CCS Communications: Pitfalls and Remedies

Transcription

1 CCS Communications: Pitfalls and Remedies Dr. Gerdien de Vries Leiden University 7th Dutch CCS Symposium June 20, 2014, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

2 CCS Communications 2

3 Persuasive Communication Persuasive communication can be defined as the process by which a communicator (the source) transmits information (the message) about a subject (the issue) to create, reinforce, modify or extinguish the beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, and/or behaviors of an audience (the recipient) (e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Gass & Seiter, 2007; Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953). 3

4 Communication Techniques Heaping Information Conveying lots of information at one time Emphasis Framing Giving more weight to either advantages or disadvantages Greening Motivating investment in CCS in environmentally friendly terms (e.g., Brunsting, de Best-Waldhober, Feenstra, & Mikunda, 2011) 4

5 Heaping Information Aim: Persuasion (length-implies-strength heuristic, Stec & Bernstein, 1999). Pitfall: Dilution of the core message (dilution effect, Nisbett, Zukier, and Lemley 1981). Remedy: Share only relevant information de Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., & Ellemers, N. (2014). Spare the details, share the relevance: The dilution effect in communications about carbon dioxide capture and storage. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, doi: /j.jenvp

6 Experimental Design Three experiments + pilot study CCS Communication Relevant information (pro or con CCS) Relevant + irrelevant information Relevant + moderately relevant information Main measure Persuasion (self-report; belief in climate benefits CCS)

7 Results Pro CCS Communication Con CCS Communication Relevant Relevant + Moderately Relevant Relevant + Irrelevant Relevant Relevant + Moderately Relevant Relevant + Irrelevant N = 24 N = 29 N = 26 N = 33 N = 33 N = 33 Persuasiveness M = 4.69 (SD = 0.93) M = 4.57 (SD = 1.13) M = 3.92 (SD = 1.31) M = 4.35 (SD = 1.24) M = 4.42 (SD = 0.92) M = 3.83 (SD = 1.18)

8 Main Conclusion Irrelevant details about CCS dilute the power of a relevant argument pro or con the technology. Also found: Moderately relevant information does not dilute Quality loss (not attention distraction) explains the process The dilution effect does not occur when heuristic (e.g., source information) is used to process the information.

9 Emphasis Framing Aim: Persuasion (e.g., Druckman & Bolsen, 2011; Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997). Pitfall: Perceived manipulation (e.g., Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Campbell, 1995; Campbell & Kirmani, 2000; Friestad & Wright, 1994). Remedy: Provide a balanced message De Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., & Ellemers, N. (in revision). Perceptions of manipulation and judgments of illegitimacy: Pitfalls in the use of emphasis framing when communicating about CO 2 capture and storage. Environmental Communication.

10 Experimental Design Two experiments CCS Communication Emphasis: (pro CCS, con CCS, strong, subtle, balanced) Source: press agency vs. oil company Main measures Perceived manipulation Legitimacy judgments

11 Results (perceived manipulation) News agency Oil company 2 1 Biased (pro CCS) Balanced 11

12 Results (legitimacy judgments) Press agency Oil company Biased (pro CCS) Balanced 12

13 Main Conclusions Bias in communications about CCS is always perceived as manipulative. Bias is especially rejected when balance is expected. Also found: Communications from oil companies (biased or balanced) are perceived as more manipulative than communications from press agencies. Bias in communications from oil companies is not judged as more unacceptable than balance: people expect oil companies to be biased.

14 Greening Aim: Positive image (CSR) (e.g., Alniacik, Alniacik, & Genc, 2011). Pitfall: Perceptions of greenwashing (That a company misrepresents itself as green in order to look more environmentally friendly than it actually is, e.g., Laufer, 2003; Vos, 2009). Remedy: Admit to have economic motives de Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2014, online). Sustainability or profitability? How communicated motives for environmental policy affect public perceptions of corporate greenwashing. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. doi: /csr.1327.

15 Experimental Design Three experiments CCS Communication Motive for CCS involvement: environmental; economic; none Main measures Perceived corporate greenwashing suspicion of strategic behavior

16

17 Results Environmental motive Economic motive Baseline (no motive) Perceived Corporate Greenwashing

18 Results

19 Main Conclusions People perceive greenwashing when an oil company invests in CCS. An economic motive for investing decreases these perceptions; an environmental motive does not. Also found: Suspicion of strategic behavior explains the process (but not for skeptics) Denying of the alternative motive does not alter the effects.

20 So when communicating about CCS Be relevant, balanced, and credible

21 Thank you for your attention. Questions? Gerdien de Vries Mail: