A new study highlights a major flaw in attempting to use a single survey question to assess public opinion on science issues. Researchers found that people who say that risks posed by new science fields outweigh benefits often actually perceive more benefits than risks when asked more detailed questions.

“We set out to determine whether we can accurately assess public opinion on complex science issues with one question, or if we need to break the issue down into questions on each of the issue’s constituent parts,” says Dr. Andrew Binder, the study’s lead author. “We found that, to varying degrees, accuracy really depends on breaking it down into multiple questions for people.”

The paper, “Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science,” was published online Jan. 12 by Public Understanding of Science.

Binder received his doctoral degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2010 and is now an assistant professor of communication at North Carolina State University. The paper’s co-authors include Michael Cacciatore, a doctoral candidate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; Dietram Scheufele and Bret Shaw, professors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Elizabeth Corley, a professor at Arizona State University.

A full press release about this study is housed at the North Carolina State University newsroom.