Changing attitudes and conflicting arguments: Reviewing stakeholder communication on electricity technologies in Germany

Abstract

In Germany, the public is exposed to pro and counter arguments regarding different electricity generation technologies. To assess the attitudinal consequences of these arguments, we presented a balanced set of seven pro and seven counter arguments concerning one of six electricity-generating technologies (i.e., coal power stations, gas power stations, onshore wind power stations, offshore wind power stations, open space photovoltaics, or biomass power plants) to respondents with heterogeneous socio-demographic characteristics. We asked them to rate the strength of each argument and report their perceived familiarity with each argument. Based on the respondents’ answers, we examined the tendencies that underlie the process of evaluating arguments using different theoretical approaches. We found that persuasiveness ratings are driven by arguments’ compatibility with respondents’ initial attitudes, arguments’ quality (i.e., strong, moderate, or weak), and respondents’ perceived familiarity with the arguments. Furthermore, we determined the extent to which respondents’ initial attitudes toward an electricity-generating technology, measured immediately before evaluation of 14 conflicting arguments, changed after exposure to the arguments. Unlike former studies on attitude polarization, we examined conditional probabilities instead of the absolute level of global attitude change or the marginal probabilities of attitude change and persistence. This allowed for more nuanced (re)examination of the issue and showed, among other results, that attitude polarization is the exception rather than the rule.