I and Aron Vallinder are currently preparing an mTurk-survey on the public perception of extinction threats (aiming for a sample size of about 400). Below is our current draft. Feedback is much appreciated. We are planning to do a few follow-up studies, so in this one we want to keep things simple for the most part. In question 3, we want to compare extinction risk reduction to something that is generally perceived as good but not too closely related to it, but perhaps our current choice isn’t the best. In addition to the demographic questions we will also include a brief 10-question personality inventory.

We’re both looking for information on the public perception of x-risk and what demographic groups and personality types might have the most potential for getting involved.

1. How likely do you think it is that humanity has gone extinct by the year...

a) 2050

(i) 0-20%
(ii) 20-40%
(iii) 40-60%
(iv) 60-80%
(v) 80-100%

b) 2100

(i) 0-20%
(ii) 20-40%
(iii) 40-60%
(iv) 60-80%
(v) 80-100%


c) 2200

(i) 0-20%
(ii) 20-40%
(iii) 40-60%
(iv) 60-80%
(v) 80-100%

d) 2500

(i) 0-20%
(ii) 20-40%
(iii) 40-60%
(iv) 60-80%
(v) 80-100%

e) 10 000

(i) 0-20%
(ii) 20-40%
(iii) 40-60%
(iv) 60-80%
(v) 80-100%


2. What do you think is the most likely cause (causes) of human extinction?

_______________________________________________________


3. How important do you think reducing the risk of human extinction is, compared to giving foreign aid?

a) Much more important
b) More important
c) Equally important
d) Less important
e) Much less important






4a. Age: __________ b. Gender: __________ c. Nationality: __________


5. What is your current occupation?

_______________________________________________________

6. If you are a student, what subject are you majoring in?


_______________________________________________________


6. What is your level of education?

_______________________________________________________

Yeah I think all the questions are good. It seems to me that it's far from universally accepted that foreign aid is a good thing. I can't think of any obvious way to improve that though.

RyanCarey wrote:It seems to me that it's far from universally accepted that foreign aid is a good thing.

Yeah, and the questions also kind of imply that reducing human extinction risks is a good thing, rather than maybe a bad thing. It could be classified as important, but in a negative sense. It might also make sense to distinguish between importance of extinction risks and and success estimates (of influencing them). The way it's currently stated, someone might give a greater importance to foreign aid because thinking it's the more important problem, or because thinking it's more under human control. Maybe that difference could be captured somehow.

What I also wondered was whether a transition to a post-human condition would count as extinction or not, but I guess that's nitpicking.

Perhaps a solution would by to split question 3 into several kinds of charity. You could have 3a) reducing poverty 3b) reducing population 3c) local church 3d) climate change 3e) reducing existential risk, for example. And each of those questions could be on a scale from extremely undesirable to extremely desirable. I'm not sure if that would improve the quality of the survey, but it's a suggestion that should be at least on your radar.

Good questions! However I think it's extremely hard for the general public to guess how likely they think it is that humanity has gone extinct in 100, 200, 500 and 8 000 years. Maybe it's better with fewer alternatives, 2050 and 2500? And maybe add a question asking what people think about humanity going extinct: good, bad, neutral.

RyanCarey wrote:Perhaps a solution would by to split question 3 into several kinds of charity. You could have 3a) reducing poverty 3b) reducing population 3c) local church 3d) climate change 3e) reducing existential risk, for example. And each of those questions could be on a scale from extremely undesirable to extremely desirable. I'm not sure if that would improve the quality of the survey, but it's a suggestion that should be at least on your radar.

Or for a more simple setup, just phrase the alternative more broadly - something like 'helping the needy'.

Or just drop the comparison in question 3, and make the options:

(a) Very important
(b) Fairly important
etc.

For #1, how about different wording:

How likely do you think it is that humanity will become extinct by the year...

You might want to try several versions of the study to see if wording makes a difference. When you ask about humans becoming extinct, people might not stop to consider all the risks. Try presenting the above questions to half the people, then give the other half some "primes" that will force them to think about the risks--then give them the same questions as above.

On the second version, you might ask how likely it is that an asteroid, volcano, virus, nuclear war, or other such things will occur in the next 300 years. Maybe provide some details about the past cycles of volcanoes or the prediction for the next big known asteroid. Measure the difference in expected probabilities between the two groups to get an idea of what happens when people think about the topic.

Thanks for all the great comments!

Here's the new version of the survey, that we are planning use:

1. a) How likely do you think it is that humanity has gone extinct by the year 2050?

(i) 0-20%
(ii) 20-40%
(iii) 40-60%
(iv) 60-80%
(v) 80-100%

b) Assuming that humanity survives to the year 2050, how likely do you think it is that humanity then goes extinct by 2100?

(i) 0-20%
(ii) 20-40%
(iii) 40-60%
(iv) 60-80%
(v) 80-100%


c) Assuming that humanity survives to the year 2100, how likely do you think it is that humanity then goes extinct by 2200?

(i) 0-20%
(ii) 20-40%
(iii) 40-60%
(iv) 60-80%
(v) 80-100%

d) Assuming that humanity survives to the year 2200, how likely do you think it is that humanity then goes extinct by 2500?

(i) 0-20%
(ii) 20-40%
(iii) 40-60%
(iv) 60-80%
(v) 80-100%


2. What, if any, do you think is the most likely cause (causes) of human extinction?

_______________________________________________________


3. How important do you think reducing the risk of human extinction is, compared to disaster relief aid?

a) Much more important
b) More important
c) Equally important
d) Less important
e) Much less important


4. How good or bad would human extinction be?

a) Very bad
b) Bad
c) Neutral
d) Good
e) Very good

5. Why?

_______________________________________________________


Here are a number of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Please write a number next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement. You should rate the extent to which the pair of traits applies to you, even if one characteristic applies more strongly than the other.

<The formating is distorted below>

Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither agree Agree Agree Agree
strongly moderately a little n or disagree a little moderately strongly
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I see myself as:

6. _____ Extraverted, enthusiastic.
7. _____ Critical, quarrelsome.
8. _____ Dependable, self-disciplined.
9. _____ Anxious, easily upset.
10. _____ Open to new experiences, complex.
11. _____ Reserved, quiet.
12. _____ Sympathetic, warm.
13. _____ Disorganized, careless.
14. _____ Calm, emotionally stable.
15. _____ Conventional, uncreative.



16. I have frequently had heart attacks while watching TV
Yes / No


17a. Age: __________ b. Gender: __________ c. Nationality: __________


18. What is your current occupation?

_______________________________________________________

19. What is your level of education?

_______________________________________________________


20. If you are a student, what subject are you majoring in?

_______________________________________________________

Looks great. The whole survey looks really good. Except for question 16. What on Earth is that question supposed to do?

I'd be chary about reading much into the results from question 1. The ranges will probably cause anchoring. I'd guess that people will tend to up their estimates for each of the years specified by one notch. I think it would be better to simply ask for a percentage. That's what this survey did. This has the additional advantage allowing you to average the responses.

Wikipedia on anchoring:

Anchoring and adjustment is a psychological heuristic that influences the way people intuitively assess probabilities. According to this heuristic, people start with an implicitly suggested reference point (the "anchor") and make adjustments to it to reach their estimate. A person begins with a first approximation (anchor) and then makes incremental adjustments based on additional information.

The anchoring and adjustment heuristic was first theorized by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. In one of their first studies, the two showed that when asked to guess the percentage of African nations which are members of the United Nations, people who were first asked "Was it more or less than 10%?" guessed lower values (25% on average) than those who had been asked if it was more or less than 65% (45% on average).[3] The pattern has held in other experiments for a wide variety of different subjects of estimation.

Question 2 might benefit from being more specific. Ask for a specific number of possible causes of human extinction (perhaps one), ranked from most likely to least likely.

The question about education level might benefit from having specific choices (some high school, high school graduate, some college, etc.).

RyanCarey wrote:Looks great. The whole survey looks really good. Except for question 16. What on Earth is that question supposed to do?

People who have heart attacks and watch a lot of TV will have greater mortality salience (MS), because of their experience of a life-threatening situation and because TV news and shows often depict death. Terror management theory predicts that this MS will activate psychological defenses, including increased nationalism. These factors will lead subjects who have often had heart attacks while watching TV to view reducing the risk of human extinction as more important than providing disaster relief to foreign countries (question 3).

Actually, I think it's there just to weed out people who aren't reading the questions.

Thanks for very useful comments Pat!

Here's the latest (and probably last) version: http://surveys.questionpro.com/a/TakeSurvey?id=2673690