the dilution effect in evaluations of the persuasiveness...
TRANSCRIPT
The Dilution Effect in Evaluations of the Persuasiveness of CCS Information
IEAGHG SRN meeting April 12 2012IEAGHG SRN meeting April 12, 2012Noosa Heads, Australia
Gerdien de Vries, Bart W. Terwel, Naomi Ellemers, Dancker D. L. DaamenSocial and Organizational Psychology, Leiden University; CATO-2 WP 5.2 ProjectSoc a a d O ga a o a syc o ogy, e de U e s y; C O 5 ojec
The dilution effect
Adding non-information to high-relevant information dilutes…g g
Evaluations of people (Nisbett, Zukier, & Lemley, 1981; Tetlock & Boettger, 1989)
Evaluations of products (Igou & Bless, 2005; Meyvis & Janiszewski, 2002)
Evaluation of information persuasiveness? Important: information p ppersuasiveness could influence attitude (Lavine & Snyder, 1996)
HypothesesHypotheses
1. Adding non-information to high-relevant CCS information dilutes the overall persuasiveness of the information providedthe overall persuasiveness of the information provided
2. Adding low-relevant CCS information does not
Research
Pretest (stimulus material)
Experiment 1 (positively framed CCS information)Experiment 1 (positively framed CCS information)
Experiment 2 (negatively framed CCS information)
Experiment 1 (N = 79)
Background information (energy, CO2, CCS)
Additional CCS information (positively framed)
1 Hi h l t (l CO i i )1. High-relevant (less CO2 emissions)2. High-relevant + low-relevant (e.g., knowledge export)3. High-relevant + non-information (e.g., information on Internet)
Measurements of persuasiveness and relevance
Debriefing
Experiment 1 - Relevance“How relevant / important is this piece of information?” (1 = not at all; 7 = very)
5,50 5,575,79
5
6
7 Group: “High-relevant”
Group: “High-relevant + low-relevant”
Group “High-relevant + non-information”4,31
2,44
4,26
2,30
4,02
2,713
4
5
1
2
High-relevantinformation
Low-relevantinformation
Non-information
Experiment 1 - Persuasiveness
7
“How convincing / strong is the additional information?” (1 = not at all; 7 = very)
7
4
5
6 Group: “High-relevant”
Group: “High-relevant + low-relevant”
Group: “High-relevant + non-information”4.69 4.57
6
5
4
2
3
43.92*
4
3
2
1PersuasivenessPersuasiveness
1
* F(2,76) = 3.34, p = .04, η2 = .08
Contrast: F(1,76) = 6.63, p = .01, η2 = .08( ) p η
Experiment 2 (N = 99)
Background information (energy, CO2, CCS)
Additional CCS information (negatively framed)
1 Hi h l t ( f t h i )1. High-relevant (safety process chain)2. High-relevant + low-relevant (e.g., carbonated drinks)3. High-relevant + non-information (e.g., information on Internet)
Measurements of persuasiveness and relevance
Debriefing
Experiment 2 - Relevance“How relevant / important is this piece of information?” (1 = not at all; 7 = very)
5,585,33
5,76
5
6
7 Group: “High-relevant”
Group: “High-relevant + low-relevant”
Group: “High-relevant + non-information”
3,82
2,69
3,96
2,76
3,46
2,743
4
5p g
1
2
High-relevanti f ti
Low-relevanti f ti
Non-informationinformation information
Experiment 2 – Persuasiveness
7
“How convincing / strong is the additional information?” (1 = not at all; 7 = very)
7
4
5
6Group: “High-relevant”
Group: “High-relevant + low-relevant”
6
5
4 4 35 4 42
2
3
4 Group: “High-relevant + non-information”4
3
2
4.35 4.42
3.83*
1PersuasivenessPersuasiveness
1
* F(2,96) = 2.72, p = .07, η2 = .05
Contrast: F(1,96) = 5.35, p = .02, η2 = .05
ConclusionsConclusions
For both positively and negatively framed CCS information, a dilution effect occurs on persuasiveness when non-information is added to high-relevant informationadded to high-relevant information.
This dilution effect does not occur when low-relevant information is added.
Implications
More is not always better
Implications
More is not always better….
Be aware of the dilution effect when communicating on CCS:
Non-information could weaken the persuasive effect of highly relevant CCS information (positive and negative).
Future Research
Process: why does the dilution effect occur?
Future Research
- Information quality (low quality > low persuasion)
Source effects- Information source (low trust in source > information credibility low)
Thank your for the attention.Q ti ?Questions?
Gerdien de Vries
vriesgde@fsw leidenuniv [email protected]
This research has been carried out in the context of the CATO-2-program; the Dutch national research program on CO2 Capture and Storage technology (CCS). The program is financially
t d b th D t h Mi i t f E isupported by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, and the CATO-2 consortium parties.