Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 599–612 | Cite as

How to study public imagination of autonomous systems: the case of the Helsinki automated metro

  • Mikael Wahlström
Open Forum

Abstract

Means of transportation are changing through advances in automation. One issue to be considered in this development is public opinion regarding these systems, yet existing studies of automated transportation do not provide theoretical or methodological means for exploring public imagination, even though this would be relevant in exploring public acceptance of future technologies. Applied for studying public views on a future automated metro system, a method was devised that includes quantitative and qualitative analysis of media and questionnaire data (n = 913). Although supportive arguments dominated media discussion, people’s attitudes were negative. The two most prominent models of media influence, repetition and cultural resonance, could not fully explain the results; therefore, public imagination, which reflected daily experiences and science fiction, was explored with reference to social representations literature. It is suggested in general that public imagination, along with media discourses and societal settings that contribute to explanations, should be considered in the design and study of automated systems. It is also discussed that the social representations approach could be beneficial for media frame studies by providing explications as to why certain frames might have or lack cultural resonance.

Keywords

Media influence Social representations Framing Mixed methods Automation Public transport 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by AMOVEO, a project funded by the Academy of Finland, and by Sovako, the Finnish Doctoral Program of Social Sciences. The author would like to thank all who have commented this work, Professor Anna-Maija Pirttilä-Backman in particular.

References

  1. Bäckström A, Pirttilä-Backman A–M, Tuorila H (2003) Dimensions of novelty: a social representation approach to new foods. Appetite 40(3):299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica 19(6):775–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer M (1997) Resistance to new technology—nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer M, Gaskell G (1999) Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. J Theory Soc Behav 29(2):163–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryant J, Zillmann D (1991) Responding to the screen: reception and reaction processes. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Carmago B, Bousfield A (2009) Social Representations, risk behaviors and AIDS. Span J Psychol 12(2):565–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark B, Parkhurst G, Ricci M (2016) Understanding the socioeconomic adoption scenarios for autonomous vehicles: a literature review. Project report. University of the West of England, Bristol. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/29134. Accessed 18 Oct 2016.
  8. Collavin E (2007) Food biotechnologies in italy: a social psychological study. Department of Social Psychology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  9. D’Art D, Turner T (2008) Workers and the demand for trade unions in Europe: still a relevant social force? Econ Ind Democr 29(2):165–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35(8):982–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dinello D (2005) Technophobia! science fiction visions of posthuman technology. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  12. Edy J, Meirick P (2007) Wanted, dead or alive: media frames, frame adoption, and support for the war in Afghanistan. J Commun 57(1):19–41Google Scholar
  13. Entman R (2003) Cascading activation: contesting the White House’s Frame after 9/11. Political Commun 20(4):415–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzioni A (2013) The great drone debate. Military review, March-April 2–13. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2274211. Accessed 18 Oct 2016.
  15. European Commission (2005) Europeans and science and technology. Special Eurobarometer report 224. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2014.
  16. Finnish Audit Bureau of Circulations (2013) NRS Readers Autumn 2012/Spring 2013: number of readers in primary target groups. http://www.levikintarkastus.fi/mediatutkimus/NRS_Readers_a12-s13.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2014.
  17. Flick U (1995) Social representations. In: Smith J, Harré R, Langenhove L (eds) Rethinking psychology. Sage Publications, London, pp 70–96Google Scholar
  18. Flick U (2009) An introduction to qualitative research, 4th edn. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Haataja S (2006) Matkustajakysely ihmisten kokemasta turvattomuudesta Helsingin metrossa. Liikennelaitos, Suunnitteluyksikkӧ, Helsinki Helsingin kaupunki.Google Scholar
  20. Iyengar S (1987) Television news and citizens’ explanations of national affairs. Am Polit Sci Rev 81(3):815–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iyengar S, Simon A (1993) News coverage of the gulf crisis and public opinion: a study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing. Commun Res 20(3):365–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jodelet D (1991) Madness and social representations (T. Pownall, Trans.). University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  23. Joffe H (1996) AIDS research and prevention: a social representational approach. Br J Med Psychol 69(3):169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kilpiö A (2008) The nature and formation of teachers’ technology relationship. Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo.Google Scholar
  25. Kyriakidis M, Happee R, de Winter JCF (2015) Public opinion on automated driving: results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 32:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee J, See K (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46(1):50–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marková I (2008) The epistemological significance of the theory of social representations. J Theory Soc Behav 38(4):461–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McQuail D (2005) McQuail’s mass communication theory, 5th edn. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Moscovici S (1981) On social representations. In: Forgas J (ed) Social cognition: perspectives in everyday understanding. Academic Press, London, pp 181–210Google Scholar
  30. Moscovici S (1984) The phenomenon of social representations. In: Farr R, Moscovici S (eds) Social representations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–70Google Scholar
  31. Moscovici S (2008) Psychoanalysis: its image and its public (D. Macey, Trans.). Polity Press, Cambridge (Original work published 1961)Google Scholar
  32. Helsinki Region Municipalities (2010) Helsinki region statistics. http://www.aluesarjat.fi. Accessed 12 Mar 2014
  33. Scheufele D (2000) Agenda-Setting, priming, and framing revisited: another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Commun Soc 3(2&3):216–297Google Scholar
  34. Scheufele D, Iyengar S (2014) The state of framing research: a call for new directions. In: Kenski K, Jamieson K (eds) The oxford handbook of political communication theories. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Szollosy M (2016) Freud, Frankenstein and our fear of robots: projection in our cultural perception of technology. AI Soc. doi: 10.1007/s00146-016-0654-7 Google Scholar
  36. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (2009) Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in social and behavioral sciences. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  37. TNS Gallup (2017) Weekly numbers of finnish web sites. http://tnsmetrix.tnsgallup.fi/public/?lang=en. Accessed 24 Jan 2017
  38. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The Framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Valkenburg P, Peter J, Walther J (2016) Media effects: theory and research. Annu Rev Psychol 67(1):315–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vliegenthart R, van Zoonen L (2011) Power to the Frame: Bringing Sociology Back to Frame Analysis. Eur J Commun 26(2):101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wagner W, Hayes N (2005) Everyday discourse and common sense—the theory of social representation. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner W, Kronberger N (2001) Killer tomatoes! collective symbolic coping with biotechnology. In: Deaux K, Philogene G (eds) Representations of the social—bridging theoretical traditions. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 147–164Google Scholar
  43. Wagner W, Elejabarrieta F, Lahnsteiner I (1995) How the sperm dominates the ovum—objectification by metaphor in the social representation of conception. Eur J Soc Psychol 25(6):671–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wagner W, Kronberger N, Seifert F (2002) Collective symbolic coping with new technology: knowledge, images and public discourse. Br J Soc Psychol 41(3):323–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yeager D, Krosnick J, Chang L, Javitz H, Levindusky M, Simpser A, Wang R (2009) Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and internet surveys conducted with probability and non–probability samples. http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/insights/docs/mode-04_2.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIITAalto UniversityEspooFinland
  2. 2.Department of Social ResearchUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations