 4.95(.07) 2.07(.09)***

Note: Paired t‐tests of mean difference; knowledge ranges from 1‐7; ***p < .01, ** p < .05, * p < .10 (two‐tailed tests).


Changet1‐t3 in Approval of CCS

Mean Pre‐TestScore(s.e.)

Mean Post‐TestScore(s.e.)

Meandiff.(s.e.)

Australia 4.40(.17) 5.06(.17) .66(.17)***Netherlands 4.24(.14) 3.75(.15) ‐.49(.16)###

Canada 4.52(.15) 5.40(.16) .88(.20)***Scotland 4.48(.13) 4.10(.17) ‐.38(.19)##

ALL 4.40(.07) 4.48(.09) .08(.09)

Note: Paired t‐tests of mean difference; approval ranges from 1‐7; ***p < .01, ** p < .05, * p < .10 (two‐tailed tests); # in lieu of * indicates difference would be significant but wrongly‐signed.


Changet1‐t3 in Priority Ranking of CCS for Public Funding of Energy TechnologiesPublic Funding of Energy Technologies

Mean Pre Test Mean Post Test MeanMean Pre‐TestScore(s.e.)


Meandiff.(s.e.)

Australia 6.99(.36) 6.37(.40) ‐.62(.45)Netherlands 7.82(.25) 8.46(.29) .64(.34)#

Canada 6.18(.35) 4.81(.36) ‐1.375(.39)***Scotland 6.56(.29) 8.08(.31) 1.52(.41)###

ALL 6.97(.16) 7.14(.18) .17(.21)

Note: Paired t‐tests of mean difference; ranking of alternate energy technologies ranges f 1 12 (hi h t t l t i it ) *** 01 ** 05 * 10 (t t il d t t ) #from 1‐12 (highest to lowest priority); ***p < .01, ** p < .05, * p < .10 (two‐tailed tests); # in lieu of * indicates difference would be significant but wrongly‐signed.

Changet1‐t3 in Pro‐Environmental Attitude

Mean Pre‐TestScore(s.e.)


Meandiff.(s.e.)( ) ( ) ( )

Australia 5.60(.11) 5.97(.08) .36(.10)***Netherlands 5.19(.07) 5.34(.08) .15(.05)***

Canada 5 29( 12) 5 78( 10) 49( 09)***Canada 5.29(.12) 5.78(.10) .49(.09)Scotland ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

ALL 5.35(.06) 5.66(.05) .31(.04)***

Note: Paired t‐tests of mean difference; attitude ranges from 1‐7; ***p < .01, ** p < .05, * p < .10 (two‐tailed tests).

Changet2‐t3 in Level of Identification with Table GroupTable Group

M Mid T M P T M diffMean Mid‐TestScore(s.e.)


Mean diff.(s.e.)

Australia 4.82(.19) 5.19(.18) .37(.15)**Netherlands 4.09(.14) 4.39(.14) .29(.13)**

Canada 3.70(.18) 4.26(.18) .56(.14)***Scotland ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

ALL 4.19(.10) 4.58(.10) .39(.08)***Note: Paired t‐tests of mean difference; group identification ranges from 1‐7; ***p < .01, ** p < .05, * p < .10 (two‐tailed tests).

Changet2‐t3 in Group Affect

Mean Mid‐TestScore(s.e.)


Mean diff.(s.e.)Score(s.e.) Score(s.e.) (s.e.)

Australia 5.35(.10) 5.73(.09) .37(.10)***

Netherlands 4.84(.08) 5.14(.09) .30(.06)***( ) ( ) ( )

Canada 5.46(.11) 5.77(.12) .31(.08)***

Scotland ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

ALL 5.17(.06) 5.50(.06) .32(.04)***

Note: Paired t‐tests of mean difference; group affect ranges from 1‐7; ***p < .01, ** p < .05, * p < .10 (two‐tailed tests).

Changet2‐t3 in Level of Trust in the Workshop informationinformation

Mean Mid‐Test Mean Post‐Test Mean diff.Score(s.e.) Score(s.e.) (s.e.)

Australia 5.42(.13) 5.64(.11) .22(.07)***

Netherlands 5.25(.10) 5.18(.09) ‐.07(.08)

Canada 5.84(.11) 5.71(.11) ‐.13(.09)

ScotlandScotland ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

ALL 5.48(.07) 5.48(.06) .00(.05)

Note: Paired t‐tests of mean difference; trust ranges from 1‐7; ***p < .01, ** p < .05, * p < .10 (two‐tailed tests).

What next/your ideas


Next steps

1. Regressing participants’ change in environmental attitudes, and knowledge against objective indicators of the extent of attitudinal variance/unanimity in their table group at the commencement of the process

2 Relying not on participants’ own assessments of how much they2. Relying not on participants own assessments of how much they themselves felt a part of the group nor how ‘close knit’ but real calculations of the extent of attitudinal variance existing in each of the groups pre‐workshop as well as the actual pre‐workshopof the groups pre workshop, as well as the actual pre workshop divergence between respondent’s own environmentalism prior to taking part and the average pre‐trial environmentalism of his or her table groupor her table group


Next steps

1. To analyze the small group processes to see if identification, cohesion, involvement within the small group increases over time, and the effects of these variables on attitude change (e.g., are there greater positive changes in attitudes in groups with higher aggregated identification, cohesion, involvement).

2. The variability across groups (e.g., some groups having a ‘problematic’ table member which would mean individuals rate involvement/cohesion/identification lower) is actually good forinvolvement/cohesion/identification lower) is actually good for the analysis.

3. Investigating differences across countries? Causes, qualitative analysis….


Orientations around Energy Technologies

1. The results on support for energy technologies, show considerable variation between technologies. Generally, support for renewable energy technologies is larger than support for non‐renewable technologies. Solar and wind energy received the highest levels of support both before and after the workshop. The least support is expressed for coal technologies, followed by nuclear, oil, and CCS…….similar across all countries

2 What happens when we group all of the countries together – do2. What happens when we group all of the countries together do certain profiles cluster and fall out in relation to support etc.


Application


Measure of Success – Professor Lyn Carson

1 The translation from small group (I presume they were all1. The translation from small group (I presume they were all citizens' juries before?) to large group worked real well

2. You are not pretending to have people deliberate and you don't p g p p yraise false expectations. It works well as informing, but goes further and engages people through interactivity in order to build their understanding. My group learnt a lot from each other, as g y g p ,well as from the presenter.

3. The fact that almost everyone would recommend the workshop to a friend (established via keepad voting at the end) is a terrificto a friend (established via keepad voting at the end) is a terrific result.

4. I really liked the 'Questions on Notice' and the use of facilitators yas a 'Theme Team'. Both worked well.

5. I think you have a very sound process that could easily be rolled out to hundreds of large groups across Australia if only!out to hundreds of large groups across Australia….if only!


Applicability

1. The process does appear to be successful on a number of fronts:– Informing and engaging– Building group identity, cohesion, involvement etc.– Improve overall knowledge, changes in attitudes etc.p g , g

2. Useful for contentious issues – allowing individuals to feel that they have a voice

3. And most effective for influential stakeholders….a way of allowing them to get up to speed on an issue in safe space.


h kThank youEarth Science and Resource EngineeringPeta AshworthGroup Leader, Science into Society

t +61 7 3327 4145e [email protected] www.csiro.au

CSIRO EARTH SCIENCE AND RESOURCE ENGINEERING

Target audiences

Audience Approach

Influential stakeholders: $$$Politicians, CEO’s, Media, Finance, NGO’s , Insurance

$$$Large group process, Special Functions

Community Energymark – round table discussions

Education Energy SavingsEducation Energy SavingsHandbookScientists in SchoolsCarbon KidsCarbon Kids

Project Specific Local regions:Influential, Community, EducationEducation


pre 1 1 (R)Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

Dunlap’s NEP ‐ environmentalismpre_1_1 ( ) g y

X When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences

X (R)Human ingenuity will make sure that we do NOT make the earth unliveable

X Humans are severely abusing the environmentX Humans are severely abusing the environment

X (R)The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them

X Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist

X (R)The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern indust

pre_1_2 Despite all our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature

X (R)The so‐called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated

pre_1_3 The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources

pre_1_4 (R) Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature

pre_1_5 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset

X (R) Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control

pre_1_6 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecol

Group affectI l d t b t f th t thi t blI am glad to be part of the group at this table

It is pleasant to be in this group at this table

Being in this group gives me a good feelingg g p g g g

I feel that I belong to this group

I am happy to be part of this group

I see myself as part of this group

I believe I contributed important ideas to group discussions

I believe I had a lot of input in group discussions

We are a closely knit group

Our group works well togetherOur group works well together

This group engaged in effective discussion

This group allows for group members to express themselves


Individual Effectiveness in Group subscale

1. Rozell, E. J., & Gundersen, D. E. (2003). The effects of leader impression management on group perceptions of cohesion, consensus, and communication. Small Group Research, 34(2), 197‐222.


1. I believe I contributed important ideas to group discussions

2 I believe I had a lot of input in group discussions2. I believe I had a lot of input in group discussions


Group Member Relationships & Decision Processes

1. Rozell, E. J., & Gundersen, D. E. (2003). The effects of leader impression management on group perceptions of cohesion, consensus, and communication. Small Group Research, 34(2), 197‐222.


1. We are a closely knit group

2 Our group works well together2. Our group works well together

3. This group engaged in effective discussion

4. This group allows for group members to express themselves4. This group allows for group members to express themselves


Trust in Workshop Information and Experts

1. Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2010). Voice in political decision‐making: The effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(2), 173‐186.

2. 2 items (as indicated in bold below) are from: Terwel., B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2009). How organizational motives and communications affect public trust inorganizational motives and communications affect public trust in organizations: The case of carbon dioxide capture and storage. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 290‐299.


1=Not at all to 7=Very much

Trust in Workshop Information

To what extent do you trust the information provided in the workshop?

Trust in Expert who spoke about Climate Change and Low Emission Technologies

To what extent do you consider this expert to be trustworthy?

To what extent do you trust the information provided by this expert?

To what extent do you consider this expert to be honest? (Terwel et al 2009)To what extent do you consider this expert to be honest? (Terwel et al., 2009)

To what extent do you think that this expert speaks the truth? (Terwel et al., 2009)

This expert has a lot of knowledge about climate change and low emission technologies

This expert was able to demonstrate relevant knowledge


Recommendations from Yokohama

Documents

Transcript of Recommendations from Yokohama