The Choice Questionnaire
Normally respondents provide in surveys information about their opinions irrespective whether they have sufficient information about the issue at stake or not. We will call these responses “uninformed opinions". Nowadays the population likes to be asked about its opinions with respect to important government decisions. However the governments of many countries are reluctant to use referenda or opinion polls for this purpose partly because they believe that the people don´t have the necessary information.
A solution to this problem would be if one could provide the necessary information for a choice in the questionnaire. A procedure to do so has been developed by people, working with the SRF. This procedure was first called "The Choice Questionnaire" and nowadays also "Information and Choice questionnaire". This approach is as follows:
1. A committee is required that can formulate an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of the measures that are at stake. The committee members may have different points of view with respect to some consequences, but together they must agree what information is relevant for the decision.
2. A committee is required that converts this information about advantages and disadvantages into questions that a respondent can assess, including the uncertainty about certain consequences. The information in this form must be reviewed by the committee and possibly corrected.
3. Next, a survey must be made in which these assessments of the advantages and disadvantages of the various possible choices can be assessed and a total assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each choice can be determined and also a preference for one of the possibilities can be expressed.
4. A sample from the population must then be drawn. The selected people are requested to complete the questionnaire.
5. Finally, the results are evaluated and reported to the government.
Our research has shown that such a procedure was also possible for a complex problem as the extension of the nuclear power plants and that a representative sample of the population can make a choice, which for more than 70% of the participants is in accordance with their judgement about the pros and cons. If they only receive information, without assessing the advantages and disadvantages, the agreement is only 30%.
A Choice Survey could also be presented to the entire population, but the question is whether that is necessary in view of the costs; a sufficiently large representative sample would be sufficient to know the opinion of the population.
The Choice Survey also has a number of other advantages compared to the referendum: voters must choose one of the presented policy alternatives but they are not limited to just the 'yes-no' option, they are forced to indicating their evaluations of the different advantages and disadvantages before they can make their choice. So there is much more information about their opinions than in referenda and they provide informed opinions.
References:
Saris W.E,. Neijens P.C. and De Ridder J.A. (1983) Kernenergie: Ja of Nee? SRF, Amsterdam
Neijens P.C. (1987) The Choice questionnaire. Free University Press , Amsterdam
Van Knippenberg ,D,Daaman D.D.L (1996) Providing information in public opinion surveys: motivation and ability effects in the information and choice questionnaire. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8,70-82
Bütchi D. (1997) Information yet opinion: promesses et limites de Questionnaire de Choix. Université de Geneve
De Best-Walkhober. M, Daamen D, Faaij A. (2000) Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3,322-332.
Emma ter Mors et al. (2013) A comparison of techniques used to collect informed opinions about CCS: Opinion quality after focus group discussions versus information-choice questionnaires. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 18, 256.263
A solution to this problem would be if one could provide the necessary information for a choice in the questionnaire. A procedure to do so has been developed by people, working with the SRF. This procedure was first called "The Choice Questionnaire" and nowadays also "Information and Choice questionnaire". This approach is as follows:
1. A committee is required that can formulate an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of the measures that are at stake. The committee members may have different points of view with respect to some consequences, but together they must agree what information is relevant for the decision.
2. A committee is required that converts this information about advantages and disadvantages into questions that a respondent can assess, including the uncertainty about certain consequences. The information in this form must be reviewed by the committee and possibly corrected.
3. Next, a survey must be made in which these assessments of the advantages and disadvantages of the various possible choices can be assessed and a total assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each choice can be determined and also a preference for one of the possibilities can be expressed.
4. A sample from the population must then be drawn. The selected people are requested to complete the questionnaire.
5. Finally, the results are evaluated and reported to the government.
Our research has shown that such a procedure was also possible for a complex problem as the extension of the nuclear power plants and that a representative sample of the population can make a choice, which for more than 70% of the participants is in accordance with their judgement about the pros and cons. If they only receive information, without assessing the advantages and disadvantages, the agreement is only 30%.
A Choice Survey could also be presented to the entire population, but the question is whether that is necessary in view of the costs; a sufficiently large representative sample would be sufficient to know the opinion of the population.
The Choice Survey also has a number of other advantages compared to the referendum: voters must choose one of the presented policy alternatives but they are not limited to just the 'yes-no' option, they are forced to indicating their evaluations of the different advantages and disadvantages before they can make their choice. So there is much more information about their opinions than in referenda and they provide informed opinions.
References:
Saris W.E,. Neijens P.C. and De Ridder J.A. (1983) Kernenergie: Ja of Nee? SRF, Amsterdam
Neijens P.C. (1987) The Choice questionnaire. Free University Press , Amsterdam
Van Knippenberg ,D,Daaman D.D.L (1996) Providing information in public opinion surveys: motivation and ability effects in the information and choice questionnaire. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8,70-82
Bütchi D. (1997) Information yet opinion: promesses et limites de Questionnaire de Choix. Université de Geneve
De Best-Walkhober. M, Daamen D, Faaij A. (2000) Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3,322-332.
Emma ter Mors et al. (2013) A comparison of techniques used to collect informed opinions about CCS: Opinion quality after focus group discussions versus information-choice questionnaires. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 18, 256.263
