Spare the details, share the relevance: The dilution effect in communications about carbon dioxide capture and storage

The mitigation of climate change may require the implementation of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology (CCS). Both proponents and opponents of CCS will try to convince the public of the (dis)advantages of this technology. This research examines the relative persuasiveness of communications that only contain highly relevant information (e.g., the argument that the implementation of CCS would have important climate benefits) or combine highly relevant with irrelevant or moderately relevant information. The results of three experiments consistently show that adding irrelevant information dilutes the impact of highly relevant information: Irrelevant information reduced the persuasiveness of communications (Experiments 1 and 2) and weakened people's beliefs about the issue (Experiment 3). This dilution effect occurred with both positive (pro-CCS) information and negative (con-CCS) information, but the effect was stronger with positive information. Awareness of the source of the communications moderated the dilution effect. Implications for public communications about CCS are discussed.

[1]  P. Slovic,et al.  Cue utilization in a numerical prediction task. , 1975 .

[2]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[3]  Emma ter Mors,et al.  Effective communication about complex environmental issues: Perceived quality of information about carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) depends on stakeholder collaboration , 2010 .

[4]  R. Nisbett,et al.  The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information , 1981, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  Thomas A. Morton,et al.  Communicating climate science: The role of perceived communicator’s motives. , 2012 .

[6]  James Shanteau,et al.  Expert Judgment: Is More Information Better? , 1987 .

[7]  Matthew J. Lindberg,et al.  Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  Bart W. Terwel,et al.  How organizational motives and communications affect public trust in organizations: The case of carbon dioxide capture and storage , 2009 .

[9]  Chanthika Pornpitakpan.  The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence , 2004 .

[10]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches , 1981 .

[11]  Mark F. Zimbelman,et al.  A cognitive footprint in archival data: Generalizing the dilution effect from laboratory to field settings , 2003 .

[12]  L. Whitmarsh.  Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts , 2009 .

[13]  D. Bernstein,et al.  Psychology: Fields of Application , 1998 .

[14]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[15]  Lukas H. Meyer,et al.  Summary for Policymakers , 2022, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

[16]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social cognition, 2nd ed. , 1991 .

[17]  R. Gifford.  The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. , 2011, The American psychologist.

[18]  葛西 俊治.  Subjective Probability--A Judgment of "Categorical"Probability , 1985 .

[19]  T. Meyvis,et al.  Consumers' Beliefs about Product Benefits: The Effect of Obviously Irrelevant Product Information , 2002 .

[20]  H. D. Smith,et al.  Dilution in legal decision making: Effect of non-diagnostic information in relation to amount of diagnostic evidence , 1998 .

[21]  Bart W. Terwel,et al.  Sustainability or Profitability? How Communicated Motives for Environmental Policy Affect Public Perceptions of Corporate Greenwashing , 2015 .

[22]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[23]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[24]  P. Aggarwal.  The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior , 2004 .

[25]  K. Vohs,et al.  Case Western Reserve University , 1990 .

[26]  D. Krantz,et al.  The Dilution Effect : Nondiagnostic Information Weakens the Implications of Diagnostic Information , 2003 .

[27]  K. Scherer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage : A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 2004 .

[28]  Leandre R. Fabrigar,et al.  Reflecting on Six Decades of Selective Exposure Research: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities , 2008 .

[29]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[30]  R. Mayer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage: A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 1998 .