The present work explores how accuracy and bias in person perception change with the level of liking that the perceiver holds toward the target person. Specifically, we studied whether dislike affects (a) the social desirability of judgments (positivity bias), (b) the extent to which the target is described like an average person (normative accuracy), and (c) the extent to which the judgment reflects the given target’s characteristics in particular (distinctive accuracy). Eighty-four participants watched four target persons on video, after receiving bogus feedback on how positively or negatively those targets had supposedly evaluated them. The participants reciprocated negative bogus evaluations showing a marked decrease in reported liking for the respective target. Most important, dislike was consistently associated with lower positivity bias, greater normative accuracy, and lower distinctive accuracy across two validation measures (i.e., self-reports and informant reports of target persons).

Over the past years, new options for addressing global warming and atmospheric CO2-concentrations ‐ such as bioenergy carbon capture and storage ‐ have been included in computer models that estimate how much more can be emitted before the global mean temperature increase surpasses 1.5°C. While the public in general remains mainly unaware of these, similar proposals in the past have triggered public protests. The prospect of public opposition therefore calls into question the use of these options in the models.Even if societies decarbonized rapidly, it is unlikely that they will achieve the 1.5°C target without also resorting to CO2 removal, by means, for example, of bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Such methods were included in the special report Global Warming of 1.5°C published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2018. This report also discusses solar radiation management, such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) which might be used to change global temperatures. However, public debate about the acceptability of these methods remains absent. We look at laypersons’ perceptions of BECCS and SAI at three stylized stages of increasing knowledge and deliberation. We found a high level of uncertainty among survey respondents as to whether to accept the use of these methods, which decreases when additional information is supplied by stakeholders. When comparing survey participants to members of a citizens’ jury, we found lower levels of acceptance for SAI and similar levels for BECCS among jury members who had deliberated the methods intensively. Despite fears of distracting from the aim of reducing emissions, decision-makers should publicly discuss these methods to avoid planning based on incorrect assumptions about the political feasibility of CO2 removal. People want to be informed about both approaches and the threat of SAI makes them focus their attention on mitigation.

No abstract

To examine the influence of different actors' fictitious statements about research and deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), we conducted an online survey in Germany. Participants assess researchers and a citizens' jury to be more credible than politicians. Credibility has a strong positive effect on SAI acceptance in both pro-SAI and contra-SAI conditions. Reading the statement against SAI-deployment led to significantly lower acceptance scores compared to reading the pro-statement. However, the difference between messages was unexpectedly small, indicating that the message content was not fully adopted while underlying traits and attitudes mainly shaped acceptance even despite, or because of, low levels of knowledge.