ars.els-cdn.com · web viewthe comparison with the topic “the possibility to cure allergies”...
TRANSCRIPT
Supplemental Material
Study 1
Method
For additional moderation analyses, participants filled out several questionnaires
during the experiment. The questionnaires that participants answered after the filler task were
the tolerance of uncertainty questionnaire (Dalbert, 2002, Cronbach’s = .34) and the short
version of the need for cognitive closure scale (Schlink & Walther, 2007, Cronbach’s
= .84). Due to its poor reliability, the tolerance of uncertainty scale was not used for further
analyses.
In the second part of the study one week later, participants’ connotative aspects of
epistemological beliefs (CAEB) regarding knowledge about personality judgments were
measured with the questionnaire by Stahl and Bromme (2007). Ten items measure
epistemological beliefs regarding the texture of knowledge (e.g. subjective vs. objective,
Cronbach’s = .89) and seven items measure epistemological beliefs regarding the variability
of knowledge (e.g. stable vs. instable, Cronbach’s = .67). Since overall reliability was
sufficiently high (Cronbach’s = .83), the two subscales were integrated in a single measure
representing a scale ranging from more naïve (objective and stable) to more sophisticated
(subjective and variable) beliefs.
Materials
Original text in German.
Im Rahmen eines größeren Forschungsprojekts der Universität XX1 untersuchen wir
seit Juni 2014 eine Gruppe von 20 Freiwilligen näher in ihrem Sozial- und Freizeitverhalten.
Hierfür wurden die Teilnehmer in Kleingruppen von 5 Personen aufgeteilt.
1 The name of the city was removed for the reviewing process.
Im Folgenden werden Sie einen Text über einen der anderen Gruppenteilnehmer lesen,
der innerhalb des Projekts entstanden ist. Der Name dieses Teilnehmers, ihrer Zielperson, ist
Michael. Ihre Aufgabe wird es sein, eine Personenbeschreibung zu erstellen, nach der Michael
von jemandem identifiziert werden kann/ Ihre Aufgabe wird es sein, eine möglichst
diagnostisch korrekte Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung der Stimulusperson zu erstellen.
Ihr Adressat ist Julia/Dr. Julia Müller. Julia ist Germanistikstudentin/ Personal- und
Wirtschaftspsychologin an der Universität XX. Sie sitzt gerade in einem anderen Labor der
Universität XX. Dort empfängt sie die Beschreibung von Versuchspersonen wie Ihnen.
Julia/Dr. Julia Müller kennt Michael persönlich. Verwenden Sie Michaels Namen deswegen
auf keinen Fall in Ihrer Beschreibung. Julia/Dr. Julia Müller hat in einem Gruppenexperiment
bereits einen ganzen Tag mit Michael verbracht. So konnte Sie sich eine Meinung über
Michael bilden.
[…]Teilen Sie nun bitte Julia/Dr. Julia Müller mit, was Sie über Michael wissen.
Denken Sie dabei daran, Michaels Namen nicht zu erwähnen. Wie anfangs bereits erwähnt, ist
Ihre Aufgabe eine Persönlichkeitskeitsbeschreibung zu erstellen, nach der Julia Michael
identifizieren kann./Wie anfangs bereits erwähnt, ist Ihre Aufgabe eine möglichst
diagnostisch korrekte Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung von Michael zu erstellen.
English translation.
As part of a larger research project at the University of XX, we have been
investigating a group of 20 volunteers since June 2014 in their social and recreational
behavior. For this the participants were divided into small groups of 5 persons.
Below you will read a text about one of the other participants that was written within
the project. The name of this participant, your target person, is Michael. Your task will be to
create a person description that allows someone else to identify Michael/ Your task will be to
create a diagnostically correct personality description of the target person.
Your audience is Julia/Dr. Julia Müller. Julia is a German literature student /personnel
psychologist at the University of XX. She is currently sitting in another laboratory of the
University of XX. There she receives the description from study participants like you.
Julia/Dr. Julia Müller knows Michael personally. Therefore, do not use Michaels name in
your description. Julia/Dr. Julia Müller has already spent a whole day with Michael in a group
experiment. Thus she could form an opinion about Michael.
[…]Please tell Julia/Dr. Julia Müller now what you know about Michael. Remember
not to mention Michael's name. As mentioned earlier, your job is to create a person
description that allows Julia to identify Michael./As mentioned earlier, your task is to create a
diagnostically correct personality description of Michael.
Explicit opinion scale – Original German version.
Bitte bewerten Sie Michael hinsichtlich der unten dargestellten Eigenschaften und
ordnen Sie ihn nach Ihrer Meinung auf der Skala an.
ehrlich vs. überheblich
stur vs. selbstständig
besserwisserisch vs. kultiviert
sparsam vs. geizig
pedantisch vs. ordentlich
abenteuerlustig vs. lebensmüde
gepflegt vs. eitel
sarkastisch vs. lustig
idealistisch vs. unrealistisch
kultiviert vs. eingebildet
Explicit opinion scale – English translation.
Please rate Michael regarding the characteristics presented below and place him
according to your opinion on the scale.
• honest vs. arrogant
• stubborn vs. independent
• know-it-all vs. sophisticated
• economical vs. stingy
• pedantic vs. orderly
• adventurous vs. suicidal
• well-groomed vs. vain
• sarcastic vs. funny
• idealistic vs. unrealistic
• sophisticated vs. conceited
Results
Message and recall valence.
Table S1
Experiment 1: Means (standard deviations in parentheses) of message valence as a function
of audience attitude, audience expertise, and framing
Non-scientific framing Scientific framingAudience expertise
Positiveattitude
Negative attitude
Positiveattitude
Negative attitude
Expertaudience 0.47 (1.77) -0.21 (1.52) -0.03 (2.12) -0.65 (1.16)Lay person audience 0.84 (1.35) 0.34 (1.15) 1.29 (0.83) -0.50 (2.18)
Table S2
Means (standard deviations in parentheses) of recall valence in Session 1 (Experiment 1) as a
function of audience’s expertise, audience attitude, and framing
Non-scientific framing Scientific framingAudience expertise
Positiveattitude
Negative attitude
Positiveattitude
Negative attitude
Expertaudience 0.49 (1.39) 0.12 (1.41) 0.87 (1.09) -0.06 (1.16)Lay person audience 0.39 (1.36) 0.75 (0.95) 0.51 (1.39) 0.82 (1.28)
Moderation analyses regarding recall valence.
Because we tested two moderators (need for cognitive closure and CAEB), we applied
the Bonferroni correction so that the alpha level was set to p = .025. There was no moderating
effect by need for cognitive closure on recall valence, ts < 1, ps > .39. There was, however, a
significant three-way interaction of CAEB, audience attitude and audience expertise, b = -
5.10, t(64) = -2.82, p = .006, see Figure S1. For participants with more sophisticated beliefs
regarding knowledge about personality judgments (M +1 SD), there was no interaction effect
of audience’s attitude and audience’s expertise, b = 2.30, t(64) = 1.88, p = .07. There was also
no main effect of audience’s attitude or audience’s expertise, ts < 1.60, ps > .11. For
participants with more naïve beliefs regarding knowledge about personality judgments (M – 1
SD), there was however a significant interaction of audience’s attitude and audience’s
expertise, b = -4.03, t(64) = -2.53, p = .014, indicating that those participants showed an
audience tuning memory bias when communicating with an expert audience, b = 3.65, t(30) =
2.73, p = .011, but not when communicating with a lay person audience, b = -0.33, t(34) = -
0.52, p = .61.
There were also significant interaction effects between CAEB, audience expertise, and
framing, b = -4.83, t(64) = -2.93, p = .006, between CAEB and framing,, b = 4.69, t(64) =
3.34, p = .001, CAEB and audience attitude, b = 3.75, t(64) = 2.48, p = .016, and CAEB and
audience expertise, b = 4.51, t(64) = 3.26, p = .002. There were also significant main effects
of CAEB, b = -4.54, t(64) = 3.53, p < .001, and audience expertise, b = 1.54, t(64) = 2.49, p
= .015.
Figure S1. Recall valence (Study 1) as a function of the audience’s expertise, audience
attitude and CAEB (from naïve to sophisticated beliefs). Grey areas represent 95% CIs.
Exploratory analyses: Accuracy
Method.
Accurate rehearsal and retrieval of the original stimulus information may limit or
reduce the audience-congruent memory bias (see Echterhoff, Higgins, Kopietz, & Groll,
2008, 2008; Kopietz, Hellmann, Higgins, & Echterhoff, 2010). Message production allows
participants to rehearse or reactivate the original target material, and a reduced audience-
attitude effect on recall could be due to more accurate memory for the material. To control for
this possibility, we assessed the accuracy of both rehearsal (i.e., message accuracy) and
retrieval (i.e., recall accuracy). Two independent raters counted the number of accurate
reproductions in the message protocols and free-recall protocols (from both Session 1 and
Session 2). As in several previous saying-is-believing studies (e.g., Echterhoff et al., 2008;
Hellmann, Echterhoff , Kopietz, Niemeier, & Memon, 2011; Kopietz, Echterhoff, Niemeier,
Hellmann, & Memon, 2009; Kopietz et al., 2010), we scored as accurate reproductions idea
units that preserved the propositional content of an idea unit from the original target essay
(see Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). For instance, the idea unit Michael tries to avoid spending
money was scored as an accurate reproduction of the proposition Michael tries to save money
from the original essay. Again, the intercoder correlations were sufficiently high, r(128) = .78
for the message, and r(127) = .80, and r(75) = .84, for recall at Session 1 and Session 2,
respectively.
Results.
There were no significant differences between conditions in the number of accurate
details in the message to the audience, all Fs < 1.25, all ps > .265, and the number of accurate
details in the message did not correlate significantly with the size of the memory bias, r(126)
= .035, p = .695.
For both the short- and the long-delay sessions, there were no significant differences
between conditions in the number of accurately remembered details in the free-recall
protocols, all Fs < 2.76, all ps > .099, and the number of accurately remembered details did
not correlate significantly with the size of the memory bias, ps > .07.
Pretest Study 2
Method
For Study 2, we conducted a pretest to find a) a topic in which participants did not
have too much previous knowledge and b) an ambiguous text about that topic. The sample for
the pretest consisted of N = 66 participants (mean age = 27.91, SD = 8.29; 33 female, 19 male,
one undefined, 13 no answer). In the beginning, all participants rated their knowledge (on 7-
point Likert scales from “no knowledge” to “a lot of knowledge”) about eight topics, i.e. the
possibility to cure allergies, man-made climate change, the harmfulness of mobile phone
radiation, the harmfulness of a vegetarian diet, the harmfulness of vaccines, the existence of a
free will, the utility of biofuel, and the utility of eye laser treatment. Afterwards, participants
rated how often they talked about those topics (from 1 = “never” to 7 = “very often”), and
were asked about their evaluation of the topics on a 7-point Likert scale with the opposing
positions as end points (e.g. “Man-made climate change does definitely not exist” and “Man-
made climate change definitely exists”). For each evaluation, participants also rated their
confidence in their answer (from 1 = “not confident at all” to 7 = “very confident”).
Participants were then presented with texts about two of the seven topics that were randomly
chosen. After reading the first text, participants rated how much the text supported each of the
two opposing positions (e.g. “How much does the text present arguments for man-made
climate change?” and “How much does the text present arguments against man-made climate
change?”), and which position the text supported more (e.g. “Which position does the text
predominantly support?”, rated 1 = “man-made climate change exists”; 2 = “man-made
climate does not exist”; 3 = “both positions equally”). Additionally, participants rated the
text’s unambiguousness (“How unambiguously does the text predominantly support one of
the two positions?”, from 1 = “not unambiguously at all” to 7 = “very unambiguously”).
Afterwards, they rated how interesting it was, how plausible its arguments were, how
complex the text was, and how relevant the topic was to them (all items were answered on 7-
point Likert scales). Because these ratings are not relevant for the current study, they are not
reported in the results section. Participants then read the second randomly chosen text and
rated it on the same dimensions as the first text. In the end, we assessed participants’
demographics, debriefed and thanked them and gave them the opportunity to win one of three
vouchers for an online-shop worth 20€ each.
Results
Participants reported having the lowest knowledge regarding the utility of biofuel (M =
3.30, SD = 1.49), which was significantly less than their knowledge about the possibility to
cure allergies (M = 4.38, SD = 1.43), t(65) = 4.97, p < .001, man-made climate change (M =
4.86, SD = 1.46), t(65) = 7.70, p < .001, the harmfulness of mobile phone radiation (M = 4.02,
SD = 1.34), t(65) = 3.56, p < .001, the harmfulness of a vegetarian diet (M = 5.12, SD = 1.42),
t(65) = 7.66, p < .001, the harmfulness of vaccines (M = 4.45, SD = 1.59), t(65) = 4.75, p
< .001, and the existence of a free will (M = 5.00, SD = 1.55), t(65) = 7.12, p < .001. The only
topic that did not differ significantly regarding participants’ knowledge was the utility of eye
laser treatment (M = 3.42, SD = 1.66), t(65) = 0.46, p = .636.
Participants also rated the utility of biofuel as being the topic they least talked about
(M = 2.27, SD = 1.40), which was significantly less than their frequency of talking about man-
made climate change (M = 3.89, SD = 1.61), t(65) = 8.86, p < .001, the harmfulness of a
vegetarian diet (M = 4.21, SD = 1.67), t(65) = 7.54, p < .001, the harmfulness of vaccines (M
= 3.06, SD = 1.77), t(65) = 3.24, p = .002, and the existence of a free will (M = 3.82, SD =
1.81), t(65) = 6.00, p < .001. The comparison with the topic “the possibility to cure allergies”
was marginally significant (M = 2.73, SD = 1.61), t(65) = 1.86, p = .067. The frequency of
talking about the utility of biofuel did not differ significantly from the frequency of talking
about the harmfulness of mobile phone radiation (M = 2.52, SD = 1.45), t(65) = 1.20, p
= .236, and the utility of eye laser treatment (M = 2.36, SD = 1.51), t(65) = 0.34, p = .733.
Participants were also least confident in their opinion about the utility of biofuel (M =
3.79, SD = 1.76), which was significantly less than their confidence in their opinion about the
possibility to cure allergies (M = 4.86, SD = 1.51), t(65) = 4.01, p < .001, man-made climate
change (M = 5.52, SD = 1.58), t(65) = 7.86, p < .001, the harmfulness of mobile phone
radiation (M = 4.39, SD = 1.41), t(65) = 2.94, p = .004), the harmfulness of a vegetarian diet
(M = 5.92, SD = 1.35), t(65) = 9.11, p < .001, the harmfulness of vaccines (M = 5.05, SD =
1.71), t(65) = 5.27, p < .001, and the existence of a free will (M = 5.00, SD = 1.66), t(65) =
4.75, p < .001. Participants’ confidence in their opinion about the utility of biofuel did no
differ significantly from their confidence in their opinion about the utility of eye laser
treatment (M = 4.12, SD = 1.93), t(65) = 1.19, p = .237.
The text about biofuel was rated as equally supporting the position that biofuel can
slow down climate change (M = 3.73, SD = 1.49) and the position that biofuel cannot slow
down climate change (M = 3.80, SD = 1.52), t(14) = 0.09, p = .931. Five participants
answered that the text was more supportive of the position that biofuel can slow down climate
change, four participants stated that the text was more supportive of the position that biofuel
cannot slow down climate change and six participants answered that the text supported both
positions equally. The rating of the text’s unambiguousness was descriptively lowest for the
text about biofuel (M = 3.57, SD = 1.90), but did not differ significantly from the perceived
unambiguousness of the other texts (3.60 ≤ M ≤ 4.90), all ts < 1.73, all ps > .123. Taken
together, on the basis of these data we considered the text about biofuel to be most suited for
this study.
Study 2
Method
Participants rated how certain they were regarding each statement about biofuel
(Cronbach’s = .91) and answered two questions regarding their desire to hear an expert’s
opinion on the topic (r = .55). The questionnaires that participants answered after the filler
task were again the tolerance of uncertainty questionnaire (Dalbert, 2002, Cronbach’s = .73)
and the short version of the need for cognitive closure scale (Schlink & Walther, 2007,
Cronbach’s = .80).
In the second part of the study, participants’ connotative aspects of epistemological
beliefs (CAEB; Stahl & Bromme, 2007) regarding knowledge about biofuel were measured
(Cronbach’s = .83) after the assessment of the memory for the original information.
Materials
Text about biofuels – Original text in German.
Biotreibstoffe – Aktionismus als Reaktion auf Klimawandel oder tatsächlich Bremse?
Die letzten Jahre zeigen deutlich, dass die Menschheit ihre Abhängigkeit von Erdöl
und Kohle verringern muss. Die Verwendung von Erdöl und Kohle schränkt aufgrund der
Abhängigkeit von importierten Rohstoffen den politischen Handlungsspielraum ein und
verursacht durch die knapper werdenden Ressourcen immer mehr Konflikte. Neuartige,
alternative Energiequellen sind gefragt, denn auf Mobilität und Wärme will keiner verzichten.
So galten lange Zeit pflanzlich erzeugte Treibstoffe, auch bekannt als Biotreibstoffe, als die
„saubere“ Lösung all unserer Energieprobleme.
Bioenergien können in erheblichem Maße helfen, Emissionen von Treibhausgasen zu
reduzieren, auch wenn die Kohlendioxidbilanz nicht vollständig neutral sein wird. Die
Nutzung von Biomasse ermöglicht auch einen geschlossenen Nährstoffkreislauf. Das
Verteilen von Gärresten, die bei der Verarbeitung von Biomasse zu Treibstoffen auf den
Feldern entstehen, geben dem Boden wieder Nährstoffe zurück – diese sind von den Pflanzen
sogar besser aufzunehmen als aus dem unvergorenen Material. Eine solche
Kreislaufwirtschaft verringert den Einsatz von synthetischen Düngemitteln, deren Herstellung
und Transport einigen Energieaufwand erfordert und die Produktion von Treibhausgasen
durch die Maschinen mit sich bringt. Dadurch sind im Sinne des Klimaschutzes doppelte
Einsparungen von Kohlendioxid und Energie möglich.
Auslöser für den Boom um die Biotreibstoffe ist ein Paradoxon: Die Industriestaaten
nehmen endlich den von Menschen gemachten Klimawandel ernst. Doch Halbwissen
verursacht Aktionismus, der schwerwiegende Folgen mit sich bringt. Viele Staaten haben
Quoten eingeführt, die den Gebrauch von Biokraftstoffen fördern sollen. Ferner soll nach dem
Bundesemmissionsschutzgesetz im Sinne des Klimaschutzes die Beimischung von
Biotreibstoffen in Benzin und Diesel europaweit gesteigert werden. Erst einmal ein guter
Ansatz. Doch damit werden die durch den Konsum verursachten Umweltprobleme auf
Regenwaldländer abgewälzt. Denn aufgrund des hohen Flächenbedarfs für den Anbau von
Biomasse muss die natürliche Vegetation weichen.
Ist das Verfahren jedoch erst einmal vollständig ausgereift, reichen relativ kleine
Anbauflächen für viel Energie aus. Zudem gibt es immer noch genug Flächen für den Anbau.
Allein Brasilien kann die Anbaufläche verdoppeln, ohne dass dabei der Regenwald abgeholzt
werden muss. Auch die deutsche Landwirtschaft hat genug Kapazitäten, um vier Fünftel des
Rohmaterials für den deutschen Biotreibstoff herzustellen.
Allerdings stellt nicht nur der Verlust artenreicher Lebensräume beim Anbau von
Biomasse ein großes Problem dar. Auch aus rein klimatechnischen Gründen ist die
Vernichtung der Regenwälder ein großes Problem, belegt Prof. Dr. Peter Krübel vom
Fraunhofer-Institut. Bei der Rodung brasilianischer Regen- oder indonesischer Sumpfwälder
zum Anbau von Biomasse, entsteht zwischen 17- bis 423-mal so viel Kohlendioxid, wie
jährlich durch den auf diesem Land gewonnenen Treibstoff eingespart werden soll.
Befürworter sind dieser Studie gegenüber kritisch und argumentieren damit, dass bei
der Verbrennung von pflanzlichen Energieträgern nur so viel Kohlendioxid freigesetzt wird,
wie die Pflanze im Laufe ihres Wachstums aufgenommen hat. Diese Menge an Kohlendioxid
würde zudem genauso in die Atmosphäre abgegeben werden, wenn die Biomasse auf
natürlichem Wege in der Natur verrotten und durch Mikroorganismen zersetzt werden würde.
Wissenschaftler fanden jedoch heraus, dass bei der Züchtung von Biotreibstoffen
durch die Verwendung von mineralischem Dünger und Pestiziden sowie durch Überdüngung
enorme Mengen an Stickstoffgasen – hochaktive Treibhausgase – aus den Böden freigesetzt
werden. Diese beschleunigen den Abbau der Ozonschicht und bewirken eine Versauerung des
Regens. Dadurch wird das, was der Gebrauch von Biotreibstoffen an Kohlendioxid einspart,
allein schon durch den hohen Flächenverbrauch und den intensiven Einsatz von Düngern und
Pflanzenschutzmitteln aufgehoben. Durch die Verwendung von Maschinen und Dünger beim
Anbau reduziert sich neben der Klimabilanz auch die Energiebilanz des gewonnenen
Treibstoffs drastisch.
Bisher erscheint es nicht möglich, pflanzlich erzeugte Kraftstoffe mit möglichst wenig
Energieaufwand zu gewinnen, Flächen nachhaltig und effektiv zu nutzen und die
Nahrungsmittelversorgung gebührend zu berücksichtigen. Solange diese Probleme nicht
bewältigt wurden, darf die Nahrung dieser Welt und ihr Umweltschutz nicht zum Auspuff
hinausgepustet werden.
Text about biofuels – English translation.
Biofuels – actionism in reaction to climate change or can they really slow it down?
The last years clearly show that humanity has to decrease their dependency on oil and
coal. Usage of oil and coal is, due to the dependency on imported resources, limiting the
political scope of actions and leading to more and more conflicts as resources become scarce.
New alternative sources of energy are needed as nobody wants to dispense with
mobility or warmth. For a long time, plant-based fuels, also known as biofuels, were
considered to be the “clean” solution to all of our energy problems.
Biofuels can help to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to a considerable extend,
even if the carbon dioxide emission won’t be completely neutral. The use of biomass enables
a closed nutrient cycle. Distribution of digestate, that arises when processing biomass to
biofuels on fields, provides nutrient to the soil - those nutrient are even better absorbed by
plants than unfermented material. Such circular economy lowers the use of synthetic
fertilizers. As the production and transportation of synthetic fertilizers would otherwise
require a lot of energy and release many greenhouse gases through the machines, savings of
energy and carbon dioxide can be doubled.
Trigger for the biofuel-boom is a paradox: Industrial countries are finally taking the
man-made climate change seriously. But superficial knowledge leads to activism with serious
consequences. Many states have introduced quotas that should promote the use of biofuels.
Furthermore, according to the Federal Emission Control Act in sense of climate protection,
the blending of biofuels into gasoline and diesel should be increased across Europe. This is a
good starting point. But by that, climate problems caused by consumption are passed on to
rainforests countries. Due to the large need of area required for the cultivation of biomass, the
natural vegetation has to give way.
Yet, once the process is fully developed, relatively small areas are sufficient for
cultivation to gain a lot of energy. In addition, there are still enough areas for cultivation.
Brazil alone could double the acreage without deforestation of their rainforest. German
agriculture also has enough capacities to produce four fifths of raw materials for German
biofuels.
However, the loss of species-rich habitats isn’t the only problem when producing
biofuels. The climate change as a result of the destruction of rainforest is a big problem too,
explains Prof. Dr. Peter Krübel of the Frauenhofer institute. Deforestation of Brazilian
rainforests or Indonesian swamp forests for the cultivation of biomass would produce between
17 and 423 times as much carbon dioxide as could be saved annually with the produced fuel
in those countries.
Supporters are skeptical about this study and argue that emissions of carbon dioxides
that arise at the combustion of vegetable energy sources are just as high as the carbon dioxide
that has been absorbed in the course of its growths. That amount of carbon dioxide would also
be released into the atmosphere if the biomass rotted naturally or was decomposed by
microorganisms.
However, scientists found because of the use of mineral fertilizers and pesticides, as
well as over-fertilization during the production of biofuels, enormous amounts of nitrogen
gases - highly active greenhouse gases - are released from the soil. These highly active
greenhouse gases accelerate the destruction of the ozone layer and favor acidification of rain.
By that, all savings achieved by the use of biofuels are canceled out by the high land
consumption and the intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides. The use of machines and
fertilizers during the cultivation furthermore reduces the climate and energy balance of
produced fuel drastically.
So far it doesn’t seem possible to produce herbal fuels without a lot of energy, use
areas effectively and sustainably and consider the food supply adequately. As long as these
problems aren't solved, our world’s food and its climate protection must not be blown out of
the exhaust pipe.
Positive statement about biofuels – Original text in German.
Aufgrund des immer größer werdenden Bedarfs an Mobilität und der daraus
resultierenden höheren Kohlendioxidbelastung, kann nur die Investition in pflanzlich erzeugte
Treibstoffe eine Möglichkeit sein, die Erderwärmung zu stoppen. Durch die Verwendung
brachliegender Flächen führen pflanzlich erzeugte Treibstoffe zusätzlich auch lokal zu einem
Aufschwung in der Landwirtschaft. So können Kleinbauern von dem Anbau von Pflanzen für
Bioenergie profitieren und sich durch den Anbau eines Drittels der Biomasse selbstständig
ihren Lebensunterhalt verdienen. Die Herstellung von Biomasse stellt so ein zentrales zweites
Standbein dar. Dadurch kann der ländliche Raum gestärkt und eine Landflucht verhindert
werden. Die Verwendung von Biotreibstoffen ist daher zu befürworten.
Positive statement about biofuels –English translation.
Due to the ever-increasing demand for mobility and the resulting higher carbon
dioxide levels, only the investment in biofuels can be a way to stop global warming. By using
wasteland the production of biofuels also leads to an upswing in local agriculture. Thereby,
small farmers can benefit from planting bioenergy crops and make a living independently by
growing one third of the biomass. The production of biomass is thus a central second pillar.
This can strengthen rural areas and prevent a rural exodus. The use of biofuel should thus be
endorsed.
Negative statement about biofuels – Original text in German.
Die westlichen Länder rauben durch die Verwendung von Nutzpflanzen zur
Treibstoffgewinnung den Armen des Südens die Nahrung. Obwohl 800 Millionen Menschen
auf der Welt bereits hungern, nutzen wir das globale Wachstum im Getreideanbau, um den
Bedürfnissen derjenigen nachzukommen, die die größere Kaufkraft besitzen. Und die wollen
nun mal ihre Autos damit füttern. Es kommt zu einer scharfen Konkurrenz zwischen
Nahrungsmittel- und Treibstofferzeugung, da Biokraftstoffe mittlerweile von Industrieländern
gewinnbringender abgekauft werden. Ausbeutung und Hungerlöhne der Arbeiter machen dort
angebaute Biomasse zu einem günstigen Produkt. Die Verwendung von Biotreibstoffen ist
daher abzulehnen.
Negative statement about biofuels – English translation.
The western countries are robbing the food of poor people in the South by using crops
for fuel. Although 800 million people in the world are already starving, we use global crop
growth to meet the needs of those with greater purchasing power. And they want to feed their
cars with it. There is fierce competition between food and fuel production as biofuels are now
being bought more profitably by developed countries. Exploitation and starvation wages of
the workers make biomass grown there a cheap product. The use of biofuel should thus be
dismissed.
Instructions self-disclosure condition – Original text in German.
Bevor es aber losgeht, möchten wir, dass Sie und Thomas/Dr. Schreiber sich etwas
besser kennen lernen. Hierzu hat Thomas/Dr. Schreiber in der Vorbereitung einen Text über
sich formuliert, indem er sich vorstellen möchte. Sie werden im Anschluss an seine
Vorstellung auch die Möglichkeit dazu bekommen, sich selbst kurz vorzustellen.
Instructions self-disclosure condition – English translation.
Before we start, we want you and Thomas/Dr. Schreiber to get to know each other a
little better. For this purpose, in preparation for this study, Thomas/Dr. Schreiber has written a
text about himself in which he wants to introduce himself. After having read his introduction,
you will also get the opportunity to shortly introduce yourself.
Instructions other-disclosure condition – Original text in German.
Bevor es aber losgeht, möchten wir, dass Sie und Thomas/Dr. Schreiber ihr jeweiliges
Umfeld etwas besser kennen lernen. Hierzu hat Thomas/Dr.Schreiber in der Vorbereitung
einen Text über einen Kommilitonen/Kollegen formuliert. Sie werden im Anschluss an seine
Vorstellung auch die Möglichkeit dazu bekommen, einen Kommilitonen vorzustellen.
Instructions other-disclosure condition – English translation.
Before we start, we want you and Thomas/Dr. Schreiber to get to know each other’s
environment a little better. For this purpose, in preparation for this study, Thomas/Dr.
Schreiber has written a text about a classmate/colleague. After having read his introduction,
you will also get the opportunity to shortly introduce a classmate of yours.
Self-disclosure text – Original text in German.
Mein Name ist Thomas Schreiber. Ich bin in Trier geboren und aufgewachsen und bin
nun seit 6 Jahren in XX. Ich lebe sehr gerne in XX, da es hier ein sehr großes Freizeitangebot
gibt und ich zudem die Mobilität des Fahrradfahrens sehr an XX schätze. Vor allem als ich
neu hierher kam, hatte ich Ängste, ob ich Anschluss finde und ich mich schnell zu Recht
finden kann. Diese Ängste haben mir den Start hier nicht sehr leicht gemacht, weil ich mich
zunächst sehr häufig nur in meiner Wohnung aufgehalten habe. Mittlerweile habe ich aber das
Gefühl hier angekommen zu sein und könnte mir gar nicht mehr vorstellen, wo anders zu
leben. Wenn ich nicht gerade zur Uni gehe/an der Universität forsche, spiele ich Badminton
und gehe gerne ins Kino.
Self-disclosure text – English translation.
My name is Thomas Schreiber. I was born and raised in Trier and have lived in XX for
6 years now. I really like to live in XX, because there are a lot of leisure facilities and I
appreciate the mobility of cycling in XX a lot. Especially when I moved here, I was worried if
I would make friends and would get along here quickly. These fears did not make it very easy
for me to start here because at first I often stayed in my apartment only. Now, I have the
feeling to have fully arrived here and could not imagine living anywhere else. When I'm not
going to/doing research at the university, I play badminton and like to go to the movies.
Other-disclosure text – Original text in German.
Mein Kommilitone/Kollege ist in Trier geboren und aufgewachsen und ist nun seit 6
Jahren in XX. Er lebt sehr gerne in XX, da es hier ein sehr großes Freizeitangebot gibt und er
zudem die Mobilität des Fahrradfahrens sehr an XX schätzt. Vor allem als er neu hierher kam,
hatte er Ängste, ob er Anschluss findet und er sich schnell zu Recht finden kann. Diese
Ängste haben ihm den Start hier nicht sehr leicht gemacht, weil er sich zunächst sehr häufig
nur in seiner Wohnung aufgehalten hat. Mittlerweile hat er aber das Gefühl hier angekommen
zu sein und könnte sich gar nicht mehr vorstellen, wo anders zu leben. Wenn er nicht gerade
zur Uni geht/an der Universität forscht, spielt er Badminton und geht gerne ins Kino.
Other-disclosure text – English translation.
My classmate/colleague was born and raised in Trier and has lived in XX for 6 years
now. He really likes to live in XX, because there are a lot of leisure facilities and he
appreciates the mobility of cycling in XX a lot. Especially when he moved here, he was
worried if he would make friends and would get along here quickly. These fears did not make
it very easy for him to start here because at first he often stayed in his apartment only. Now,
he has the feeling to have fully arrived here and could not imagine living anywhere else.
When he’s not going to/doing research at the university, he plays badminton and likes to go to
the movies.
Instruction communication task – Original text in German.
Für die Beschäftigung mit der Sinnhaftigkeit von Biotreibstoffen wird Ihnen nun ein
Text zu dem Thema präsentiert. Daraufhin werden Sie Ihrem Gesprächspartner mitteilen, was
Sie über das Thema wissen. Ihre Antworten werden dabei direkt an Ihren Gesprächspartner
übermittelt.
Instruction communication task – English translation.
In order to think about the usefulness of biofuels, a text on the topic will now be
presented to you. Afterwards you will tell your conversation partner what you know about the
topic. Your answers will be transmitted directly to your conversation partner.
Explicit opinion scale – Original German version.
Ich habe Angst vor den ökologischen Folgen von Biotreibstoffen.
Die Nutzung von Biotreibstoffen hat positive Folgen für die Umwelt.
Ich halte die Nutzung von Biotreibstoffen für sinnvoll.
Ich halte die Nutzung von Biotreibstoffen nicht für sinnvoll.
Unter Berücksichtigung aller mir bekannter Aspekte ist die Nutzung
von Biotreibstoffen eher negativ zu bewerten.
Unter Berücksichtigung aller mir bekannter Aspekte ist die Nutzung
von Biotreibstoffen eher positiv zu bewerten.
Explicit opinion scale – English translation.
I am worried about the ecological consequences of biofuels.
Using biofuel has a positive impact on the environment.
I think the use of biofuels makes sense.
I do not think it makes sense to use biofuels.
Taking into account all aspects known to me, the use of biofuels must
be evaluated rather negatively.
Taking into account all aspects known to me, the use of biofuels must
be evaluated rather positively.
Results
Message and recall valence.
Table S3
Experiment 2: Means (standard deviations in parentheses) of message valence as a function
of audience attitude, audience expertise, and disclosure
Self-disclosure Other-disclosure
Audienceexpertise
Positive attitude
Negative attitude
Positiveattitude
Negative attitude
Expert oncurrent topic -0.46 (1.74) -1.27 (1.33) -0.13 (1.68) -0.64 (1.39)Expert on different topic 0.57 (1.18) -1.36 (1.59) -0.95 (1.35) -0.64 (1.34)
Lay non-expert -1.17 (1.68) -0.25 (0.94) -0.73 (1.56) 0.21 (1.84)
Table S4
Experiment 2: Means (standard deviations in parentheses) of recall valence in Session 1 as a
function of audience attitude, audience expertise, and disclosure
Self-disclosure Other-disclosure
Audienceexpertise
Positive attitude
Negative attitude
Positiveattitude
Negative attitude
Expert oncurrent topic -0.38 (1.68) -0.77 (1.68) 0.40 (1.38) -0.89 (1.58)Expert on different topic 0.07 (0.98) -0.89 (1.64) -0.50 (1.69) -0.11 (1.43)
Lay non-expert -1.12 (1.64) 0.14 (1.05) -0.68 (1.55) -0.17 (1.75)
We ran exploratory analyses to examine possible differences in the audience-
congruent memory bias between specific audience and self-disclosure conditions. The greatest
mean difference between the positive and negative audience-attitude conditions emerged in in
the self-disclosure, expert-on-different topic condition. In this specific condition, audience
attitude has a significant effect on recall valence, t(27) = 1.93, p = .032, d = 0.72. However,
the interaction effect of audience attitude and disclosure within the expert-on-different-topic
condition failed to reach significance, F(1,50) =2.94, p = .093.
In the expert-on-current-topic condition, we found a main effect of audience attitude,
F(1,50) = 4.23, p = .043, which is in line with the simple main effect described in the
manuscript. There was no main or interaction effect of self-disclosure in this condition, Fs <
1.10, ps > .30.
Taken together, the evidence is not sufficiently strong to conclude that there actually
was a greater memory bias under self-disclosure (vs. other-disclosure) in the expert-on-
different topic condition. Future research is needed to examine the possible interaction
between relational motivation (via self-disclosure) and epistemic authority (via topic-specific
expertise) in the present paradigm.
Certainty about explicit opinion and desire for an expert’s opinion.
There were no main or interaction effects of the independent variables on both
participants’ certainty about their opinion on bio fuel, Fs < 1.30, ps > .26, and their desire for
an expert’s opinion, Fs < 2.42, ps > .09.
Moderation analyses regarding recall valence.
Because we tested three moderators, we applied the Bonferroni correction so that the
alpha level was set to p = .017. There were no moderating effects by need for cognitive
closure, tolerance of uncertainty or CAEB on recall valence, ts < 1.40, ps > .16.
Exploratory analyses: Accuracy
Method.
Two independent raters again counted the number of accurate reproductions in the
message protocols and free-recall protocols from both sessions. As in the first study, we
scored as accurate reproductions idea units that preserved the propositional content of an idea
unit from the original target essay. For instance, the idea unit Biofuels can reduce the emission
of greenhouse gases was scored as an accurate reproduction of the proposition Biofuels can
help to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to a considerable extend from the original
essay. Also for the coding of accurate reproductions, intercorrelations were sufficiently high,
r(153) = .75, r(151) = .87, and r(123) = .77, for message and recall protocols in Session 1 and
Session 2.
Results.
There were no significant differences between conditions in the number of accurate
details in the message to the audience, all Fs < 1.01, all ps > .317, and the number of accurate
details in the message did not correlate significantly with the size of the memory bias, r(150)
= -.088, p = .283.
There were no significant differences in the number of accurately remembered details
in the recall between conditions in both sessions, all Fs < 1.77, all ps > .173, and the number
of accurately remembered details did not correlate with the size of the memory bias, ps > .31.
References
Dalbert, C. (2002 ). Die Ungewissheitstoleranzskala (UGTS). In E. Brähler, J. Schumacher &
B. Strauß (Hrsg.), Diagnostische Verfahren in der Psychotherapie (S. 374-377).
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Hellmann, J. H., Echterhoff, G., Kopietz, R., Niemeier, S., & Memon, A. (2011). Talking
about visually perceived events: Communication effects on eyewitness memory.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(5), 658-671.
Kopietz, R., Hellmann, J. H., Higgins, E. T., & Echterhoff, G. (2010). Shared-reality effects
on memory: Communicating to fulfill epistemic needs. Social Cognition, 28(3), 353-
378.
Schlink, S., & Walther, E. (2007). Kurz und gut: Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des
Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38(3),
153-161.
Stahl, E. & Bromme, R. (2007). The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects
of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 773-785.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York:
Academic Press.