000862867 001__ 862867
000862867 005__ 20210130001658.0
000862867 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.erss.2019.04.012
000862867 0247_ $$2Handle$$a2128/22502
000862867 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:60940915
000862867 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:000476872300010
000862867 037__ $$aFZJ-2019-03056
000862867 041__ $$aEnglish
000862867 082__ $$a624
000862867 1001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)168187$$aShamon, Hawal$$b0$$eCorresponding author$$ufzj
000862867 245__ $$aChanging attitudes and conflicting arguments: Reviewing stakeholder communication on electricity technologies in Germany
000862867 260__ $$aAmsterdam ˜[u.a.]œ$$bElsevier$$c2019
000862867 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000862867 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000862867 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1563429801_18333
000862867 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000862867 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000862867 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000862867 520__ $$aIn 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.
000862867 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-153$$a153 - Assessment of Energy Systems – Addressing Issues of Energy Efficiency and Energy Security (POF3-153)$$cPOF3-153$$fPOF III$$x0
000862867 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)130485$$aSchumann, Diana$$b1$$ufzj
000862867 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aFischer, Wolfgang$$b2
000862867 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aHeinrichs, Heidi$$b3
000862867 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)130491$$aVoegele, Stefan$$b4$$ufzj
000862867 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)130467$$aKuckshinrichs, Wilhelm$$b5$$ufzj
000862867 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2763226-X$$a10.1016/j.erss.2019.04.012$$p106-121$$tEnergy research & social science$$v55$$x2214-6296$$y2019
000862867 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/862867/files/Shamon%20et%20al%202019%20Changing%20Attitudes.pdf$$yOpenAccess
000862867 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/862867/files/Shamon%20et%20al%202019%20Changing%20Attitudes.pdf?subformat=pdfa$$xpdfa$$yOpenAccess
000862867 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:862867$$pdnbdelivery$$pdriver$$pVDB$$popen_access$$popenaire
000862867 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)168187$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b0$$kFZJ
000862867 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)130485$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b1$$kFZJ
000862867 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)130491$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b4$$kFZJ
000862867 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)130467$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b5$$kFZJ
000862867 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-153$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-150$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-100$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bEnergie$$lTechnologie, Innovation und Gesellschaft$$vAssessment of Energy Systems – Addressing Issues of Energy Efficiency and Energy Security$$x0
000862867 9141_ $$y2019
000862867 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000862867 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0130$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSocial Sciences Citation Index
000862867 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bENERGY RES SOC SCI : 2017
000862867 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1180$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Social and Behavioral Sciences
000862867 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0510$$2StatID$$aOpenAccess
000862867 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5
000862867 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000862867 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List
000862867 920__ $$lyes
000862867 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013$$kIEK-STE$$lSystemforschung und Technologische Entwicklung$$x0
000862867 980__ $$ajournal
000862867 980__ $$aVDB
000862867 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
000862867 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013
000862867 9801_ $$aFullTexts