Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Open Forum
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bäckström A, Pirttilä-Backman A–M, Tuorila H (2003) Dimensions of novelty: a social representation approach to new foods. Appetite 40(3):299–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica 19(6):775–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer M (1997) Resistance to new technology—nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer M, Gaskell G (1999) Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. J Theory Soc Behav 29(2):163–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant J, Zillmann D (1991) Responding to the screen: reception and reaction processes. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmago B, Bousfield A (2009) Social Representations, risk behaviors and AIDS. Span J Psychol 12(2):565–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Collavin E (2007) Food biotechnologies in italy: a social psychological study. Department of Social Psychology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Continental (2013) Continental Mobility Study 2013. Continental Corporation. http://www.continental-corporation.com/www/download/pressportal_com_en/themes/initiatives/channel_mobility_study_en/ov_mobility_study2013_en/download_channel/pres_mobility_study_en.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2016.

  • 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):165–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35(8):982–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinello D (2005) Technophobia! science fiction visions of posthuman technology. University of Texas Press, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  • Edy J, Meirick P (2007) Wanted, dead or alive: media frames, frame adoption, and support for the war in Afghanistan. J Commun 57(1):19–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Entman R (2003) Cascading activation: contesting the White House’s Frame after 9/11. Political Commun 20(4):415–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Flick U (1995) Social representations. In: Smith J, Harré R, Langenhove L (eds) Rethinking psychology. Sage Publications, London, pp 70–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick U (2009) An introduction to qualitative research, 4th edn. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Haataja S (2006) Matkustajakysely ihmisten kokemasta turvattomuudesta Helsingin metrossa. Liikennelaitos, Suunnitteluyksikkӧ, Helsinki Helsingin kaupunki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar S (1987) Television news and citizens’ explanations of national affairs. Am Polit Sci Rev 81(3):815–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):365–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jodelet D (1991) Madness and social representations (T. Pownall, Trans.). University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Joffe H (1996) AIDS research and prevention: a social representational approach. Br J Med Psychol 69(3):169–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpiö A (2008) The nature and formation of teachers’ technology relationship. Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 32:127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, See K (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46(1):50–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marková I (2008) The epistemological significance of the theory of social representations. J Theory Soc Behav 38(4):461–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuail D (2005) McQuail’s mass communication theory, 5th edn. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici S (1981) On social representations. In: Forgas J (ed) Social cognition: perspectives in everyday understanding. Academic Press, London, pp 181–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici S (1984) The phenomenon of social representations. In: Farr R, Moscovici S (eds) Social representations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici S (2008) Psychoanalysis: its image and its public (D. Macey, Trans.). Polity Press, Cambridge (Original work published 1961)

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsinki Region Municipalities (2010) Helsinki region statistics. http://www.aluesarjat.fi. Accessed 12 Mar 2014

  • Scheufele D (2000) Agenda-Setting, priming, and framing revisited: another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Commun Soc 3(2&3):216–297

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (2009) Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in social and behavioral sciences. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • TNS Gallup (2017) Weekly numbers of finnish web sites. http://tnsmetrix.tnsgallup.fi/public/?lang=en. Accessed 24 Jan 2017

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The Framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg P, Peter J, Walther J (2016) Media effects: theory and research. Annu Rev Psychol 67(1):315–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vliegenthart R, van Zoonen L (2011) Power to the Frame: Bringing Sociology Back to Frame Analysis. Eur J Commun 26(2):101–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner W, Hayes N (2005) Everyday discourse and common sense—the theory of social representation. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 147–164

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):671–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner W, Kronberger N, Seifert F (2002) Collective symbolic coping with new technology: knowledge, images and public discourse. Br J Soc Psychol 41(3):323–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

    Mikael Wahlström

  2. Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Mikael Wahlström

  3. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland

    Mikael Wahlström

Authors
  1. Mikael Wahlström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mikael Wahlström.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wahlström, M. How to study public imagination of autonomous systems: the case of the Helsinki automated metro. AI & Soc 32, 599–612 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0689-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0689-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation