Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39430903›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Mapping acceptance: micro scenarios as a dual-perspective approach for assessing public opinion and individual differences in technology perception.

Philipp Brauner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Philipp BraunerCommunication Science, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding public perception of technology is crucial to aligning research, development, and governance of technology. This article introduces micro scenarios as an integrative method to evaluate mental models and social acceptance across numerous technologies and concepts using a few single-item scales within a single comprehensive survey. This approach contrasts with traditional methods that focus on detailed assessments of as few as one scenario. The data can be interpreted in two ways: Perspective (1): Average evaluations of each participant can be seen as individual differences, providing reflexive measurements across technologies or topics. This helps in understanding how perceptions of technology relate to other personality factors. Perspective (2): Average evaluations of each technology or topic can be interpreted as technology attributions. This makes it possible to position technologies on visuo-spatial maps to simplify identification of critical issues, conduct comparative rankings based on selected criteria, and to analyze the interplay between different attributions. This dual approach enables the modeling of acceptance-relevant factors that shape public opinion. It offers a framework for researchers, technology developers, and policymakers to identify pivotal factors for acceptance at both the individual and technology levels. I illustrate this methodology with examples from my research, provide practical guidelines, and include R code to enable others to conduct similar studies. This paper aims to bridge the gap between technological advancement and societal perception, offering a tool for more informed decision-making in technology development and policy-making.

Indexed as

attributionscognitive mapsmental modelsmicro scenariospsychometric paradigmpublic perceptionsurvey methodologytechnology acceptance

Identifiers

PMID39430903
PMCPMC11488482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.