% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Shamon:862867,
      author       = {Shamon, Hawal and Schumann, Diana and Fischer, Wolfgang and
                      Heinrichs, Heidi and Voegele, Stefan and Kuckshinrichs,
                      Wilhelm},
      title        = {{C}hanging attitudes and conflicting arguments: {R}eviewing
                      stakeholder communication on electricity technologies in
                      {G}ermany},
      journal      = {Energy research $\&$ social science},
      volume       = {55},
      issn         = {2214-6296},
      address      = {Amsterdam ˜[u.a.]œ},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2019-03056},
      pages        = {106-121},
      year         = {2019},
      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.},
      cin          = {IEK-STE},
      ddc          = {624},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013},
      pnm          = {153 - Assessment of Energy Systems – Addressing Issues of
                      Energy Efficiency and Energy Security (POF3-153)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-153},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000476872300010},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.erss.2019.04.012},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/862867},
}