5.4 Valid beliefs

Main objectives

This work package aims to identify factors that determine the resistance of valid beliefs
about CCS against low quality information (e.g., in media reports) about potential consequences of CCS.

This main objective will be pursued by

identifying elements of communication procedures that make people more sensitive to the quality of information provided (so that they learn to distinguish between valid and invalid information about CCS risks),
testing the resistance of valid beliefs about the consequences of CCS against subsequent provision of low quality information (e.g. in the media).

Expert information formally provided by CCS stakeholders may have less influence on public beliefs than lay information, as provided in the media, or informal communications among members of the general public. While people normally tend to attach more importance to expert information, results of studies carried out in the context of CATO 1 indicate that in the case of CCS communication the characteristics of the source of information (such as its perceived trustworthiness) may be more important than the content of the information provided, because the topic under consideration is novel and complex.

As a result, when CCS stakeholders are perceived as being untrustworthy (e.g., because they are seen as being primarily driven by economic motives) people dismiss the expert information provided by these stakeholders, and instead focus on information provided by parties they perceive as having less of an interest in the implementation of CCS.
Even if this information of lesser quality is provided by lay people or journalists.

The aim of the present project is to identify information provision procedures that invite people to focus on the content of the information provided, instead of on the source or the position represented by the source. The project will especially focus on the effectiveness of different communication procedures in helping people distinguish between valid information (scientifically valid argument) versus invalid information (either a personal opinion without scientific argument, or a scientifically incorrect argument). The effectiveness of different procedures to focus people on the quality of the information provided will be compared,
and it will be examined whether communication procedures that help people focus on quality of information also make them more resistant against invalid information they receive later (e.g., in the media).