CCS Communications: Pitfalls and Remedies

Transcription

1 CCS Communications: Pitfalls and Remedies Gerdien de Vries Bart W. Terwel, Naomi Ellemers, Dancker D. L. Daamen Social and Organizational Psychology, Leiden University; CATO-2 WP 5.2 Project

2 Communication about CCS 2

3 Strategies in CCS Communication Scattering Sharing a lot of information in one time Emphasis Framing Giving more weight to advantages over disadvantages (or vice versa) Greening Presenting involvement in CCS as environmentally friendly (e.g., Brunsting, de Best-Waldhober, Feenstra, & Mikunda, 2011) 3

4 The Pitfall of Scattering Aim of scattering: persuasion (length-implies-strength heuristic, Stec & Bernstein, 1999). Pitfall: irrelevant information can weaken the persuasive effect of relevant information (dilution effect, Nisbett, Zukier, and Lemley 1981). 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 (Resubmitted).

5 Results (Experiments 1 and 2) Positive Communications (Experiment 1) Negative Communications (Experiment 2) Relevant Relevant + Moderately Relevant Relevant + Irrelevant Relevant Relevant + Moderately Relevant Relevant + Irrelevant (N = 24) (N = 29) (N = 26) (N = 33) (N = 33) (N = 33) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Persuasiveness 4.69 (0.93) 4.57 (1.13) 3.92 (1.31) 4.35 (1.24) 4.42 (0.92) 3.83 (1.18) Note: No source manipulation in Experiments 1 and 2

6 Main conclusions Irrelevant information dilutes the persuasiveness of communications about CCS (pro and con). Moderately relevant information does not dilute

7 The Pitfall of Emphasis Framing Aim of emphasis framing: persuasion (e.g., Druckman & Bolsen, 2011; Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997). Pitfall: perceptions of manipulation (negative effects: e.g., Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Campbell, 1995; Campbell & Kirmani, 2000; Friestad & Wright, 1994). Manipulation by emphasis framing especially unacceptable when balanced information is expected De Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., & Ellemers, N. (almost under review).the Pitfall of Emphasis Framing in the Communication about CO 2 Capture and Storage.

8 Legitimacy judgments Press agency Oil company Pro CCS Balanced 8

9 Main conclusion Emphasis framing is regarded as illegitimate when done by press agencies (because people expect balanced information). This is explained by perceptions of manipulation (mediation). This mediation effect does not hold true for oil companies. They are perceived as manipulative but people expect that.

10 The Pitfall of Greening Aim of greening: positive reputation (e.g., Alniacik, Alniacik, & Genc, 2011). Pitfall: that people think that a company misrepresents corporate activities as green in order to look more environmentally friendly than it actually is (corporate greenwashing, e.g., Laufer, 2003; Vos, 2009). De Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2013). Sustainability or Profitability? How Communicated Motives for Environmental Policy Affect Public Perceptions of Corporate Greenwashing. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (advance online publication).

11

12 Results (Experiment 1) Perceived Greenwashing Environmental motive Economic motive Baseline (no motive) Perceived Corporate Greenwashing

13 Main conclusions People perceive greenwashing when an oil company invests in CCS An economic motive decreases these perceptions (in line with people s expectations), an environmental motive not. An environmental motive is regarded as strategic behavior.

14 Remedies Be relevant to avoid the dilution effect Be credible to avoid perceptions of greenwashing Be cautious with persuasive communications To avoid perceptions of manipulation

15 Thank you for your attention. Questions? Gerdien de Vries

16 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). 16

17 Experimental Design Three experiments + pilot study Communication about CCS relevant argument (pro or con) relevant argument + moderately relevant information relevant argument + irrelevant information Measures persuasion (actual perceived) communication quality attention distraction

18 Experimental Design Two experiments Communication: Emphasis (pro con; strong subtle) Balanced Source: press agency vs. oil company Measures perceived manipulation legitimacy judgments attitude towards CCS

19 Experimental Design Three experiments Communication economic motive for CCS involvement environmental motive no motive Source: (bogus) oil company Measures perceived corporate greenwashing suspicion of strategic behavior dispositional skepticism towards organizational communications

20 Results (Experiment 2) Note: Similar results for Experiment 3

21 Results (Experiments 1 and 2) Positive Communications (Experiment 1) Negative Communications (Experiment 2) Relevant Relevant + Moderately Relevant Relevant + Irrelevant Relevant Relevant + Moderately Relevant Relevant + Irrelevant (N = 24) (N = 29) (N = 26) (N = 33) (N = 33) (N = 33) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Persuasiveness 4.69 (0.93) 4.57 (1.13) 3.92 (1.31) 4.35 (1.24) 4.42 (0.92) 3.83 (1.18) Note: No source manipulation in Experiments 1 and 2

22 Results (Experiment 3) No source ENGO Oil Company Relevant Relevant + Irrelevant Relevant Relevant + Irrelevant Relevant Relevant + Irrelevant (N = 15) (N = 15) (N = 13) (N = 15) (N = 17) (N = 17) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Actual Persuasion 5.30 (0.68) 4.33 (1.22) 5.12 (0.98) 5.27 (0.92) 4.62 (1.50) 5.03 (1.69) Perceived Quaility 4.83 (1.51) 3.83 (1.28) 5.00 (1.08) 5.10 (0.83) 4.94 (1.20) 4.56 (1.55) Attention distraction 2.76 (1.48) 3.13 (1.45) 3.15 (1.43) 3.07 (1.37) 2.71 (0.98) 3.14 (1.40)

23 Results (Experiment 1) Onesided pro CCS Twosided pro CCS Balanced Twosided con CCS Onesided pro CCS (N = 24) (N = 24) (N = 24) (N = 24) (N = 24) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Perceived manipulation 5.15 (1.00) 5.10 (1.42) 3.83 (1.26) 4.94 (0.88) 4.93 (1.06) Attitude towards CCS 6.25 (1.60) 5.57 (1.89) 5.57 (1.80) 4.55 (1.88) 4.94 (1.84) Note: Attitude was measured on a 9-point scale, perceived manipulation on a 7-point scale

24 Results (Experiment 2) News Agency Oil Company Two-sided pro CCS Balanced (adv. first) Balanced (adv. last) Two-sided pro CCS Balanced (adv. first) Balanced (adv. last) (N = 23) (N = 23) (N = 23) (N = 23) (N = 24) (N = 23) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Perceived manipulation 4.60 (1.52) 3.75 (1.23) 2.71 (0.94) 4.92 (1.18) 4.07 (1.43) 3.93 (1.14) Legitimacy judgments 5.50 (1.31) 6.43 (1.02) 7.21 (1.07) 5.70 (1.33) 6.18 (1.40) 5.93 (1.48) Attitude towards CCS 5.10 (1.80) 5.71 (1.45) 5.51 (1.49) 5.50 (1.39) 5.47 (1.34) 5.33 (1.79) Note: Attitude and legitimacy judgments were measured on a 9-point scale, perceived manipulation on a 7- point scale